Fox News Radio's Sullivan predicted African-American "riots in the streets" if Obama were to lose to McCain or Clinton
Discussing Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race in America, Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan asked, "What if Barack Obama is not -- does not win the Democratic nomination, or he does win it, and loses in the presidential race against John McCain? ... [W]ill there be riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes."
While commenting on Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race in America, during the March 18 broadcast of his Fox News Radio show, Tom Sullivan asked, "Is that his second part of his message today is, 'Hey, vote for me, and we'll get past this racist thing'?" Sullivan continued: "Let me put it to you a different way. What if Barack Obama is not -- does not win the Democratic nomination, or he does win it, and loses in the presidential race against John McCain? Is black America going to throw their hands up and say, 'Man, you know, I thought we were getting somewhere in this country, but this is just a bunch of racial bigots in this country and they still hate blacks and, I mean, if Barack Obama can't get elected, then we're never gonna have anybody that's a black that's gonna be elected president.' And will there be riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes."
Later in the broadcast, while discussing his remarks with a caller, Sullivan stated that he was outside the courthouse on the day the O.J. Simpson verdict was announced, "And the police, LAPD, have probably, I'm not exaggerating, a hundred police on horseback, plus they had barricades up. And the police came over to us, on the other side of the street there must have been a couple of thousand African-Americans. And the police came over to us, and they said if this goes a certain way, we cannot protect you. They were ready to riot if O.J. was found guilty. That's why I go there's still a mistrust of the system and a certain of level of wanting to break things if it doesn't go their way."
As Media Matters for America noted, during the February 11 broadcast of his show, Sullivan took a call from a listener who stated that when listening to Barack Obama speak, "it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch those deals with Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell." Sullivan replied: "Oh, yeah, yeah ... I presume you're not saying he's Hitler, but I understand your point." Sullivan later played a "side-by-side comparison" of a Hitler speech and an Obama speech. Sullivan mimicked the crowd during both speeches, yelling, "Yay! Yay!" When a later caller complained that Sullivan was "denigrating" Obama with the comparison, Sullivan said he wouldn't play it again, then begged: "Can I, please, one more time? Just one more time? Then I won't do it again. ... Until the next time." Discussing the February 11 comments on his February 14 show, Sullivan said: "I wasn't trying to make a comparison. There isn't any comparison. There was none yesterday, there was none Monday, there will not be any in the future. It's nonsense."
From the March 18 edition of Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan Show:
SULLIVAN: Second point is that Pastor [Jeremiah] Wright's error is that he thinks that we haven't moved on since Jim Crow. But, will we, if we elect Barack Obama president? Is that his second part of his message today is, "Hey, vote for me, and we'll get past this racist thing"?
Let me put it to you a different way. What if Barack Obama is not -- does not win the Democratic nomination, or he does win it, and loses in the presidential race against John McCain? Is black America going to throw their hands up and say, "Man, you know, I thought we were getting somewhere in this country, but this is just a bunch of racial bigots in this country and they still hate blacks and, I mean, if Barack Obama can't get elected, then we're never gonna have anybody that's a black that's gonna be elected president." And will there be riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes. Regardless, people should vote, obviously, their conscience. I'm interested to see if this story keeps legs going for five more weeks until Pennsylvania.
[...]
CALLER: Well, and, can I just make a quick comment --
SULLIVAN: Sure.
CALLER: -- on your last point, about the riots, of African-Americans --
SULLIVAN: Yeah!
CALLER: Yeah, I don't think that that's the case. I think that that's, you know, sort of a bit much to say, "Oh, if he doesn't get it, we're going to throw up our hands and" - no, I don't think that's the case. I think we just want to, if he's going to lose, it'd be great if he just lost by the votes, as opposed to a smoke-filled room. But that being said, I do think that Barack still has to roll up his sleeves and get to hitting the ground and campaigning and get back on message.
