warpedskydiver 0 #1 March 19, 2008 Well what do you have to say about this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #3 March 19, 2008 There was rioting in Chicago when the Bulls won the Championships. That was a happy occasion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #4 March 19, 2008 Quote Well what do you have to say about this? I give him a fifty-fifty chance that he even gets the nomination. Sen. Clinton will not go quietly into the night. No, there won't be rioting, but the animosity will be amped up a bit...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #5 March 19, 2008 Celebration, Politics, Selective Looting and Riots: A Micro Level Study of the Bulls Riot of 1992 in Chicago Michael J. Rosenfeld In the aftermath of the Bulls riot of 1992, which started as a celebration of a basketball victory but turned into a night of looting and rioting in Chicago's black ghettos, local and national newspapers asked: was it just a celebration? Was it an expression of pent-up anger and frustration? Had Korean and Arab merchants been targeted? the sociological literature on riots contains a great deal of analysis of city level data, but few micro level studies that analyze who are the victims and perpetrators of the violence and destruction associated with riots. I argue in this paper that the Bulls riot of 1992 was political as well as celebratory, responding in part to massive welfare cuts in Illinois and to the televised drama of the Los Angeles riot of 1992. A store by store analysis of ghetto merchants reveals that despite the political undertones, the extensive nature of the riot, and a history of organized boycotts against Korean stores, there was no targeting of merchants based on race or ethnicity. Some implications for the political and racial nature of riots are discussed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #6 March 19, 2008 I believe there is a good chance that there will be riots in Chicago even if he does win. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #7 March 19, 2008 So you think they will riot because they're black. Got it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #8 March 19, 2008 You are the one who just brought race into this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #9 March 19, 2008 Well, if he goes to L.A. right after he loses the election, takes some PCP and goes speeding through the city, gets stopped and then beaten up by some white cops, and the beating happens to be caught on video and posted on youtube, and the cops are not convicted for using excessive force... Then yeah, there might be some rioting when Obama loses the election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #10 March 19, 2008 Your post quoted: "a night of looting and rioting in Chicago's black ghettos." Got it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 March 19, 2008 QuoteWell what do you have to say about this? I suspect there are racist undertones in the question.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #12 March 19, 2008 That may be what the article metioned(location), but I never said it was the blacks who rioted, or that it was the blacks who would riot. Actually the riots started in the rush street area, and progressed westward into the ghettos. I gave proper credit to the author of that study, and it is clearly stated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 March 19, 2008 No. if he loses the general election it will probably be regarded as fair and square. The biggest danger would probably be if Obama has the lead going into the convention, but Clinton emerges as the nominee. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #14 March 19, 2008 Very true, and an astute observation. I thought I would enjoy these responses, and I have. They have been quite enlightening, to say the least. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #15 March 19, 2008 Quote Your post quoted: "a night of looting and rioting in Chicago's black ghettos." Got it. I don't know what the big deal is over the black card... His dad's black and his mom's white, so he's in George Jefferson's words - a Zebra! "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #16 March 20, 2008 Quote His dad's black and his mom's white, so he's in George Jefferson's words - a Zebra! If Obama's a racist, does that mean he thinks he's superior to himself? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #17 March 20, 2008 Quote Quote His dad's black and his mom's white, so he's in George Jefferson's words - a Zebra! If Obama's a racist, does that mean he thinks he's superior to himself? Maybe half-way... "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #18 March 20, 2008 QuoteThe biggest danger would probably be if Obama has the lead going into the convention, but Clinton emerges as the nominee. That would be the Dems own fault. If they always wanted the person in the lead to win, they'd have never come up with the weird idea of super-delegates.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 March 20, 2008 Oh, I know that. They have their little rules. Isn't it funny, though? there is this talk about disenfranchisement of FL & MI voters. I thought the same thing at first. But there is a system in place that is designed to thwart the will of the people. In the highly likely event that Obama has the lead going in to the convention, Clinton emerging as the nominee will actually mean that the will of the voters in the party has been thwarted NOT by a delegate system, but by the actions of a few hundred elite - super delegates. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #20 March 20, 2008 QuoteWell what do you have to say about this? maybe not riots -- but there will be questions about how people could have been led to believe he was the stronger candidate against the republicans. For the general election his constituency is in fact less stable - the independents and moderate republicans that have been polling for Obama are more likely to run back to McCain at the first sign of trouble than the blue collar core democrats that are biased towards Clinton. Also, if people get worked up about the civility of the primaries now they have surprise coming in the general election, when things will get decidedly worse. Unless you want to see McCain win you want someone battle hardened to run against him who won't flinch and counter attack when needed. One pundit explained why Clinton stayed in the race despite mathematical impossibilities as follows: When they say that Obama hasn't been vetted enough it is not just a political argument but that is something they truly believe in and count on. They're waiting this out in the hope that some crap will come to the surface or evolve in the remaining weeks that will make Obama an impossible choice. A long shot maybe - but the best they got, and not too far from its target given the recent couple of controversies. I have high hopes though that McCain will turn out to be a much weaker candidate than suggested by current polls. He is riding the nominee high right now, and hasn't gotten any serious flak yet from the dems. His stupid quotes on Iraq (100year, sunni/shia) seem to accumulate and should serve well to slaughter his edge on foreign affairs. He is set to reverse Roe v Wade which will not score him points with 70% of the population and he's unpopular with the remaining 30% anyway. He gets flustered on policy details, esp economy, which will make him not look very good in debates. etc etc So even Obama may eventually have a chance against him once the nomination is settled. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #21 March 21, 2008 Why should there be rioting ? One of the things that makes America stand out is that we can hold a hotly contested election without having to send tanks into the streets. If we didn't have rioting or martial law after the 2000 Bush/Gore election, why should we now ? Historic footnote: actually there was a bit of a problem after Abe Lincoln's election in 1860. It was called The Civil War.... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
