Words of Information

_______________________

____________________________

____________________________________

_____________



This comment by Loonyblitz is typical white racist stupidity. Again, no one has been able to point out even ONE case where a lost election resulted in a riot in a black community. I can point out many historical cases going back to at least Reconstruction of WHITE mass violence to either prevent an election (or at least exercise of voting rights by Blacks) or to nullify the results.
Frankly, I thimk you racists are projecting your savagery onto us.
In all cases of Black insurgent violence, the provocation was always WHITE violence, police repression, and judicial exoneration of scumbags guilty of violence against Blacks.

-Savant

_______________

The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, arguably the most esteemed leader of the Black freedom Movement, was an act of violence against the Black community.
And many within the Black community responded with rioting. And after several long hot summers, from Watts in 1965 to Detroit and Newark in 1967 (each of which was provoked by white police violence), a person in 1968 would have had to be RETARDED to be surprised that King's murder wouldn't provoke a VIOLENT reaction in ghettoes across America.
This just doesn't compare to a lost election.
About the only way I can imagine Black rioting breaking out in connection with Obama losing the election is that there would have to be accompanying police violence (perhaps connected with enforcement of new stringent voting laws in some states), and perhaps with the courts exonerating the cops.
But if it's just a lost election rioting is extremely unlikely. If Walter Williams were honest or better informed, he'd know that.

-Savant

_____________________________



Considering that there have been more threats against Obama's life than the lives of any previous presidents, it's probably more reasonably to cast a suspicious eye elsewhere.
And I seem to recall that recently some white supremacists were arrested for plotting (and arming for)--not just chattering about--assassinating Barack Obama.
Again, white paranoia is the primary reason why some fear Black rioting in the event Obama loses the election.
After all, there has been NO Black rioting in reply to any other election loss.
Again, if someone SHOOTS Obama then all bets are off. But a riot because he loses an election?
Again, this is probably just the vain imaginings of the paranoid mind of right wing white America.

-Savant

____________

__aisling--- wrote:

Because Black people have been stating that they will riot.
New Threats to Riot if Obama Loses Election
http://www.infowars.com/new-threats-to-riot-i...
And after the events surrounding the Martin cases, the potential for violence/rioting is being taken seriously. Especially, should there be any talk of "stealing" the election.
I trust that people don't riot in that there will be no Rodney King riots part 2 in that any public disorder will be immediately shut down.

I thought there were to be no links in this thread.

At any rate, that's an obscure report from a obscure source. If Black people were talking about rioting in the event of Obama losing the election, I would have HEARD about it by now. I am a part of the Black community myself.
At any rate, there are NO examples that I know of in which rioting broke out in AA communities because of the unhappy election outcome.
If you look at the historical record of such rioting as has happened, it almost always happened in reaction to police brutality or judicial exoneration of racist police brutality. The 1968 riots were somewhat different in origin since it was in reaction to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Rioting because of an election outcome? I know of NO examples of this.
It sounds like the delusional imaginings of a paranoid white mind.


-Savant

___________________

the White ohReally wrote:

lol...too bad the presidential debates don't...

America has what some of us leftists call a plutocratic republic or class elitist democracy, and what some (especially some Marxists) call a bourgeois democracy.
Inadequate as it is this form of democracy is preferable to any kind of dictatorship.
What's UNDEMOCRATIC about presidential debates(and our political life as a whole) is that people outside the two corporate dominated parties are excluded from the debate.
This is an example of why we often say that the plutocratic republic (or bourgeois democracy), though better than an outright autocracy, is still not a GENUINE democracy. It's a disguised autocracy with some civil liberties allowed
Republicans quashed Ron Paul--whom I also opposed. But quashing him is wrong. Demccrats excluded progressives who are more than center-left. Jill Stein of the Green Party is excluded. The Labor Party was also excluded from public discourse and relegated to the margins.
It is this plutocratic bias (which is probably today stronger than the eexist or racist bias) which makes a mockery of democracy in our so-called democratic republic.
America must eventually undergo a FUNDAMENTAL democratization of her entire political and economic life, or undergo a retrograde deterioriation resulting in an undisguised autocracy and the loss of whatever civil freedoms still exist.


