NY Times left-wing conspiracy?

Back on January 28th, the NY Times editorial page endorsed McCain over all other Republicans.

Today, the NY Times editorial page writes about how much McCain sucks, and endorses Obama.

Was the original McCain endorsement a conspiracy to trick people into electing the worst Republican candidate in order to ensure a Democratic victory?

Comments

[Linda]

No, that's ridiculous, McCain was the best republican they could have picked because he's popular with a lot of independents and democrats. It's just not a republican year. Whoever won the democratic nomination was almost destined to win the white house (though Obama shouldn't get overconfident because there's still racism).

[tommy]

I don't know if I would use the word "conspiracy," but during the closing days of the battle for the Republican nomination those who were dissatisfied with McCain were predicting the media would turn on him as soon as the Democratic nominee was selected.

[Old News]

tommy,
There is no conspiracy. Just simply the way the liberal press works. McCain, the previous obejct of affection has been replaced by Obama. It is like puppy love for the NYT and the rest of the press. Look how fast they turned on Hillary.

[The Griffyn]

Half Sigma, there is some justification in your complaint.

However, since the January endorsement the issues facing the nation have changed.

And since January McCain has made some bad decisions and behave erratically. McCain has been tested on the campaign trail and he has failed.

[Φ]

It was a conspiracy in plain sight. The original McCain endorsement minced few words in making clear that the editors hated McCain less that the other Republicans. Only a fool would have expected that kind of "endorsement" to be repeated this fall.

[Vim]

"Was the original McCain endorsement a conspiracy to trick people into electing the worst Republican candidate in order to ensure a Democratic victory?"

No way! Republicans are too smart for that! But! Should the NYT had stooped to such a low trick, that would be sickening. Republicans are certainly above trying to influence Democratic primaries with devious advice ... they just, you know, disingenuously vote in Democratic primaries in a concerted mass effort to create fradulent results. Politics ain't bean bag. I'm actually hoping the NYT did this but I doubt it.

[Emma]

They just picked the least bad in their view and now that there is a choice between Messianic and bad, it's obvious.

Remember, in the primary debates, the endorsement was used *against* McCain by his opponents. Giuliani used the New York Times evisceration of himself as a feather in his cap.

[Laughing]

(though Obama shouldn't get overconfident because there's still racism).

One can hope! Priceless stuff, Linda.

[Wade Nichols]

Has a bit of plausibility on the surface, but I don't buy it because:

1.) To buy into it, you have to assume that NY Times really is "all powerful" and pervasive in our lives
2.) Think about some of the loony conspiracies floated around by our "intellectual superiors" on the left:

A.) Karl Rove and Bush "stole" the 2000 election - Bush and Co. "steal" elections, yet Obama and ACORN simply encourage disenfranchised minorities to go out and vote! - Early and Often!
B.) Bush staged 9/11 - The left tells us that "Bush is an idiot", yet, he's still smart enough to fabricate 9/11? Huh? How can he be an idiot, yet "all powerful" and smart enough to stage 9/11?
C.) Obama's "core constituency" (I'm speaking in "code" here!) also tells us that OJ Simpson was "framed" - Somehow everyone from the police officers, to the undoubtedly many black people working in the forensics lab were somehow part of this conspiracy to frame OJ. How come we've never heard anyone come forward to admit they were in on this big "secret"?

[Laughing]

"How come we've never heard anyone come forward to admit they were in on this big "secret"?"

It is obvious that if they are white, they are racists and in on the whole thing. If they are black, they are afraid of retribution. Just remember what happened to Prof. Constantine and Miss Mangum! If they are hispanic, they don't care!

[slwerner]

Linda – “Obama shouldn't get overconfident because there's still racism”

(Encarta) Racism, making the race of other people a factor in attitudes or actions concerning them. Racism implies a belief in the superiority of one's own race.

Given that Howard Stern pulled that little stunt of approaching black people, ascribing McCain’s positions as Obama's, and having them all say that they were voting for Obama, based on McCain’s positions, fairly clearly demonstrates that blacks are voting for Obama primarily because he is black (not because the agree with his positions, or even know what those positions are).

Likewise, Collin Powell claims that he was endorsing Obama for reasons other than race ring hollow.

Black people, who are the most racially aware, have the strongest racial identification with their own race, and who are consistently the most racist group in America, are uniformly lining up to vote lockstep for their fellow black man. With black people, race will almost always trump other considerations.

By the definitions of racism which speak to one’s preference for their own race, blacks are clearly acting in a racist manner in their overwhelming support of Obama.

Frankly, Linda, Obama can take heart that racism is clearly on his side. Whites are quite willing to cross lines to vote for a black candidate over a white one by far, far greater margins than the reverse.

For you to interject the specter of racism regarding those who chose not to vote for Obama, is as lame and disingenuous as Vim ascribing racism as the primary motive behind the goals of working-class white people.

