DescentBB

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:What I implied is that there is an artificially high level of hatred of white people programmed into black Americans. The genesis of that is justified but it was not allowed to die out. There was very little attempt to correct it as the justification for it died out. In fact there is an industry dedicated to keeping it alive and festering for the purpose of empowering the race-pimps.

The side effects of this are horrible and perpetuate racial division and are turning the inner city black communities into the democrat's Palestine. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Barrack Obama et al are the equivalent of Iranian clerics and the Ayatollah, the black communities are their Palestinian pawns.

Nope, wrong. Put yourself in the shoes of a young African-American struggling to make ends meet, then imagine how you would feel when you see the whitest guy in America, Mitt "moneybags" Romney, say 47% of the population wants a handout. I would be like "f-u whitey." In fact, I'm still like "f-u whitey" and I'm white. I'll agree with you about Sharpton and Jackson, they do go overboard with the race stuff, but rich, white republicans have no one to blame but themselves for the way people see them. They hate all minorities and that hate is totally transparent.

There is a difference between thinking a group, defined by race, has no compassion for your race and thinking you are justified in hunting down random people of that race to beat them to death every time your temper is invoked or summoned by leaders of your community/race.

I can put myself in the 'shoes' of a black guy being offended by those words but when those shoes start carrying me up behind some unsuspecting, random, white victim so I can club him to death I'm going to still be too smart to think it is the shoes that have led me there....

I didn't post a warning that black thugs might be offended at the idea of Romney winning. I posted a warning about the dangerous extremes some of them might go to that is way beyond just voicing a protest.

And I don't care about the R's public relations problem any more than I do about the D's problems. They deserve their troubles but none of them deserve to be clubbed from behind for their part.

Spidey wrote:Except for the large percentage of the “47%" that are white. If you perceive a statement like that to be racist, the bias might be in your mind.

Remember Blacks only make up some 15% of the population, and not all of them are poor.

You are totally correct, but the point I was making had to do with putting yourself in another's shoes; how you would perceive the 47% comment if you were a struggling minority. It's to show that Will's race-pimps are only partially responsible for the alleged increase in racism in black communities. More compassion from rich white folks would help too. From my own experience, the poor people I know do not want handouts, they want good opportunities and want to contribute to their communities.

Hmm, I guess somewhere buried in here is a relationship between racism and entitlement. Some feel entitled who aren't racist, and others are racist without feeling entitled. It's pretty complicated stuff actually.

Well whatever. The only thing I have left to say is that when I first read Will post is sounded totally racist. He obviously didn't intend that, but that's just how it read.

Understood…

When I read Will’s post I was thinking paranoia…not racism, and warning his family member is only natural, but posting the paranoia on a public board, is probably where he went over the line.

vision wrote:...
Well whatever. The only thing I have left to say is that when I first read Will post is sounded totally racist. He obviously didn't intend that, but that's just how it read.

Spidey wrote:Understood…

When I read Will’s post I was thinking paranoia…not racism, and warning his family member is only natural, but posting the paranoia on a public board, is probably where he went over the line.

I could have sugar coated it and it would have had no effect. The shock value is a good tool sometimes.

Of course it was going to be even more effective since I truly expected Romney to win and my prediction of violence is an easy bet to win. I expected to be proven correct right about the same time the predictable reactions here were piling up. As it turned out no one got hurt and my plan failed...for the most part anyway. I still got the topic into the minds of the group.

I wonder Spidey, if Romney had won and my prediction was proven true, would I still be classified by you as paranoid for posting what you your self classified as 'a natural concern'? My comments would be the very same but there would be a couple of victims of black on white attacks in the news. I bet you wouldn't have felt any reason to refer to the public warning as paranoid then... so, in the absence of the event unfolding as I feared it would it seems like you have to ask yourself is there any substance to my expectation of violence? Any history to give it a foundation? Is there any truth to the examples I linked? Are there many more examples that illustrate that kind of behavior to be found? The truth is yes on all counts. So was it paranoia or did I merely make a logical prediction based on past events? I guess it all comes down to if you think the attacks were likely to come.