-Savant

________

Note by Me: I don't agree with calling someone a miscreant, but I get the rest of the point.

By Timothy


Censure1 day agoin reply to Symone

Wait, what? I have hatred for Independents? I probably shouldn't have registered as one, now that you tell me that. At least make a good argument. You're starting to make me feel like I'm picking on you—not that you don't deserve it. Sigh. I've made this distinction to white people. I didn't think I'd have to make it here. Congrats Symone. You really are lowering the bar. Anyway, generally speaking, black people don't have a problem with people who do not vote Democrat. They have a problem with voting Republican. Do you understand that distinction? The former is a falsehood spread by your fellow conservatives. The latter is a reality in which blacks (and other minority groups) are disgusted by Republican policies. There are many blacks that don't vote or vote for Independent candidates. Notice that they don't catch the crap that blacks voting Republican do. There's a reason for that. It's not that blacks are so devoted to the Democrat party. It's that Republicans have positioned themselves as the enemies of blacks.
You mentioned several times that I have a "bias" toward blacks who are Independent or don't vote Democrat. No, silly Symone. Don't confuse yourself. I took issue with blacks voting Republican. I didn't call anyone out for not voting Democrat. I know in your narrow mind it's hard to realize the distinction, but it's there and it's important. Now as to who I did call out, blacks voting Republican, that is not "bias" on my part. Do you know what bias is? I am criticizing you based on your support of a certain ideology (Republican).
I already know what "monolithic" means you malleable minded miscreant. Have you finished researching race yet, so you can stop representing conservatives so well by trying to play the authority on President Obama's authenticity as a black man? Is that the first trick they taught you, Lassie? "Forget how they define themselves. We'll define them!" For the record, I happen to think a Republican defeat this coming election will force them to realize they can't get by on the same tactics of scaring their older, white, male base to the polls by making them afraid of the other. They might just come to the realization that they have to take the rest of the increasingly diversifying country's concerns seriously. Then blacks will have a real two party system. Until then, don't expect blacks to go jumping into the Republican fire just because the Democrat pan isn't the greatest. Get serious about being an alternative choice for blacks, then we'll get serious about considering voting for you.

_______________

Symone1 day agoin reply to Dallas M

Good post.
The statement I made is what I feel but this is also a statement made decades before I was born by Malcolm X.Another thing is that I am an Independent so I don't align with either party.
I realize that not all White Liberals have are deceitful but my post was written to point out that there are many White Liberals that do aid Blacks in being dependent on the Democratic party but there are also Blacks that do the same..

___________________

Censure2 days agoin reply to Symone

You have got to be kidding me. Many blacks are working with slave law, because it was the racist mindsets similar to those that made such laws that created this concept of "black" and "white" to begin with. This may be a shock to you, but most black people have some white in their family trees. A lot of slave masters used to rape their slaves. Shh! Don't tell anyone. Our secret. That's not even getting into all of the voluntary interracial relationships throughout the years. So who do you qualify as black, considering most blacks have white, or some other race, in their family trees?
You would think the treatment he has received from the conservatives you support would be enough to authenticate his status as a black man in America. If he were just some lawyer, instead of President, do the cops look at him any different when they're profiling than the rest of us? Does he not get treated a certain way when in "the wrong neighborhood" (kinda like now in the White House)? Do the employers studies have shown skip over black sounding names hire a guy named "Barrack Obama"? Stop trying to invalidate his experience as a black man. He's front and center taking the hits from the racists right now.
For the record, President Obama states that he is black, just to clear up that whole 'not claiming' us thing, as if the Republicans do.

_____________________________________

I think that Malcolm X would be a revolutionary if he was President of the USA. People would try to impeach him, because of his sincere, legitimate policies. Malcolm X was never a crybaby. He just opposed oppression within the circumstance of the world. Reactionaries confuse expressing legitimate greivances with crybaby activities. He opposed imperialism, he wanted females to have gender equality, and he believed that America should be made accountable for its mistreatment of people of color in the world. If he was still alive (along with Dr. King, JFK, RFK, and others), the country would be much better than it is today. We could see as low as 3 percent unemployment, because these people wouldn't stop fighting against poverty plus injustices plaguing world society.