If you want to start shouting “racist” at those who disagree with your candidate, you might want to take a closer look around. Black people are far more racist in their thoughts, motivations and behaviors than are white people.

[JewishAtheist]

To be fair, McCain is a completely different person than he was in January, and almost all of the NYT's criticism is about the new John McCain. Nobody would have predicted that he would go so negative and so personal, and nobody but nobody would have predicted Sarah Palin.

Old John McCain was indeed the best hope the Republicans had in the general, although the deck was always stacked against them. If he'd gone with a reasonable choice for VP like Mitt Romney, and if he didn't go so ridiculously negative, he could have come a lot closer.

[Laughing]

Posted by: JewishAtheist | October 24, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Your're almost as good as Linda today.

[Asher]

Linda, large amounts of Democratic Party political capital derive from transferring social resources from whites to blacks (and hispanics).

Is it any great mystery that a lot of white people band together to try and reduce or eliminate such resource transfers? And doesn't calling that rational voting behavior "racist" render the term functionally meaningless? After all, a term that is used to describe everything describes nothing, it is a tautology.

Call like things, alike. - Friedrich Nietzsche

[jaakkeli]

No.

Similarily, Europeans love Obama now when he's running against a Republican, but a year or two from now when he comes to visit we'll riot because even a black Democrat American president is still an American president and the American president is always the next Hitler.

[Easy]

The NY Times has managed to trick Jewish Atheist.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

The press has been dumping one sweetheart after another to trade up since this election cycle started, no surprise there. What is surprising is that the dumpees, like Clinton, and McCain took the bait to begin with. More to the point why didn't the multi-million dollar consultants figure this out and at least try to counter it?

This brings to mind Machiavelli's comments on the perils of relying on mercenaries. Here we have a classic case of hirelings doing an indifferent job, even by their own mediocre standards, just to collect a check. The hacks that run the Republican party are the worst of these by far. There they stand clueless, bloodless, disconnected from reality and their party base, following the bottom line to the abyss. McCain deserves a team like this and good riddence to him.

[Asher]

TOSR (you do know that this unpleasantly resembles "tosser" right?), you just stated what I've been telling people for a couple of years now.

Rush Limbaugh can be a very fun listen, but he is disastrous for the white, family-raising middleclass. With all his bluster about conservative purity he's leading the declining GOP demographic base into oblivion.

[slwerner]

HS,

Good news! I think I’ve finally found a legitimate reason for you to hate Sarah Palin:

Palin Displays Her Feminist Side http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/21/palin_displays_her_feminist_si.html

[Turambar]

The answer is 'yes'. Immediately after McCain sewed up the nomination the Times published their lame "scandal" stories about some lobbyist.

Until Palin was nominated I met no one (who was Republican) who was enthusiastic about McCain. He was a tepid default choice.

Romney would have been a much stronger choice. Its sad that places like the Concord Monitor and the Times have to try to influence processes that they dont approve of. It would be like having a bunch of Free Masons voting on who should be head Rabbi

[tommy]

"No way! Republicans are too smart for that! But! Should the NYT had stooped to such a low trick, that would be sickening. Republicans are certainly above trying to influence Democratic primaries with devious advice ... they just, you know, disingenuously vote in Democratic primaries in a concerted mass effort to create fradulent results. Politics ain't bean bag. I'm actually hoping the NYT did this but I doubt it."

I don't get what your comment has to do with the media and Democrats vote in Republican primaries where such primaries are not closed either.

[tommy]

"The NY Times has managed to trick Jewish Atheist."

Ha!

Yes, JA, I'm sure the NY Times would be much kinder on McCain if Hillary had won the Democratic nomination, McCain had campaigned even more gently, and McCain had selected Romney for veep. I'm sure of it.

[c23]

I especially love the way they denounce McCain for racism and nastiness, when he hasn't mentioned Rev. Wright, instead hammering on the far less juicy target Ayers, for no apparent reason other than that Wright is black and Ayers is white, when he has denounced his own supporters for saying Obama's middle name, and when he was booed by his own supporters for saying nice things about Obama at a rally ( http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i4OpiwXT-cn2aMmpTpiUVElig0FgD93NULBO1 ).

I guess this is what you get for running a clean campaign - you lose and people still think you're a scumbag.

[slwerner]

Jewishatheist – (of McaCain)”… if he didn't go so ridiculously negative”

JA,

I thought being and atheist meant that you didn’t believe in god(s); I had no idea that your interpretation is that it means not believing in facts as well.

Pigs Fly: MSNBC says Obama ran 1,342 negative adds compared to McCains 8! http://leaningstraightup.com/2008/10/16/pigs-fly-msnbc-says-obama-ran-1342-negative-adds-compared-to-mccains-8/

Obama has been much more negative, according to …(drum roll, please)…MSNBC.