SULLIVAN: I say that because, and forgive me, it was 10, 12 years ago this happened, 13 years ago: I was outside the Los Angeles County courthouse on the day the verdict was coming for O.J., and myself, and the media, we were all shuffled together on the sidewalk outside the courthouse. I was standing right next to, in fact, shoved up against Maria Shriver. So we're standing out there, and the police, LAPD, have probably, I'm not exaggerating, a hundred police on horseback, plus they had barricades up. And the police came over to us, on the other side of the street there must have been a couple of thousand African-Americans. And the police came over to us, and they said if this goes a certain way, we cannot protect you. They were ready to riot if O.J. was found guilty. That's why I go there's still a mistrust of the system and a certain of level of wanting to break things if it doesn't go their way.
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
History proves that he's right.
There will be riots in the streets when Obama loses.
Sad but true.
History proves he's right allright.
We all probably remember how many times blacks have stormed the streets, burnt stores and flipped cars following losses by black presidential candidates throughout our history.
Right, idiot?
Ripper, you are just stoopid. And I want to ask Sullivan,"If you are such a great predicter, can you fill out my brackets for me". And Ripped one, if he is wrong, you are in the toilet with your remarks.
I also bet that these "riots" won't be in your neighborhood.
Ignore Colon. The twin purposes he serves on this site are:
1. Comic relief (unintended)
2. Living proof that the anti-rabies shots don't work always (intended)
Why do you insist on bringing race into it?
Actually, Ripper, YOU'RE the one who brought race into it. By discussing riots after court cases and sporting events when the candidacy of an African-American is being discussed, the implication was made that you were referring to riots involving the black community.
Shame on you.
Silly response, but I will play your game, who do you think will riot?
We all probably remember how many times blacks have stormed the streets, burnt stores and flipped cars following losses by black presidential candidates throughout our history.
Well they've been known to do stuff like that when they don't agree with a verdict. Does the name Rodney King ring a bell? One can only imagine their reaction if Obama doesn't get the nomination, or does and doesn't win the general election.
Well they've been known to do stuff like that when they don't agree with a verdict. Does the name Rodney King ring a bell? One can only imagine their reaction if Obama doesn't get the nomination, or does and doesn't win the general election.
LOL
Got those talking points ready to scare those white folks. So predictable, so sad and so ignorant.
"So predictable, so sad and so ignorant."
...the black's reaction. How right you are, Pearlene.
...the black's reaction. How right you are, Pearlene.
How racist you are, Penfold.
...the black's reaction. How right you are, Pearlene.
"The blacks"? LOL kind of like "the whites"?
"The blacks"? LOL kind of like "the whites"?
He got his information off the Internets. :-)
Dear Taz,
Your attempt at being provocative merely for provocation's sake is laudable, however, given the sheer stupidity of your post, we regret that we will not be able to further engage you in regard to this matter.
Sincerely,
Kromecom
If Obama has more committed delegates, has won the popular vote and super delegates give Clinton the nom I will be right beside them. We're gonna start the burning with the houses of right wing bloggers on liberal websites
Not to mention the famous "police riot" here in Chicago during a presidential campaign. As I recall, the police were mostly white, and so were the kids they were clubbing and gassing.
You have to feel sorry for "ripper". He's plagued by prejudice. For whatever reason or life experience, he's one of the people who are part of the problem. Sad but true, as he would say.
And don't even think about mentioning the KKK, ok?
KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK
Oh please fix that last line so it is even, please please!
Thanks, Monk
YOU are a liar, he is a jerk and you are both bigots. I dont remember any riots when Jesse lost, nor McKenney. So no history shows no such thing. What a moron you are.
And there were no riots in 2006 when that known liar Ken Blackwell lost the governor's race in Ohio. And there waws far more potential for riots, seeing that he was supported by angry white men......
"Angry white men"?? And I suppose you'll say Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are angry white men who appeal to angry white men, or something crazy like that.
Yes, they are.
Yes, they do.
And it's not crazy - it's reality.
Even a right-wing nut wouldn't claim Limbaugh isn't angry. He's definitely white. Now whether Limbaugh's a "man"... well, that could be argued...
You're having a Jimmy "The Greek" moment. In medical terms its called a "severe thinking disorder."
Your comments and Sullivan's comments only demonstrate that ignorance and racism are alive and well...sad but true.