If you asked my daughter if she was 'scarred by her fathers outrageous racist comments', as Slick would have you believe, she would giggle at the notion and tell you my warning was no different than the way I warn her every summer as she goes to the beach that "every year someone drowns here so remember what to do in a riptide".....and when she heads out to Ocean Blvd with her friends, potentially into a party environment, I remind her that "every year without fail some drunk teenager falls to their death from hotel balcony because they thought they could land in the swimming pool or make it to the next balcony like Spiderman so don't let a drunk get get in control of your safety...call me if your car isn't there and I'll come running...".
The actual warning isn't nearly what it has been built up to be by to by some people in this thread.
My daughters exact response was: "HaHaHaha alright" and "Gotcha. Haha"

If you were recieving the University of South Carolina security alerts to your phone the way I do you would know that the campus, in the middle of the city, is trolled by predators perpetrating strong armed robbery and armed robbery among other things. If I post the race of the vast majority of the perpetrators and victims am I racsist for doing so or just relating facts and leaving the conclusions to the reader?

Perception can be everything when trying to shape the opinions of others, (just ask Romney, lol) so if Slicks or Roids hyperbolic interpretation is even considered, and you have no point of reference to judge me by, then it shapes, to some degree, your interpretation. But does their ad hominem attack trump history and fact?

Paranoia always comes first…regardless of the outcome, had your prediction been wrong, would it have been proof of paranoia?

It’s no and no on both accounts, either outcome wouldn’t have proved anything.

And let me make this clear…

I said warning your family member was natural, not the concern itself…please read my post again if you need to.

Spidey wrote:Paranoia always comes first…regardless of the outcome, had your prediction been wrong, would it have been proof of paranoia?

It’s no and no on both accounts, either outcome wouldn’t have proved anything.

And let me make this clear…

I said warning your family member was natural, not the concern itself…please read my post again if you need to.

Maybe we have a different understanding of the meaning of the word. I use paranoia to describe irrational fear or even delusional. I can't see how my warning is both natural and paranoia unless you are saying everyone's protective instincts regarding family is naturally at the paranoid level.

Regardless of that though, do you think my fear of white people being targeted by black thugs in the wake of an Obama loss was irrational? Unfounded?

No, you are misunderstanding me completely, and now this is getting frustrating…warning your family of your belief is “natural” not the nature of the warning itself…sheesh

Anyway…

There are 2 definitions of paranoia.

1. Distrust

extreme and unreasonable suspicion of other people and their motives

2. Disorder

a psychiatric disorder involving systematized delusion, usually of persecution

I was referring to #1.

And it wasn’t meant as an insult, I have my own personal paranoia…for example:

I believe the ACA was designed to destroy the health care system as it exists today, because I really believe the Democrats want a single payer system, and you can’t build a new structure without destroying the old one.

And yes I believe the Democrats know the ACA won’t work, but they couldn’t simply legislate the single payer system at this time.

So there it is…paranoia...big deal.

And to answer your final question, without any obvious shenanigans as to the “Republicans stealing the election” I would have to say YES.

But mind you “irrational & Unfounded” are not part of definition 1.

Will Robinson wrote: Regardless of that though, do you think my fear of white people being targeted by black thugs in the wake of an Obama loss was irrational? Unfounded?

yes, and yes.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Regardless of that though, do you think my fear of white people being targeted by black thugs in the wake of an Obama loss was irrational? Unfounded?

yes, and yes.

No and no. Having seen first hand the Detroit riots back in the 60's and more recently the La riots due to the beating of Rodney King, all it would take would be some rumor that whitey rigged the election to set off the black hot heads. So keep living in your fantasy world Slick.

fantasy world? I grew up in a place where the merest rumor of a black man looking wrong at a white woman would get a posse rounded up. That stuff is still out there, but my point is that it is not widespread in the nation to the degree it once was. The overwhelming violence from the primarily black communities is against fellow black people. In other words, I am not, nor ever would be, dismissing the POSSIBILITY of ISOLATED incidents. I am saying that harboring an active fear of them is irrational and counterproductive for anyone to do.

Slick, your sense of white guilt is preventing objectivity. I had no belief at all that there would be riots here where I live, maybe even more tense relations, a cold war, but nothing violent was going to happen here. Now, in very crowded urban areas, it was a viable threat. Not certain but good cause to take precautions.

flip wrote:Slick, your sense of white guilt is preventing objectivity. I had no belief at all that there would be riots here where I live, maybe even more tense relations, a cold war, but nothing violent was going to happen here. Now, in very crowded urban areas, it was a viable threat. Not certain but good cause to take precautions.

if you live your life with that sort of thinking, you will lead a very nervous, incomplete life. Just my opinion, nothing about 'white guilt' going on here.