The reality is that it has been McCain’s reluctance (until quite late in the game) to be negative that has hurt him most. Obama’s been negative for a long time now – you just don’t posses the intellectual honesty to recognize and admit it, but MSNBC does.

What has finally begun (though way too late) hurt Obama has been his exchange with Joe the Plumber, in which he had an unguarded moment and answered from the bottom of his bill Ayers-train heart, revealing his socialist inclinations (and aspirations).

Also, despite HS’s (and many political snobs) distaste for Palin, she has at least done what McCain has been afraid to do, as she’s been the one to go after Obama’s record and his questionable character.

Sadly, Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and Obama’s inadvertent admissions have all been more effective than McCain’s “I only go negative against Republicans” campaign strategy (or, “strategery”, if you prefer).

[David Alexander]

*Back on January 28th, the NY Times editorial page endorsed McCain over all other Republicans. *

Republicans relying on the New York Times for candidate selection are idiots. It's no different than Democrats using Fox News to make a decision on a candidate.

Fun Question: In an hypothetical election between a Jewish and Italian candidate, if all of the Italians vote for the Italian candidate regardless of position, does it make Italians anti-Semitic?

[cp]

This is true conspiracy here.

http://www.collegeotr.com/college_otr/ashley_todd_supposedly_mugged_for_being_mccain_supporter_13689

[DiverCity]

Yes, without a doubt.

[Ankosterous]

The NYT endorsements have no effect on the election. But they are a window on the leftist media elite in NYC ... The Times is now considered "junk" by investment ratings. The NYT has always been considered junk by the discriminating reader.

Obama's race will not hurt hum, but his radicalism would hurt him if the media ever considered doing its job and reporting the honest facts.

[EMS]

Jewishatheist – (of McCain)”… if he didn't go so ridiculously negative”

This reminds me of a discussion about Hillary Clinton's "meanness and racism" during the Democratic primary. In the end, the Leftist journalist in this debate sees the light and concedes that blacks were less "driven away" from Hillary and instead, just really wanted to vote for Barack:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010548.html

[Brutus]

re NY Times

The Times in in decline. Nobody gives a shit what its dopey editorial board has to say--about anything!

[Linda]

"Given that Howard Stern pulled that little stunt of approaching black people, ascribing McCain’s positions as Obama's, and having them all say that they were voting for Obama, based on McCain’s positions, fairly clearly demonstrates that blacks are voting for Obama primarily because he is black (not because the agree with his positions, or even know what those positions are)."

The same thing would have happened if Howard Stern had done that experiment in 2004 but instead of using Obama and McCain, he used Kerry and Bush. Blacks voted about 90% for the democrat that year too.

"Likewise, Collin Powell claims that he was endorsing Obama for reasons other than race ring hollow."

I think Powell endorsed Obama to A) get back at the republicans for using him at the united nations, and B) earn back his credibility. It says a lot about Obama that he's the candidate you endorse when you want to redeem yourself. As for race, I'm sure the fact that they're both mulattoes didn't hurt.

"Black people, who are the most racially aware, have the strongest racial identification with their own race,"

This is nonsense. If anything blacks are their own worst enemies, to the point where any time a black succeeds, other blacks want to drag them down, like crabs in a barrel. Look at all the blacks who bash Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and BET founder Bob Johnson. Also look at all the black on black violence. Blacks victimize eachother at far higher rates than blacks victimize whites. In addition, blacks are the most genetically diverse race, so they have the least to gain genetically from helping one another. Whites are relatively genetically homogenous, so they are prone to favour their group.

"and who are consistently the most racist group in America, are uniformly lining up to vote lockstep for their fellow black man. With black people, race will almost always trump other considerations."

It's not race that's trumping all else, it's the ideal of achieving racial equality at the highest levels of power. Electing Obama is simply taking the civil rights movement to its logical conclusion.

"By the definitions of racism which speak to one’s preference for their own race, blacks are clearly acting in a racist manner in their overwhelming support of Obama."

Racism is not defined by prefering your own race, it's defined by excluding other races, and whites have excluded blacks from coming anywhere near the white house in every election but this one. Blacks are simply demanding inclusion & they would have to be stupid or self-hating to not want equality.

"Frankly, Linda, Obama can take heart that racism is clearly on his side. Whites are quite willing to cross lines to vote for a black candidate over a white one by far, far greater margins than the reverse."

Technically Obama's not even black, he's what the South Africans called "Coloured". And seeing as blacks are voting for the guy who has both black and white ancestry, while whites prefer the candidate who is white only, it's blacks that are crossing lines more than whites are.

[Linda]

"The Times in in decline. Nobody gives a shit what its dopey editorial board has to say--about anything!"

