Liberals' Warnings About Obama Loss May Prove Self-Fulfilling

[Peikko 1,575]

Who is conditioning 'blacks' to make this connection? Libruls? The media? Yes I think that article is attrocious because it is an attempt to connect dots to create a sense of fear and panic which is deliberately directed against black people. That's atrocious and pathetic and anyone writing such rubbish should feel a sense of shame.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well for starters - pre-emptive analysis is exactly what you're doing here - not only the outcome of the election, but how people will react to it.

Secondly, lumping a whole section of society into some sort of quasi-violent idiotic morass isn't particularly reasonable.

But seriously if stereotypes are the means by which you view the world - I'm surprised you've made it this far in life.

Its just another yet another spurious attempt to demonise en-masse, people you don't agree with.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[kaydee457 13]

Who is conditioning 'blacks' to make this connection? Libruls? The media? Yes I think that article is attrocious because it is an attempt to connect dots to create a sense of fear and panic which is deliberately directed against black people. That's atrocious and pathetic and anyone writing such rubbish should feel a sense of shame.

From the article that's the subject of this thread.....

That is why the growing chorus -- already nearing unanimity -- of liberal commentators and politicians ascribing an Obama loss to American racism is so dangerous.

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic: "White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win."

Jack Cafferty of CNN: "The polls remain close. Doesn't make sense ... unless it's race."

Jacob Weisberg of Newsweek and Slate: "The reason Obama isn't ahead right now is ... the color of his skin. ... If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth."

Nicholas D. Kristof of New York Times: "Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice."

Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: "Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children's futures because he's black?"

Similar comments have been made by Kansas's Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, and by writers in Time magazine. And according to The Associated Press: "A poll conducted by The Associated Press and Yahoo News, in conjunction with Stanford University, revealed that a fairly significant percentage of Democrats and independents may not vote for Sen. Barack Obama because of his race." If you read the poll, it does not in fact suggest this conclusion. The pollsters assert that any person with any negative view of black life means that the person is racist and means that he would not vote for Obama. Both conclusions are unwarranted. But "Obama will lose because of racism" is how the poll takers and the media spin it.

Edited September 23, 2008 by kaydee457

[IAMX 3,055]

The article is just a pot-stirring opinionated garbage that has no real basis, and if conservatives really believe this, they know little about their opposition and would suggest they educate themselves.

There are people who are going to vote on race, people who are going to vote against Obama because he's black, going to cry about Obama not getting voted in because he's black. That's something to tell after the election.

I'm not voting for Obama, I'm in clear vocal opposition to Obama and what he really stands for, so logic dictates if someone were to tell me it's about race, they're full of sh!t.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Disparate comments - cobbled together to promote fear don't amount to "conditioning".

You're basing your initial point on fear (that people are going to riot in the inner cities) and then justifying this with the usual rag-bag of stereotypes about irresponsible liberals.

[HAL 9000 96]

So if it isn't racism, and some kinds of race-related violence as we've seen in the past, then how come you are so quick to prophesize that many blacks in the cities will riot?

Is racism against blacks still a problem or isn't it?

[kaydee457 13]

Well for starters - pre-emptive analysis is exactly what you're doing here - not only the outcome of the election, but how people will react to it.

Secondly, lumping a whole section of society into some sort of quasi-violent idiotic morass isn't particularly reasonable.

But seriously if stereotypes are the means by which you view the world - I'm surprised you've made it this far in life.

Its just another yet another spurious attempt to demonise en-masse, people you don't agree with.

Like I said, I've archived this thread....BTW, I'm simply using historical evidence of how blacks have reacted to racial slights in the past and extrapolating from there. I've lived through some myself having grown up in Brooklyn in the 50/60"s.......

If racism assumed to be the reason for the loss by blacks, particularly young blacks, then this event would dwarf anything related to a racial slight experienced by most, if not all young black's in thier lives.....and it is they who usually take to the streets.......

[IAMX 3,055]

You're simply way too paranoid about blacks, kaydee.

[kaydee457 13]

So if it isn't racism, and some kinds of race-related violence as we've seen in the past, then how come you are so quick to prophesize that many blacks in the cities will riot?

Is racism against blacks still a problem or isn't it?

Liberal democrats seem to think so as it is most often used as a reason why Obama presumably would lose. Not issues, not "unfair polling practices", but race.

That's the point of the article and the irony.

[kaydee457 13]

You're simply way too paranoid about blacks, kaydee.

Yes, my black wife says so too....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So if it isn't racism, and some kinds of race-related violence as we've seen in the past, then how come you are so quick to prophesize that many blacks in the cities will riot?

Is racism against blacks still a problem or isn't it?

Liberal democrats seem to think so as it is most often used as a reason why Obama presumably would lose. Not issues, not "unfair polling practices", but race.

That's the point of the article and the irony.

I wonder if anyone here that you've labelled as a stereotypical liberal thinks this way...

[IAMX 3,055]

So if it isn't racism, and some kinds of race-related violence as we've seen in the past, then how come you are so quick to prophesize that many blacks in the cities will riot?

Is racism against blacks still a problem or isn't it?

Liberal democrats seem to think so as it is most often used as a reason why Obama presumably would lose. Not issues, not "unfair polling practices", but race.

That's the point of the article and the irony.

When blacks had their votes thrown out (before they were then ruled to have their votes counted after the election was certified) in 2000, blacks could and should have rioted. But they didn't.

That in itself is proof enough that indeed this country is full of pacifists. Not very exciting or something to inspire fear for something a good portion of the country who don't even care -- including blacks. Your face is far too into sensational politics or media.

Edited September 23, 2008 by SRVT

[jundp 191]

I don't think race is the sole reason Obama could lose, were he to lose. However, it is not a stretch to say there are those in America who WILL NOT vote for Obama simply because he is black.

Just as there are those will vote for him for that reason.

And people who won't vote for McCain b/c his VP is a woman.

And people who WILL vote for McCain for the same reason.

That's not racism or sexism, just sad but simple truths about some Americans.

[Peikko 1,575]

There is one point of view, that racism against the candidate may play a part should Barack Obama lose. It's just one, of many possible points of view. It is not a 'liberal deomocratic' point of view.

[kaydee457 13]

So if it isn't racism, and some kinds of race-related violence as we've seen in the past, then how come you are so quick to prophesize that many blacks in the cities will riot?

Is racism against blacks still a problem or isn't it?

Liberal democrats seem to think so as it is most often used as a reason why Obama presumably would lose. Not issues, not "unfair polling practices", but race.

That's the point of the article and the irony.

When blacks had their votes thrown out (before they were then ruled to have their votes counted after the election was certified) in 2000, blacks could and should have rioted. But they didn't.

That in itself is proof enough that indeed this country is full of pacifists. Not very exciting or something to inspire fear for something a good portion of the country who don't even care -- including blacks. Your face is far too into sensational politics or media.

Like I said, I've archived this thread. There will be an element, and I predict that NY, NJ, CA, Al, at a minimum will be affected by rioting. It's just a matter of how serious it will be.