I went to the University of Maryland and witnessed riots when we A. Beat Duke. B. Lost to Duke C. Won in the NCAA tournament. The University of Maryland is a predominantly white school. Your comments are ignorant. You are ignorant. It's not an insult, it's an observation. When have blacks rioted because of a presidential loss. African-Americans are loyal to a fault, but if you ask most blacks they'd probably tell you they are surprise Barack's done as well as he has, what with America not being ready to elect a black president and all. I feel for you, because you were probably taught your ignorance at a young age, which means it will be hard for you to let it go.
You crazy college kids- always gettin' in a hoopla about your sports teams.
On a side note, I went to Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) for more years than should have been necessary and distinctly remember the police breaking up crowds of black people who were just hanging around the student union (we, all races and genders, did- it was the place to hang). The same police would come by Sunday, the day before Freshman orientation, and sweep up all the homeless/panhandlers who might 'inconvienient' those white folk who were just there to help their kids move into the towers.
And as to real rioting, not a peep (Although I did see pics on the 'net about the Iraq 'war' demonstrations, I had been gone for a while).
Being easily frightened is a prerequisite for being Republican.
Democratic Party - The Party of Hope
Republican Party - The Party of Fear
Unfortunately, blacks usually only loot each other during these grave times. Glad I live in a gated community.
Hey what do you know Zamfir finally took his sheet off, not that you needed to your comments were quite telling.
I am black and live in a gated community as well Zamy; aren't you afraid that I may live near YOU?
I am black and live in a gated community as well Zamy; aren't you afraid that I may live near YOU?
LOL
Let me know when you're willing to surrender to us when we have your "gated community" surrounded.
How long will your food and supplies last?
Most Republicans are not passionate about this election. McCain is not an appealing choice at all and few would be sad if he loses.
What I'm saying has nothing to do with McCain. I think if a black man who you guys claim is an unpatriotic secret Muslim/Black Christian separatist wins the presidency they'll be riots, maybe even assassination attempts.
Chris Rock has your number:
"It's all right, cuz' it's all white".
Bigot
The left is so close minded. Disagree with them and get called names.
Not very progressive if you ask me.
I recall thousands of WHITE REPUBLICANS rioting in the streets, causing destruction and preaching hatred ... towards the Dixie Chicks. For the offense of saying they were ashamed GW Bush was from the same STATE they hail from.
With whites behaving so badly and hatefully in public, I can understand where PROJECTION might cause them to think blacks might be similarly upset if their candidate loses the election. Steamrollers and bonfires might even be involved.
You are specifically referring to blacks.
Yes, people riot. People will riot. Black people are people, or do you disagree with that?
He did not say people of other races would NOT riot. I can't disagree with something he didn't say.
Bigotry is always obvious to everyone --everyone except the bigot him- or herself.
Senator Obama has support from the white, black, hispanic and other communities; just saying that only black Obama supporters will riot unmask your racisim and bigotry. Republicans use race to scare and divide every election. IDIOT!
The left is so close minded. Disagree with them and get called names.
Not very progressive if you ask me.
Actually, Ripper, we're not calling you names because we disagree with you. We're calling you names because you're a bigoted racist jerk.
Raising the concern does not make a person racist.
Nah but it makes you ignorant.
Do riots ever happen or do they not?
Why do they happen?
History proves that he's right.
Exhibit A. Truthseeker already calls you out that you have no basis to make a "historical" claim.
If there's riots after court verdicts, riots after sporting events, why wouldn't there be riots after a Presidential election?
Exhibit B. Presupposing the actions of a group of individuals based on 1 court case (where most would agree an injustice occurred) and an irrelevant reference - Please name one sporting event wherein a race-based riot occurred.
Riots happen.
Exhibit C. You meant BLACK riots happen without prima facia evidence that they happen for no reason.
These statements illuminate your thought processes for all to see. The prosecution rests.
Stop trying to race-bait.
"Is black America going to throw their hands up and say, "Man, you know, I thought we were getting somewhere in this country, but this is just a bunch of racial bigots in this country and they still hate blacks and, I mean, if Barack Obama can't get elected, then we're never gonna have anybody that's a black that's gonna be elected president." And will there be riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes."
Ripper: Post 1, "History proves he's right"
Nice deflection but you cannot turn around and ignore the entire context of the article about "black America" and try to now say you weren't placing this in a racial context or it's about individuals passions.
It's you who's said it.
You really have a pretty low opinion of our intelligence, don't you?