The Times endorsed him because they think he's going to win (similar to Powell), and by endorsing someone who wins, it makes them look influential. But the time to endorse is when someone is behind in the polls, otherwise you're just jumping on the bandwagon.

[I kid.]

"Technically Obama's not even black, he's what the South Africans called "Coloured". "

Good point. We can all learn from South Africa's experiences with race and the huge success that their post-racial society is today. Let the healing begin!

[JewishAtheist]

slwerner:

Pigs Fly: MSNBC says Obama ran 1,342 negative adds compared to McCains 8!

Um, yeah. "MSNBC" didn't say that, Joe Scarborough did. Joe Scarborough of course is a Republican and a right-wing partisan. There's that "liberal" media for you again!

Anyway, there's a difference between "my opponent is a terrorist sympathizer" and "my opponent voted with George Bush 90% of the time." Both are negative, but one is also slanderous and ridiculous.

[Lugen]

Anyway, there's a difference between "my opponent is a terrorist sympathizer" and "my opponent voted with George Bush 90% of the time." Both are negative, but one is also slanderous and ridiculous.

Ayers babysat for the Obamas. Now I know you don't bother clicking or reading links, Jewish Atheist, but in case anyone else wants to move their index finger:

http://patterico.net/2008/10/21/la-times-will-not-correct-erroneous-claim-that-there-is-no-recorded-basis-for-ayers-obama-tie/

So not a sympathizer, but just a really, really close friend and colleague. Maybe you Obama and Ayers just didn't "do enough" to put things in perspective. I get it. Thanks for clearing up the confusion.

[Sgt. Joe Friday]

"And since January McCain has made some bad decisions and behave erratically. McCain has been tested on the campaign trail and he has failed."

Completely correct. Where to begin?

1. Would it be when he started to beat the "comprehensive immigration reform" drum as soon as he had the nomination in his pocket? Nice going there Johnny Mac, way to get your base energized and want to support you in the general election. What a dumbass - you move center AFTER THE CONVENTIONS, when people are paying attention, not in February, and especially not in February when your own party still has misgivings about you.

2. Or how about every time he prefaces a phrase with "my friends"? Look pal, I'm not your friend, and you're not my friend. Folksiness works for some politicians, but it generally doesn't work for guys who are old, intemperate, and curmudgeonly. Ya think there's a reason Andy Rooney opens his commentaries with "have you ever noticed how..." instead of "my friends...".

3. Let's not forget his new-found favorite empty catchphrase, "God's children." I am sick to fucking death of hearing about "God's children" this and "God's children" that. Haven't we had enough of the phony piety over the last 8 years?

4. Sarah Palin? 'Nuff said.

5. You don't talk about the stuff you agree with your opponent on, you don't talk about "reaching across the aisle," and you don't call your opponent an "honorable man," even if he is. Fer crissakes, you talk about why people should vote for YOU, not minimize the differences between you and your adversary.

Personally, I think McCain wasn't in this thing to win anyway. He got the prize he wanted, the GOP nomination. If he really wanted the brass ring, he would have gone after Obama the same way he did Romney in the primaries, but he doesn't, so he didn't. He'd rather fall on his sword "with honor" than fight dirty and win.

[billy buzz]

The New York Times endorsed John McCain over Romney because McCain was the Republican candidate most likely to flood the country with violent, genetically ineducable immigrants..... which is top priority to liberal New York elites.

Completely consistent with this, the Times endorses Obama over McCain, because Obama will work harder than anyone to ensure there are endless demographic waves of dysfunctional third-world illiterates flooding into the US, transforming it into another unequal, ethnically divided Latin American shithole where Democrats and radicals will always be in charge thanks to the lack of a middle class and discontent of everyone.

[icr]

This guy makes the best case I've seen that the liberal bias of the MSM is a myth:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121402.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121702.shtml

Not that I'm convinced.

[miles]

Sigma is right on again. Thats three times this week.

Of COURSE they gave the Republicans bad advice.

Your worst enemies will always pose as your friends and give you constant bad advice. Never fails

[Frankie Gamwell]

This blog seems to quote the "Gray Lady" quite a bit considering it is regarded as having a "liberal bias" among virtualy everyone.

A. Have they ever endorsed a republican candidate in the general election
B. Who gives a crap who newspapers endorse anyway, I don't!

[Frankie Gamwell]

"Latin American shithole"

Taking a two hour nap at noon a smoking a ton of pot pot sounds pretty good to me. If anyone here actually knows any illegal immagrants I'd like to here what you have to say. My cousin married an illegal (has his green card now) and he's the hardest working most industrious guy I know. He worked 8 hours as a carpenter and then worked 6 more after his shift building my deck and siding my house. Don't worry I paid him what I would have paid any white guy who wasn't trying to screw me, my cousin and he have two kids to feed.