That's a lie Slick, the tone is in many of your replies. You are trying to separate yourself from the deeds of your ancestors. That's a form of guilt. Me, na, I'm a peacemaker and a man of faith. I got hardly a reason to be scared, send my arse home .

sorry to say, Flip, but you are wrong about me. No guilt, just realism.

Realism takes human nature into account and considers both sides, that is not what you are doing.

flip wrote:Realism takes human nature into account and considers both sides, that is not what you are doing.

actually, that is EXACTLY what I was doing. Human nature is going to give you both good and bad outcomes. Being a semi-liberal thinker, I assume that the outcomes mostly tend to be good.

That's not realism, that's optimism

Spidey, thanks for the clarification. Your example of the ACA clears a lot up for me. Our difference is how you use the term 'paranoid'.
You see, I don't believe your concerns about the dems using ACA to move to a single payer system is paranoid because there is ample evidence to support your fear. You can even find interviews of dem leaders spelling out that path.

On the same side of the coin, there are many examples of spontaneous black on white violence that is directly a response to some perceived injustice suffered by a black person attributed to white person.

The violence brought to a sudden boil because Trayvon Martin was shot by a 'white' man. I say sudden because there was no violence until certain race pimps decided to flip the switch months after the shooting and Zimmerman had been found innocent by the investigating officers.
Months afterwards an elected prosecutor facing a reelection bid in a district with plenty of black votes to be farmed decided it was the right thing to do to go after Zimmerman
The usual suspects in the media releasing edited video and audio that were missing the sections that show Zimmerman was telling the truth
A black leader offering a bounty to anyone who can go get Zimmerman as if he is a fugitive even though he isn't wanted by the police
A Black celebrity publicizing an address of some old couple named Zimmerman because he thought it was George Zimmermans address and suggesting a bunch of black people should go visit him
A frikken black president, in full community agitator mode, who announces that 'if he had a son he would look like Trayvon'

All those events are typical of the race pimping stir up the mob mentality and the ground work for a similar boil over was already in the works for an Obama loss. Ex DNC chair announcing the only way we lose is if they use fraud. Michelle Obama saying don't let them push you out of line
4 years of political hacks saying the reason anyone opposes the president is racism
Chris Mathews......nuff said...

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama's victory has saved a couple lives and probably prevented a dozen attacks on random white victims.

callmeslick wrote:.... In other words, I am not, nor ever would be, dismissing the POSSIBILITY of ISOLATED incidents. I am saying that harboring an active fear of them is irrational and counterproductive for anyone to do.

Slick, you are the one who invoked rioting at campuses across the country, etc. etc.
My warning wasn't about rioting it was about random acts of revenge by blacks against whites.

It is nice that you slipped up and showed you agree with what I did say in your attempt to vilify me for what I didn't say!

Most intelligent people wear seat belts in case of an isolated incident. It isn't counterproductive or irrational. Race pimping under the guise of healing race relations is.
And it isn't irrational to warn someone about a likely outcome no matter how you spin it. The odds of my daughter being one of unlucky victims goes down greatly if she is turning on her situational awareness in certain places due to my warning, simple math...reduce your degree of exposure and you become a harder target to hit.

The real events over the last decade are more compelling to me than all the spin and denial you are offering.

Your frantic need to somehow prove my concern was irrational stems from your recognizing the truth in my accusation, that your party is the race pimp party.
It isn't just white guilt you suffer from, it's that you fund and support the new plantation.

what sort of increase has happened over the past decade, Will? Seems to me the same sort of stuff, with ever-decreasing frequency.

callmeslick wrote:what sort of increase has happened over the past decade, Will? Seems to me the same sort of stuff, with ever-decreasing frequency.

This I agree with and it would be all but gone now if not for agitators.

callmeslick wrote:what sort of increase has happened over the past decade, Will? Seems to me the same sort of stuff, with ever-decreasing frequency.

I never suggested any increase in incidents of violence if that is what you are inferring you are wrong.The riots of decades past don't give me concern, if those were my examples your irrational label would fit me perfectly.
The stuff that concerns me is the more recent attacks that are obviously caused by those who feel they are justified in seeking racial-revenge and a much more brazen effort of the race pimps to stir up the outrage for their own personal gain with no regard for the mayhem they help instigate.