People riot. People will riot. Black people are people are they not?
Again, he did not say people of other races would NOT riot.
I can't disagree with something he didn't say.
That's not what you said to begin with. How stupid do you think people are?
I never once said that.
Wrong-o, Ripper. By saying Andrew Sullivan was right, you stated agreement with his anti-black statements. You didn't have to say it - your agreement said it all, bigot.
i don't remember soccer fans rioting in this country, but i do remember the watts riots, the rodney king riots, and have no doubt they will be repeated if barack the savior obama loses the nomination or the election.
RIOTS occur when the powerless are stripped of their voice.
RIOTS are sometimes quelled by the powers that be; the LEADERS send troops to "put down" the protesters, and a "status quo" is restored.
SUCCESSFUL riots are called REVOLUTIONS, and are applauded by history. The Czars in Russia were deposed by RIOTS, the aristocracy of Marie Antoinette suffered the RIOTS of the French commoners, and American colonists RIOTED against unfair treatment by King George.
RIOTS involve a redress of grievances which cannot be ignored. A fear of RIOTS in this present instance is born of a feeling among Rightwingers that there may be consequences to overt racism in America which seeks to destroy Barack Obama's bid for the presidency. There is fear there may be a backlash to the unfair and racist attempts by the Rightwing to tar Obama by his associations with some more radical speakers in the black community.
It may well be that this fear is justified. Many Americans, including myself, are ashamed that there was NOT rioting in the streets and protests back in 2000, when all of America was disenfranchised and the majority of ONE CONSERVATIVE in the Supreme Court saddled us with GW Bush. It was a mistake NOT to riot THEN.
If the Rightwing continues to try to play race politics with Obama, with FOX and the cable "newsies" leading the way, and talk radio as the hallelujah chorus, there may well be consequences. It is PREDICTABLE that a wronged person might be enraged, and the Right is lining up their predictions based on "cause and effect". Predictably, though, they don't focus on the CAUSE, only on fear of what might be the backlash.
If you spit in my face, I just might slug you. PREDICTING that I might react violently does not make me the bad guy, and you the innocent bystander. It just means you are aware of cause and effect.
I agree that many riots may have, or have had, a righteous cause as their stimulus, but not always. I say this because I only recently read an article about how Denmark is still embroiled over the controversy regarding the mohammed cartoons. The article mentioned the riots sparked by the cartoons, wherein non-muslims were beaten to death, among other things.
These violent riots were ridiculous and deplorable, and were vehicles of religious tyranny. So I think sometimes people engage in riots, or demonstrations threatening violence, not to express righteous grievances, but instead to impart their irrational demands on others with threats of physical harm. There's nothing justifiable in angry, violent mobs beating others because their religion has been ridiculed.
RIOTS occur when the powerless are stripped of their voice.
But not all riots. Miami: November 19th 2000. Let us not forget the Florida Brooks Brothers Rent-a-Riot staged by the RNC with flown in out of state mercenary 'rioters'. Many of the participants were powerless at the time but not in the sense we normally think. One 'rioter' Garry D. Malphrus was made an immigration judge by AG Gonzolez. Another one of the poor abused victim members of the overclass Joel Kaplan succeeded Karl Rove as Dep. White House Chief of Staff. No phalanx of cops, no pepper spray, no tasers, no dogs, no plastic handcuffs, no hail of police batons, no confinement to "free speech zones", no ARCADs, no microwave cannons, no arrests--just good clean fun. Now that's a riot.
If Hillary ends up stealing the nomination isn't it a strong possibility that it will spark violence?
Asking uncomfortable questions doesn't make you a bigot.
Yes. My thoughts on the subject are not however confined only to the words he spoke on it. I think people of all races will riot.
History proves that he's right.
There will be riots in the streets when Obama loses.
Sad but true.
Yes. There will be. They will include people of all races. He didn't say that, I did. He did not say there would not be people of other races rioting.
You're saying that I should disagree with something he DIDN'T say.
They will include people of all races. He didn't say that, I did.
No you did not say that, you said he was right and there would be riots.
You are a bigot.
And a stupid bigot at that.
No one is allowed to ask uncomfortable questions. If you do, you're a bigot.
Easy questions only please.