Latin America is a shithole primarily because the US supports right wing, US friendly dictators there. If you see innocent people being slaughtered in the streets by the secret police, its no wonder you want to get the hell out.

[tommy]

"In addition, blacks are the most genetically diverse race,"

Black Americans are a randomly selected sample from Africa?

"so they have the least to gain genetically from helping one another."

Do blacks commonly take their genetic diversity into account when making decisions on who they will support?

"Racism is not defined by prefering your own race, it's defined by excluding other races,"

Somebody better let Hillary know. I mean Obama and Hillary are light years apart on those issues that blacks apparently don't pay attention to (judging by Howard Stern's stunt). That would explain why Obama pulled 90% of the black Democratic vote in Philly.

"and whites have excluded blacks from coming anywhere near the white house in every election but this one."

In other words, if blacks don't win, then they've been excluded. Jesse Jackson didn't lose the Democratic primary, he was excluded.

"Blacks are simply demanding inclusion & they would have to be stupid or self-hating to not want equality."

You spend an entire post telling us that blacks are their own worst enemy, that they have nothing to gain by supporting a fellow black, and that they routinely drag their own down. Then you summarize your post by telling us that blacks who don't vote for their own are voting against their own best interests. Lame.

[tommy]

"Look at all the blacks who bash Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and BET founder Bob Johnson."

Great examples! Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Bob Johnson: all demonized for being Uncle Toms. The fact that blacks dislike those seen as insufficiently supportive of their own race is proof that blacks don't support their own race!

[tommy]

"Latin America is a shithole primarily because the US supports right wing, US friendly dictators there. If you see innocent people being slaughtered in the streets by the secret police, its no wonder you want to get the hell out."

As opposed to such utopias in the making as Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba? Latin America is a shithole because it is inhabited by Latin Americans.

[tommy]

"Taking a two hour nap at noon a smoking a ton of pot pot sounds pretty good to me."

Sounds like a lousy way to build a First World society.

[ResidentCynic]

McCain used to be OK. His position now (October) is way different from his position in January.

[johnm]

"Latin America is a shithole primarily because the US supports right wing, US friendly dictators there. If you see innocent people being slaughtered in the streets by the secret police, its no wonder you want to get the hell out."

So Cubans leave Cuba because of the evil right wing government? Have Mexicans been leaving Mexico because of all the right wing governments (hint the Institutional Revolutionary Party, under a bunch of names, ruled Mexico for most of the 20th century).

[Linda]

"Black Americans are a randomly selected sample from Africa?"

Even non-random samples often resemble the population from which they're sampled.

"Do blacks commonly take their genetic diversity into account when making decisions on who they will support?"

We're genetically wired to help people who share our genetic composition (though we're usually not aware that's what we're doing); and since whites are less genetically diverse than blacks, they will help one another more than blacks do.

"Somebody better let Hillary know. I mean Obama and Hillary are light years apart on those issues that blacks apparently don't pay attention to (judging by Howard Stern's stunt). That would explain why Obama pulled 90% of the black Democratic vote in Philly."

Hillary voted for the war, which badly hurt her in the Democratic primary. Of course I'm not denying that race was a factor, however it's not racist to vote based on race when your race is about to make history because all you are doing is helping your race achieve its fair share. It only becomes racist to vote based on race when your race already has a monopoly on power because then you are trying to exclude other races from sharing in power. And unlike most whites, not a single black voted their race this election because Obama's technically not black, but multiracial.

"In other words, if blacks don't win, then they've been excluded. Jesse Jackson didn't lose the Democratic primary, he was excluded."

If African Americans consistently don't win a single nomination for a major party in the history of the U.S., then yes that's exclusion. If African Americans are 12% of America, but 0% of America's presidents, 0% of America's vice presidents, and only 1% of the U.S. senate, then that's exclusion. And don't tell me it's because blacks aren't qualified because a lot of whites in those positions are not qualified.

"You spend an entire post telling us that blacks are their own worst enemy, that they have nothing to gain by supporting a fellow black, and that they routinely drag their own down. Then you summarize your post by telling us that blacks who don't vote for their own are voting against their own best interests. Lame."

I never said they had NOTHING to gain by supporting a fellow black, or even a near-black; what I am saying is they are less wired by evolution to do so than whites are because whites (being a newer population) are more related to one another genetically. But now that whites have achieved a total monopoly on American wealth and power, the more liberal and empathetic whites are open minded enough to give a near-black man an opportunity to share in the power for a short amount of time, and blacks would have to be absolute fools to not take advantage of such a historical opportunity.

"Great examples! Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Bob Johnson: all demonized for being Uncle Toms. The fact that blacks dislike those seen as insufficiently supportive of their own race is proof that blacks don't support their own race!"

No, it's proof that blacks but politics above the race of the politician, which was the very point your Howard Stern anecdote tried to dispute.