There is a new brand of thuggery unfolding in our culture, whether or not there is a net gain or reduction in overall incidents of violence is irrelevant to the discussion. It is the current frequency of a certain type of attack that was the basis of my warning. The potential was at a new record peak on election eve.
If 4 or 5 people were put in the hospital over the Trayvon Martin shooting, an unknown civilian, then the number injured over Obama being robbed of his place at the top of the world by whitey was going to be increased relative to the symbolic importance the first black president has over a random teenager.

Will Robinson wrote:Most intelligent people wear seat belts in case of an isolated incident. It isn't counterproductive or irrational.

Since you are going to bring up intelligence, I'll bring up a point I neglected to previously. Yes, it is intelligent to wear a seat belt? Why? Because car accidents are extremely common. In 2009 there were 10.8 million traffic accidents resulting in 35,900 deaths [source]. Now, let's compare that to the number of people who died in a race riot in 2009... Oh wait, there doesn't appear to have been any that year.

The point is, you have a greater chance of winning your state's million dollar lottery than you do dying in a race riot. And it is a race riot you initially spoke of, not the spontaneous racial violence perpetrated by blacks, whites, and every other race because they all hate each other. Your concern for safety in admirable, but is comparable to saying "Hey guys, I know there is a thunderstorm in your area soon, so you know, be careful not to get struck by lightning (also more likely than being killed in a race riot). It's just not something to worry about. People who live in areas of racial tension generally have their guard up anyway. This is why your statement looks paranoid and seems to betray some racism.

How about death by flash mob?

http://news.yahoo.com/flash-mob-attacks ... 07180.html

20/20 hindsight and all of the arguments you guys can dredge up in the week following might make it paranoid, but I grew up with this level of paranoia about various aspects of life. In the world we live in, if you're going to consider certain consequences--certain scenarios--to be unacceptable then that's the way it is. Welcome to being prepared. Now forget all about it so you can be one of those pathetic individuals who is caught off-guard by anything more than moderately negative or violent that happens in life. That is the difference. People carry concealed not because you need the gun on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis, but because you never know when that X% is going to show its head. Will was actually pointing out a specific time period of potential violence, for which there had actually been stirrings and warnings in some parts of the "black community".

Most of you are blowing this out of proportion.

What If: you never know... what if it had gone in Obama's favor, and then in the final count Romney was the winner? What if Florida had to do a recount like with Bush and Gore? What if the Democrats had contested a Romney win? We could have seen some serious ★■◆●.

Well see, that’s the problem…Will didn’t make it clear he was referring to the case where it looked like the Republicans stole the election…he simply stated if Romney Wins.

I'm not saying he was. Did anyone here know how the election was going to play out?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm not saying he was. Did anyone here know how the election was going to play out?

I tried to tell you for months.....

It's cheating when the program is on your side-table next to the TV Guide, you Oligarch.

Actually I'm not giving you that. You had an opinion like everyone else, whether more or less founded in reality--it's still the political and Democratic spin machine, and a bunch of ignorant dopes that gave Obama his second term. I know this because I got to listen to a few of the more intelligent ones at work. If you take everything at face value (ignorant dope), starting with the largely liberal media, and you don't have any conservative compunctions, then of course you're going to ride the Obama train. I'm glad Romney didn't get in, but the next 4 years ain't gonna be pretty.

The notion that a Romney win could only come from election fraud was being passed around by democrat hacks. Romney's connection to voting machine manufacturers was in the news recently....there would be no end to the conspiracy of election fraud It goes back to 2000 when Bush 'stole it'.

My bad on the use of the 'riot' word. I guess I've been listening to too much rap music, I've adopted some of the vernacular.
I said to be careful about letting punks roll up on you on the street driving or walking because they are going to want to riot. Obviously I wasn't warning about a convoy of cars rolling across the country transporting rioters!

I envisioned groups of thugs trolling for 'revenge' not necessarily large masses of people although there is hardly a difference if you are the unlucky one to become a target. The semantics of the use of the word riot really doesn't apply. Not everyone in a riot commits the same crime.....they are not all following orders with predetermined mission parameters to achieve. Within that riot would be a few who might kill or seriously wound while others look on or loot or shout etc etc.

The point is an Obama loss would have triggered a reaction that is born of race pimp programming of a subset of the population that would contain an extremely higher potential for loss of life than any other subset of the population experiencing a similar disappointment! The data is there to see, the higher rate of violence, the lashing out at random victims, etc.
As a father I don't care what the odds are for the population at large for surviving an event! I care that I maximize my children's odds for avoiding it.