You said "History proves he's right".
Please tell me when in the history of this country black folks rioted when losing a Presidential race? Oh by the way what is the name of the African American presidential candidate running when black folks rioted?
History shows that people who are very impassioned about something often react violently. Obama's supporters are more passionate than any I've seen in a long time.
Has nothing to do with any race except the human race.
You feel free to speak your own words, but I'll go ahead and speak my own too, ok?
There's one, but it was a while ago.
A Republican got elected, and a bunch of folks got so mad the went into the streets with torches and shot up federal property.
That was 1861.
The fact of the matter is that the people who are wildly enthusiastic about Obama are white, by and large. The black community know the odds: they're supporting him solidly, but the cynicism is burned deep.
The election, however, won't even be close. We'ee heading into a godawful recession, and that has always spelled death for the party in the white house. It'll be 1932 all over again.
Ripper, I'll come to your defense...
but I'm only defending your right to think and speak in a bigoted manner - and to hold racist thoughts. While you may feel you're correct, you're not, and no amount of back-pedalling will fix what you've already written.
Many times, the most bigoted people believe themselves to be the least bigoted. Is this you? Maybe you can look deep within yourself to see what causes you to feel this way.
A quick story: My mother was an avid knitter. One evening, she was raped by an African-American who held her knitting needles to her throat while doing the deed. She was six months pregnant with me at the time. She taught me to fear African-American males. It took years of therapy to get me through that fear - and I'm still working on it. Everyone in this nation should work on their racist tendencies, because no matter how much a person says they're not racist, they are, to a certain extent, even if it is measured in iotas. It is natural to feel a twinge of fear of something or someone that is different from you. Acting on it in a negative manner is something else. But please note, my fear (and past fears) thankfully never crossed the line into hate or such deep fear as to believe that one race was 'better' than another (which is an underlying definition of racism). Racism is rooted in fear, and I've learned that there is nothing to "fear" from other races of people.
While I whole-heartedly disagree with your posts and with what Sullivan asserted - and I disagree with them on more than just a racist level, you have the right to be a bigot. And we have the right (and possibly a moral duty) to call you out on it.
Ripper the victim is feeling discriminated against.
If there are riots, let if first begin at the News Corporation building in New York City. Fox News was built on lies, courtesy of the Fox News founder Roger Ailes.
Local talk radio is much more informative than this fraudulent news organization.
<psst. there's no need to shout.>
And who is this 'hillay' that you speak of?
"SO?" – Clevenative
If it doesn’t happen, Sillivan’s remark will be long-forgotten and never mentioned – If it does, Sullivan will be bragging about his prediction with 100’s of “I told you so”s for months thereafter and he’ll become the wingnut’s new prophet with a “proven” track record of credibility for any other nonsense he wants to spout in the future. It’s a no-lose comment that any idiot could make.
For all the Troglodytes who think Reverend Wright is such a big deal, read this, if you have the intellectual honesty:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp080319the_african_american
They interview the Newsmax republican toadie who takes credit for breaking the Wright "story". When questioned, his reasoning retreats to "I have to be outraged about this because I have to be outraged about this". They also interview two black theologians and two white evangelicals, who put the whole controversy in a reasonable perspective. They pretty much bury the Newsmax bigot. Unfortunately, most Americans won't hear this.
Being wronged might be one thing, but an election is quite another. For an election, an entire race of people are not being "wronged". One person has lost, not an entire race. There is a big difference.
I don't think you looked too far in your google efforts for riots either. Here is what seems to be a pretty comprehensive list of riots over the course of recorded history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots
I'd argue that the "majority" of these were NOT started by black people.
The worst riots in United States history with respect to lives lost took place during the Civil War when immigrant factory workers forcibly resisted the federal government's military draft, the New York Draft Riots. These riots were graphically depicted in the movie Gangs of New York. In the 20th century, the 1992 Los Angeles riots were regarded as the worst in recent U.S. history. The 1968 Democratic National Convention, however, saw the most well-remembered riots in recent US history and were a strong influence towards the eventual American withdrawal from Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War. The 2000 Democratic National Convention protest activity made headlines, including the Lakers riot. Also notable were riots in response to the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. across numerous American cities, as well as the recent anarchist and anti-globalization riots of the last decade such as the Seattle protests of the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 and the 2005 Toledo Riot in Toledo, Ohio.