[Turambar]

"No, it's proof that blacks but politics above the race of the politician, which was the very point your Howard Stern anecdote tried to dispute."

Its really proof that blacks put tribalism and the opinion and well being of their local race pimp above their own self interest.

Jesse Jackson has already said he doesnt plan on putting down his laundry list of grievances if Obama is elected. Why? Because thats his power base.

[Vim]

Evidence of the utter folksiness and lack of Elitism of the Republican Party in general and the McCain Campaign in particular:

1. "Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?"

Amy Strozzi, Palin's makeup artist. She got $22,800 for two weeks of work. Angela Lew, her traveling hair sylist, gets an honorable mention for getting $10,000 for half a month of work.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/pains-makeup-stylist-fetches-highest-salary-in-2-week-period/

2. Operator: 911. State your emergency.

Joe McCain: It's not an emergency. But, do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95 traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic's coming the other way?

Operator: Sir, are you calling 911 to complain about traffic?

Joe McCain: Fuck you.
(McCain hangs up.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y6_s3O5Bj0

[Vimmie]

Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, and other leftist latin shit holes are rooting for Obamamama to take the US in the same shithole direction. If he wins, he will.

Or perhaps Obama plans to use the South Africa or Zimbabwe model of success? Change, maybe, but hope? Not much time for hope when you're falling so quickly.

[Johnm]

vimmie, there are no left wing shit holes in Latin America. Haven't you heard, they're all run by right wing dictatorships.

[Rain And]

"Media coverage tilting toward Obama, study says"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/10/23/nader_plans_whirlwind_tour_of_massachusetts/

"Of the stories about Obama, 36 percent have been mostly positive, 35 percent mixed, and 29 percent negative, the study said.

Of the coverage of McCain, only 14 percent was generally positive, while 29 percent was mixed, and 57 percent was negative."

[tommy]

"Even non-random samples often resemble the population from which they're sampled."

You haven't demonstrated that in is the case. I highly doubt a strongly selected sample of West Africans is reflective of genetic diversity across the continent.

"We're genetically wired to help people who share our genetic composition (though we're usually not aware that's what we're doing); and since whites are less genetically diverse than blacks, they will help one another more than blacks do."

Your assuming that ethnocentrism is a simple function of genetic diversity. I doubt that is true. Furthermore, whites tend to be more altruistic than blacks.

"It only becomes racist to vote based on race when your race already has a monopoly on power because then you are trying to exclude other races from sharing in power."

Monopoly on power? This sounds suspiciously like the silly "You can't be a racist unless your race is the dominant race!" argument. My general response to those sort of arguments is twofold:

(1) Employing that sort of "logic," the moment the ANC took over in South Africa, providing blacks real monopolies in both political power and numbers, all white South Africans must have ceased to be racists. Only blacks can be racists in South Africa.

(2) If racism instead entails holding a lower proportion of socioeconomic power than demographics would predict--rather than mere possession of numbers or political power--then racial antisemitism and anti-Asian racism by whites must be entirely impossible.

"No, it's proof that blacks but politics above the race of the politician, which was the very point your Howard Stern anecdote tried to dispute."

No, its proof that blacks put racial politics ahead of the individual black.

[Linda]

"You haven't demonstrated that in is the case. I highly doubt a strongly selected sample of West Africans is reflective of genetic diversity across the continent."

And Obama's is half East African, half white, and has a white VP, so the fact that West African Americans are voting for him demostrates a willingness to compromise (all they ask is for some diversity to at long last be included). Meanwhile lilly white Americans are voting for lilly white McCain and lilly white Palin, despite the fact that they've already had 43 lilly white presidents in a row and 43 lilly white vice presidents.

"This sounds suspiciously like the silly 'You can't be a racist unless your race is the dominant race!' argument."

I'm not saying blacks can't be racist, I'm saying that blacks who are voting for Obama because he's partly black is not evidence of racism, it's simply evidence of blacks wanting their race to achieve equality at the highest levels of power and wanting racial equality is the EXACT OPPOSITE of racism!

They're not demanding that their race have more power than whites, they simply feel that after 43 consecutive lilly white presidents, it's time America elected a president who is BOTH black and white, ESPECIALLY when that president probably has the highest IQ of anyone running, and had the courage and judgement to warn America NOT to invade Iraq (perhaps its worst foreign policy decision ever)and has the diverse background that can bring the country and the world together.

"(1) Employing that sort of "logic," the moment the ANC took over in South Africa, providing blacks real monopolies in both political power and numbers, all white South Africans must have ceased to be racists. Only blacks can be racists in South Africa."

Blacks are dirt poor in South Africa. They are not the economic elite.

[Linda]

Come to think of it, there's been 46 white vice presidents in a row, which further underscores the power monopoly whites have.