I don't warn them to avoid black people as a standard operating procedure. Most of the bad people I've seen, most serial killers and child molesters etc etc are white! But I'd be stupid to think, in the immediate wake of Obama losing the election that a roving group of black youths are not suddenly much more likely to be trouble for a white person on the street!
If it had been a Dexter fan club in town I might have mentioned creepy lone white men...

I don't care that it bothers people to have to hear that. And it is useful in the big picture, long run if people would be forced to face the reasons why so many in the black community are so much more dangerous when they feel unjustly treated. And to see the results of the race pimps handiwork.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's cheating when the program is on your side-table next to the TV Guide, you Oligarch.

Thanks for making my night!

Actually I'm not giving you that. You had an opinion like everyone else, whether more or less founded in reality--it's still the political and Democratic spin machine, and a bunch of ignorant dopes that gave Obama his second term. I know this because I got to listen to a few of the more intelligent ones at work. If you take everything at face value (ignorant dope), starting with the largely liberal media, and you don't have any conservative compunctions, then of course you're going to ride the Obama train. I'm glad Romney didn't get in, but the next 4 years ain't gonna be pretty.

actually, I do have some (old-school) conservative tendencies, especially in terms of economics. However, my basis for being so convinced about the Obama victory was based on basic political campaign fundamentals. The Obama team is VERY good, the Romney team was anything but, and further, he had to survive a primary campaign in which his weaknesses were exposed. I made the Obama pick well before Romney was settled upon, due to the process the GOP candidates had to go through to get nominated, coupled with the Obama campaigns cash flow and savvy.

Ummm...you forgot one itsy bitsy thing comrade Slick, Obama had the entirety of the mainstream news outlets on his side. Without it he would of lost.

callmeslick wrote: Thanks for making my night!

callmeslick wrote:actually, I do have some (old-school) conservative tendencies, especially in terms of economics. However, my basis for being so convinced about the Obama victory was based on basic political campaign fundamentals. The Obama team is VERY good, the Romney team was anything but, and further, he had to survive a primary campaign in which his weaknesses were exposed. I made the Obama pick well before Romney was settled upon, due to the process the GOP candidates had to go through to get nominated, coupled with the Obama campaigns cash flow and savvy.

Fair enough.

woodchip wrote:Ummm...you forgot one itsy bitsy thing comrade Slick, Obama had the entirety of the mainstream news outlets on his side. Without it he would of lost.

Yeah that sucks. If only Romney could have gotten his message out. Like, maybe if he would have advertized his campaign or something. Or if we could have had a debate between Romney and Obama, that would have made things a little more fair. Too bad there isn't a big right-wing media company out there. Maybe for 2016?

Bill Clinton 2016!!!!! LOL, I'm only half kidding but i liked that guy. Despite all his faults, he left an unarguable record of tryingto strengthen this country economically. Might be speaking mandarin by then anyways

This is interesting:


[source]

Hmmmmmm, MSNBC looks almost irrelevant. And the right wingers think that network has a vast market share.

I do notice that FOX News has managed to zombify a lot more Americans into their "fair and balanced" claptrap though. Scary.

Why is Fox News not considered part of the mainstream media?

good post vision. i thought of that as well. if only Romney had a channel that promoted his campaign, attacked the President, and had the donors willing to put up the cash to finance massive television spending. What a difference the race would have been.

I guess the definition of "mainstream media" is what goes out over the airwaves. Cable don't count (although I think it should now).

I don't think an "all Romney channel" would've helped the guy win. He lost it on positions he wouldn't have been able to back down on, like abortion, contraception, healthcare that was a model after his own, and immigration. Women and Latinos, even Cubans in Florida, sealed his fate. Most African Americans wouldn't have touched him with a 10 foot pole no matter what. The fact that the economy was slowly turning around didn't help either.

tunnelcat wrote:I guess the definition of "mainstream media" is what goes out over the airwaves. Cable don't count (although I think it should now).

I can't find a good source, but I keep reading that up to 90% of the US subscribes to Cable or Satellite. However, it is declining as more people turn off the TVs and get their entertainment and news from the Internet.

woodchip wrote:Ummm...you forgot one itsy bitsy thing comrade Slick, Obama had the entirety of the mainstream news outlets on his side. Without it he would of lost.

utter nonsense. I fact, they helped make it close by hammering him for a week on the initial debate performance. Quit drinking the kool-aid and think.
What I wrote was why he won. Very, very simple.