Yes they were.
Even according to your list, the majority of US riots were race related, especially between 1950-1999, and the overwhelming majority were due to black race relations. Blacks had more riots between 1960-66 than the US had in the entire 18th century. At 64%, race relations were the number one cause for rioting, far ahead of labor, taxation, immigration etc, that came in a combined 31%. Blacks were far ahead of every other ethnic group in rioting, at 78%, compared to the next closest, Irish at 7%, Asians 4%, Hispanics 4%. And that's using your list.
As I've stated, there may not be riot if BO doesn't win, but I think Sullivan has a bit of history on his side in terms of AA riots. If they can riot over a jerk like Rodney King, then why not over a nice guy like BO?
Could you show me how you compiled these statistics?
I think we have some disagreeing to do.
First of all, the riot WASN'T over Rodney King. It was about the injustice of a man being beat down by a bunch of white cops who didn't get punished for it, and exposed a long simmering pot of bad feelings that had been brewing in LA for a long time. Listen to any West Coast rap from the early 80's up through the time of those riots to see what was actually going on.
You are calling the incidents in the 60s riots? Remember, for the vast majority of those so called "riots" that started out as protests, and only turned into riots when hoses were turned on non-violent protesters, dogs let loose, and people beat down in the street for demanding such a tawdry thing as equal rights.
As I've stated, there may not be riot if BO doesn't win, but I think Sullivan has a bit of history on his side in terms of AA riots. If they can riot over a jerk like Rodney King, then why not over a nice guy like BO?
Dave, the Watts riot of the 60's was the same reason for the Rodney King riots, LAPD brutality and no one was held accountable for it. The police department that was suppose to be far and just to ALL individuals which it was not. Brutality and mistreatment by the police have NOTHING to do with politics.
No matter what you think about Rodney King watching the police beat him like an animal was inexcusable period!. During all that time the police spent beating him with their nightsticks and tazering him there was never an opportunity to handcuff him? You will be charged and go to jail if you beat an animal like that but somehow it's OK to beat a human being like that becuase he's black? THAT was where the anger stemmed from, not King the person but the continued brutality by the LAPD. If you think like others do that OJ should not have been tried in Los Angeles imagine how black folks felt when the LAPD officers were tried in Simi Valley. Simi Valley, is a white community full of retired police officers, yeah that's seems fair and just. There is NO justification for beating a person, PERIOD! If he was THAT dangerous they should have shot him! Now King is no angel but imagine if the police had treated him fairly, handcuffed and arrested him, the riots would have never happened.
Don't get me wrong, rioting is a stupid thing to do. You destroy and burn down businesses that you need in your neighborhood and you suffer. But I can understand the anger that sometimes overwhelms some folks.
The Rampart Scandal refers to widespread corruption in the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (C.R.A.S.H.) anti-gang unit of the LAPD Rampart Division in the late 1990s. More than 70 police officers in the CRASH unit were implicated in misconduct, making it one of the most widespread cases of documented police misconduct in United States history. The convicted offenses include unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of evidence, framing of suspects, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and covering up evidence of these activities. [2]Javier Ovando became a central figure in the LAPD Rampart Scandal when he was shot and framed by corrupt Rampart officers Rafael Pérez and Nino Durden. Ovando was an illegal immigrant and a member of the powerful 18th Street Gang at the time. He is the recipient of the largest police misconduct settlement in Los Angeles history.[1]
The arrest of Stanley Miller by the LAPD in 2004 caused controversy.[citation needed]
In 2004, pursuit suspect Stanley Miller was forcefully arrested by eight LAPD officers from the Southeast Division when officers saw him fleeing from officers in Compton. Officer John Hatfield was seen kicking and hitting Miller multiple times. Four of the officers faced disciplinary action and Officer Hatfield was fired from the LAPD. Stanley Miller was seen by LAFD EMTs.
...people who feel they've been wronged tend to riot, and most times they are black.
Yes-I'll agree that people who justifiably have the most right of anyone to feel they've been wronged in this country are, indeed, black. It certainly was very rude of them to complain.