[Brenda]

When blacks do control a jurisdiction in a wealthy country, such as Detroit or Baltimore for example, a demonstration of competence is generally not forthcoming.

A group with an average IQ of 85 has a difficult time supplying competent administrators, accountants, attorneys. Much easier to fall back on Haiti-Zimbabwe-Detroit style corruption.

[jaakkeli]

Hey, Linda, we over here are dirt poor compared to the Jews. The wealthiest guy in the country alone brings the Jewish average worth waaaaay above what the average Finn has. I suppose that by your logic anti-semitism doesn't matter at all since Jews are the economic elite and we are just the poor majority that they oppress.

Anti-semitism is the same phenomenon: a lower IQ group resenting the success of the higher IQ group and, being unable to admit the truth about IQ, developing fantasies about how it's all because of the evil of the other. This is the kind of hatred that leads to the worst brutality. It's cool if it's black people hating white people but just awful if it's white people hating Jews.

[tommy]

"And Obama's is half East African, half white, and has a white VP, so the fact that West African Americans are voting for him demostrates a willingness to compromise (all they ask is for some diversity to at long last be included)."

Blacks voting for a half-black widely perceived and presented as "a black man" and the first possible "African-American president" in the media demonstrates a willingness to compromise?

"I'm not saying blacks can't be racist, I'm saying that blacks who are voting for Obama because he's partly black is not evidence of racism, it's simply evidence of blacks wanting their race to achieve equality at the highest levels of power and wanting racial equality is the EXACT OPPOSITE of racism!"

So, you're saying that blacks wouldn't overwhelmingly prefer Obama if we had already had a black president?

"it's time America elected a president who is BOTH black and white, ESPECIALLY when that president probably has the highest IQ of anyone running, and had the courage and judgement to warn America NOT to invade Iraq (perhaps its worst foreign policy decision ever)and has the diverse background that can bring the country and the world together."

Are these those well-informed Harlem voters?

Look, any partisan could have opposed a Bush war from the sidelines. If Hillary Clinton had been a local New York politician, rather than the senator from New York, I would have guessed she would have been strongly against any elective war waged by Bush. Conversely, if Barack Obama had been in the United States Senate at the time of the resolution authorizing war in Iraq, I'm not so certain he would have voted against it. Obama has a penchant for shifting his positions with the popular tide. He lacks any hard and firm principles.

"Blacks are dirt poor in South Africa. They are not the economic elite."

Plenty of blacks are part of the economic elite in the New, Improved South Africa, not that they've actually contributed much to get to that position. They are also the exclusive political elite of the country.

Linda previously wrote: "We're genetically wired to help people who share our genetic composition (though we're usually not aware that's what we're doing)....and since whites are less genetically diverse than blacks, they will help one another more than blacks do."

Yeah, which explains why whites are voting 90% for the white guy while blacks are less decided.

[Linda]

"Blacks voting for a half-black widely perceived and presented as 'a black man' and the first possible 'African-American president' in the media demonstrates a willingness to compromise?"

Just the fact that blacks are willing to consider half-whites and even 3/4whites to be "African American" shows they are accepting of other races. By contrast, whites demand virtually 100% white purity to be considered white.

"So, you're saying that blacks wouldn't overwhelmingly prefer Obama if we had already had a black president?"

Well they'd still overwhelmingly prefer him in the general election because they always overwhelmingly prefer the Democrat, but in the primary I think he was have achieved much less black support. There was enormous excitement and enthusiasm in the black community about Obama being the first African American who might actually reach the white house, and if it had already been done, the enthusiasm and significance would have been much less.

"Look, any partisan could have opposed a Bush war from the sidelines. If Hillary Clinton had been a local New York politician, rather than the senator from New York, I would have guessed she would have been strongly against any elective war waged by Bush."

So are you saying that she knew the war was wrong, but voted for it anyway? There were plenty of senators who voted against it, and not all were Democrats.

"Conversely, if Barack Obama had been in the United States Senate at the time of the resolution authorizing war in Iraq, I'm not so certain he would have voted against it."

Well we can never be so certain of anything unknowable, but your argument is a bit like saying, Al Gore (who also opposed the war) would not have done so had he been elected president in 2000.

"Obama has a penchant for shifting his positions with the popular tide. He lacks any hard and firm principles."

The war was popular at the time he opposed it, even among Democrats.

"Plenty of blacks are part of the economic elite in the New, Improved South Africa, not that they've actually contributed much to get to that position. They are also the exclusive political elite of the country."

There are always going to be some who make it, but the average black in South African still has far less wealth than the average white.

"Yeah, which explains why whites are voting 90% for the white guy while blacks are less decided."

Whites have voted in such a way that 100% of the presidents and 100% of the vice presidents in American history hvae been virtually 100% white. Even now, most are voting for the virtually 100% white McCain and the virtually 100% white Palin. Meanwhile blacks are willing to accept a candidate who is only 50% black (and from a different region of African than they're from).