-By Timothy

 

_____________

Dallas M2 days ago

We also have to take a look at local politics.. we put so much stock in one person to "save" our communities.. local politicians affect your communities more than a president can.. you should not get complacent in mid-term and other types of elections.. go vote every time there's an election in your state, county, etc..

________

Another 9/11 might happen if romney gets in

Cynical Negro - 10/19/2012 - 13:11

Guns & Butter with Bonnie Faulkner | on Pacifica Foundation Radio
1. Why was Petraeus allegedly telling the White House that it was a demonstration that got out of hand and not a terrorist attack?
2. Why didn't the CIA rapid response force that was on the scene engage the (alleged) CIA backed terrorist and Guantanamo Bay alumnus who are alleged to have killed Ambassador Stevens?

3. Why didn't the (alleged) CIA backed March 17th Martyr's brigade engage the (alleged) CIA backed terrorist and Guantanamo Bay alumnus who are alleged to have killed Ambassador Stevens?

"The CIA Mormon Mafia and the Benghazi Killings"
http://tarpley.net/2012/10/17/the-cia-mormon-mafia-and-the-benghazi-kill...
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/show/34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPFA

_____________________

@Brutul Truth: The Brutal Truth about the future of the planet

Enlightened Cynic - 10/19/2012 - 14:47

"We the People" are going to keep playing with fire until ALL of our a____ are burnt to a crisp. Just like this whole thing with Iran. We kid ourselves on thinking we are somehow immune from it all. That we can just put a foot up Iran's a___ with no consequences. That gas prices won't hit the stratosphere and all of us are out of work and on our a___. We disengaged as a nation from the last two wars because the number of US dead were not staggering enough or because "our" guy, the Democratic President, is now in charge of the killing, because "our" guy (Obama) is fighting a robotic war that sanitizes killing, because our Pravda won't show dead bodies or the wreckage of war on the idiot box like they use too.

We the People want to believe that somehow tough guy Presidents (who probably can't stand the sight of blood oozing a shaving nick) and trillion dollar military and security apparatuses can keep us safe, they can't. And last but most certainly not least, the wicked billionaires drunk on power and greed think that somehow they are immune from radiation sickness or their children or grandchildren are.

Is there any antidote for our collective sickeness?

Unfortunately probably not. If this world as we know it lasts for another decade, I'd be surprised.

I agree, when Obama "stuck" it to Mitt on the coal thing it was priceless. What we have here is two p____, empty suits, with no moral compass pushing the earth's existence to the brink. That's the duopoly for you, the left and right buns of a jack___s a___.

_____________

Nixakliel - 10/19/2012 - 06:15

George Farah, founder and executive director of Open Debates. He's also author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. [@ www.democracynow.org/2012/10/16/secret_debate_contract_reveals_obama_and ]. Farah explains why the Independent League of women voters were dropped as the sponors of the POTUS debates in 1988 because they refused to be manipulated by the 2 party duopoly. So the Dims & Repugs got together in an agreement that formed a bi-partisan corp for POTUS debates [Now we know why 3rd party candidates have been locked out since Ross Perot in 1992. Perot might have been a funny looking white guy w a squeaky southern drawl- but he said that NAFTA style trade agreements would lead to a 'Great Sucking Sound of Jobs Leaving the US' & he's been proven right about that.].
Also see: The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates: The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants. [@ http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/10/truth-about-commission-presidential-debates ]

With such a stacked deck as this IMO it really shows just how much of an empty-suit &/or how compromised Obama really is- that he let a vain / flip-flopping / liar like Raw-Money show him up in their first debate.

________________

sONE wrote:

My family has a long history in the "Confederate states". None ever had slaves- at least none that has been found through vast document research, wills, a huge amount of letters, personal diaries, etc. I wish there had never been slavery here. I wish that the 70-80% of Southerners who didn't have slaves would have turned on the 20-30% of Southerners who had slaves and demanded the US government take them to DC and make homes for them in that area- because DC was the one who legalized it in the first place for about 90 years and England in the Colonies before that. Then, after returning the slaves to the north the majority of Southern people would have still wanted to secede because of taxes and oppressive government policies and there would have still been a war.