Solon, don't hold your breath on hearing Dave's "evidence". He probably heard his hero, Limbaugh, speak such nonsense and he thinks the point is valid.
"In the decade immediately preceding World War I, a pattern of racial violence began to emerge in which white mob assaults were directed against entire Black communities. These race riots were the product of white society’s desire to maintain its superiority over Blacks, vent its frustrations in times of distress, and attack those least able to defend themselves. In these race riots, white mobs invaded Black neighborhoods, beat and killed large numbers of Blacks and destroyed Black property. In most instances, Blacks fought back and there were many casualties on both sides, though most of the dead were Black.
Gunnar Myrdal opposed the use of the term “riots” to describe these interracial conflicts. He preferred to call this phenomena “a terrorization or massacre, and (considered) it a magnified, or mass, lynching.”13 Race riots occurred in both the North and South, but were more characteristic of the North. They were primarily urban phenomena, while lynching was primarily a rural phenomenon.
Although lynchings were decreasing slightly by the turn of the century, race riots were perceptibly on the increase. Large-scale interracial violence became almost epidemic, as increasing numbers of Blacks migrated to Northern cities. The greatest number of race riots occurred during and just after World War I. During this period the North was concerned with the tremendous migration of Blacks from the South, and the displacement of some whites by Blacks in jobs and residences, which escalated social tensions between the races. The South was concerned about the possible demands of returning Negro soldiers, who were unwilling to slip quietly back into second class citizenship.
The summer of 1919, called “The Red Summer” by James Weldon Johnson, ushered in the greatest period of interracial violence the nation had ever witnessed. During that summer there were twenty-six race riots in such cities as Chicago, Illinois; Washington, D.C.; Elaine, Arkansas; Charleston, South Carolina; Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee; Longview, Texas; and Omaha, Nebraska. More than one hundred Blacks were killed in these riots, and thousands were wounded and left homeless.
The seven most serious race riots were those which occurred in Wilmington, N. C. (1898), Atlanta, Ga. (1906), Springfield, Ill. (1908), East St. Louis) Ill. (1917), Chicago, Ill. (1919), Tulsa, Okla. (1921) and Detroit, Mich. (1943). What follows is a brief summary of the facts concerning each riot.
Just before the turn of the century, in November 1898, Wilmington, North Carolina exploded in the first major race riot since Reconstruction. The Wilmington riot followed an impassioned election campaign in which intimidation and fraud brought in a white supremacist government. Plans were drawn up before the election to coerce the Black voters and workers, and to expel the editor of the Black newspaper. Two days after the election, as whites began to execute their plan, the riot flamed. About thirty Blacks were killed in the massacre and many left the city. The white mob suffered no casualties."
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html
The Troglodytes win.
I can't wait to see what the republicans do when Obama DOES win.
We may have to invent a new word for it....
Repubanarchican disorder
I don't intend for any of the following comments to be construed from a racial perspective. This is intended to be hyperbolically partisan - not racial. Bobby Jindal is my candidate of choice in 2012 or 2016.
I hope the Dems to fracture along racial lines. An internecine race war within the Democrat party would be beautiful. I am hoping Obama retains the lead in pledged delegates and Hillary steals the nomination out from under him with the superdelegates.
The blacks would not stand for this and there would be riots in the streets (literally). Blacks would not vote for Hillary and the Dems would be in the minority for the next 20 years.
This conconstitute a major sea change. The Party of Lincoln could make a strong play for the black vote. The Dems peddle a culture of victimhood and the GOP promotes a culture of opportunity. The Dems are poverty pimps who actively seek to keep the Dems down. The Dems are truly the racist party because they see everything in terms of color. The Dems see groups whereas the GOP sees individuals.
With the growing Hispanic population, the GOP could potentially inflame the Hispanic/black tension. If we were to pit blakcs against Hispanics, we would have a legitimate shot to win the black vote. Our coalition would be unbeatlable and the Dems would be out of power for a generation.
However, for this to happen we need racial strife within the Dems. The start of this could be Hillary stealing the election from Obama. I am hoping and praying Hillary wins with the super delegates. The Dems would be out of power for a generation. Glorious!!! Absolutely glorious!!!
"Party of Lincoln"
Haha, Strom Thurmond would be proud...