Unfortunately, all too many of the poor white majority in the South sided with the slaveholding planters--an elite that also oppressed them (though in a less direct and brutal manner than the oppression of the slaves)
To this day the backwardness of the white South, the political immaturity of most whites, is due to the system of slavery and the racial caste system that followed.

That Blacks were oppresed in the North as well as South, before and after slavery, is OLD NEWS to most of us Blacks. The foundation of that oppression was a racial caste system rooted in slavery which generated a culture of racism on a national scale.


-Savant

_________

sONE wrote:

That is for those who hold up all Southerners to be total demons/"Medieval rednecks" regarding this subject and all Northerners to be total heroes/advanced moral geniuses.

No, for the North was also implicated in slavery. Though slavery was not as deeply rooted in the North as in the South, the North for a long time benefitted from slavery. The commercial capitalist interests in the North (and UK) benefitted from the trade in slaves, and from profits created by slave labor which helped to launch the industrial revolution.(Take a look at Eric Willaims' CAPITALISM AND SLAVERY).
The irony is that once the industrial revolution took off, industrial and manufacturing interests came increasingly into sharp conflict with agrarian interests in the South.
That conflict created space for Abolitiionists to become more effective in the 19th Century than they ever previously.
But by that time racism throughly polluted the North as well. The North ended slavery earlier because its economic history took a different turn than in the South. But there was (and is) Northern as well as Southern racism, only in the South it has been more blatant, often taking on protofascistic forms.


-Savant

___________________________



_________________________

Matthew_1 wrote:

Never said that, post a link not a lie.
No it doesn't, anyone can make up a lie about them being a Harvard graduate. I can tell you are a typical liar Obama voter, with an average IQ. Wouldn't surprise me if you were a member of the racist New Black Panther Party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

The only prohlem with making up a lie about being a Harvard graduate is that to teach at the university level you must supply an OFFICIAL transcript. And Barack Obama taught a number of years at the Univerity of Chicago.
I teach at the university level myself. I've taught in a number of university in the northeast, southeast and southwest. I've never encountered a university that didn't require you transcript which would include the award of your Ph.D. and a records of classes taken and grades received.
If you wan to believe the myth that Obama faked his education and /or citizenship, don't be surprised if INTELLIGENT citizens regard you as a doufus.


-Savant

___________________________

sONE wrote:

Do you think if the south had freed the slaves earlier (which I wish they had) nothing would have led people to secede? You do know it had been talked about for a while- and for different reasons?

I know what I wished had happened. I wish that the masses of poor whites had been more perceptive than they were. The landed gentry began creating the racial caste system in the 1600s not only to assure themselves a supply of cheap labor, slave labor. They also created this system to DIVIDE African slaves, exploited poor whites and Indians (marked for extermination) to prevent an alliance of the dispossessed---the 99%--against the ruling elite.
Had the elite failed to dupe the poor whites, the dispossessed may have united to topple the elite. And we'd have a different kind of America today. Take a look at Howard Zinn's A PEOPLES HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. Before the invention of race, before the institutionalization of racism, there numerous indications that the dispossessed might unite. There beginnings of a movement in that direction.
The gentry aborted this progressive democratic development by means of racism.
It is largely because of racism that America is even today perhaps the least progressive, least egalitarian and most underdeveloped (politically & socially) of all the industrially advanced nations.
The stupidity of an OhReally or a Max or Lunarblitz has historical-social roots.
The triumph of democracy and humanism in America depends on whether the American people can overcome our debilitating legacy of racism and begin a NEW history of America, and help create a new history of humankind.
Will America rise to the challenge before it is too late?


-Savant

_________________

Yes, Savant is a democratic socialist. As was Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Rosa Luxemburg, A. Phillip Randolph, Wendell Phillips, George Orwell, Albert Camus, Erich Fromm and innumerale other luminaries and humanists.
And I'm proud of it.
But in the present context, what's important is that I know how to engage in rational discourse. Hopefully, one day you will learn this as well.

-Savant


_____________________