[Linda]

"Hey, Linda, we over here are dirt poor compared to the Jews. The wealthiest guy in the country alone brings the Jewish average worth waaaaay above what the average Finn has. I suppose that by your logic anti-semitism doesn't matter at all since Jews are the economic elite and we are just the poor majority that they oppress."

I never said it was okay for blacks to be anti-white, so why would say it's okay for whites to be anti-Ashkanazi? What I do say is that when blacks vote for a near-black because he's nearly black, they are not displaying racism or anti-white sentiment, but rather a desire to help their race achieve equality and representation at the highest levels of power, and fighting for racial equality is the exact opposite of racism.

Similarly, women who vote for Sarah Palin as VP because she's a woman are not being sexist, they are simply fighting for gender equality at the highest levels of power (though this is misguided because republican policies tend to set women back).

[jaakkeli]

So, if I vote against the Jew, I'm not an anti-semite, I'm just acting out of my benign desire to have non-Jewish representation at the highest levels of power. If I vote for the male against the female (hey, I did the last time we had a presidential election here, but the awful commie dyke still won) because I desire to have male representation at the highest level (it's the prez, there can be only one), I'm not a bigot. If I vote against a black guy because he's black, I'm not a bigot because I'm a white guy...

Oh well. I'm actually heading out to vote after this post and I'm going to vote for the racist white blogger dude because I don't think racist white blogger dudes are adequately represented in politics.

[Vim]

Linda: Well argued.

[Vim]

tommy:

The concept that you guys are calling 'genetic diversity', which is probably not quite what you mean, is somewhat like the idea of variance. I say that it's not what you mean because you probably want to get at the chances two persons are genetically similar for a given population.

Now, If population A has a higher variance than population B then (roughly speaking) most samples of A will have a higher variance than the population of B. For small samples the variance varies widely ... that is to say the variance of the variance increases with a decrease in the size of the set.

It's actually pretty easy to construct a non-random subset with a larger variance than the parent population. For instance, {1,2,11,12,6,6,6,6,6,6} has a higher variance than {1,2,11,12}. My process for making my subset was clearly not random as a I threw out all the sixes.

My original population splits naturally into three clusters {1,2}, {11,12} and {6,6,6,6,6,6}, the last of which has a large effect on the variance of the population. There could be a similar issue going on with African-Americans where the lack of other groups in Africa or the changing the proportions of groups actually increases the variance in the population. I would actually expect them to have a higher diversity because there is 20% white admixture and outliers significantly affect variance.

[Linda]

"So, if I vote against the Jew, I'm not an anti-semite, I'm just acting out of my benign desire to have non-Jewish representation at the highest levels of power."

You could argue that but the case is much weaker because Jews haven't dominated non-Jews to anywhere near the same degree and amount of time that whites have dominated blacks. Non-Jews already have a ton of representation at the highest levels of power; every president in American history has been non-Jewish.

"If I vote for the male against the female (hey, I did the last time we had a presidential election here, but the awful commie dyke still won) because I desire to have male representation at the highest level (it's the prez, there can be only one), I'm not a bigot."

But we've already had 43 white male presidents, so yes, at this point it is bigoted to vote for a president just because they're male, just as it's bigoted to vote for one just because their white. Voting because they are female or black or gay is fine though.

Now many whites voted with their wallets to make Eminem a huge rap star partly because he is white. This is an examples of whites voting white based on race that is NOT racist because in an art form where blacks have a monopoly, it's only right that whites have some representation. However those blacks who insist on only buying black rap are being a bit racist (though not too racist because they could be buying black to keep money in the hands of a race that has few sources of income).

[jaakkeli]

You could argue that but the case is much weaker because Jews haven't dominated non-Jews to anywhere near the same degree

Nonsense. Jews have dominated Europeans in intellectual fields just as much as whites have dominated blacks. Clearly, if a program at a university is full of Jews, there's no reason to worry at all or think it nasty if Germans want to vote for the guys who promise to limit Jews in academia.

Same old same old. All that matters is who does it to whom; what is done doesn't matter one bit.

When European intellectuals found themselves under crushing competition from newly emancipated Jews, racism was cool and having an original opinion on the hierarchy of races was the mark of a true intellectual. Now that we got rid of the Jews and we're importing masses of illiterates who cannot compete for high IQ jobs, intellectuals are all passionately anti-racist.

But hey, none of that matters. Intellectuals and minorities are hallowed people who deserve to push around others for their own benefit while blue collar Joe engages in unspeakable evil if he even thinks of trying the same. Who, who, who. Not what.

[dougjnn]

Romney would be doing far better in the polls now than McCain is.

I thought he would in fact do far better in the general election than McCain during the nomination process as well.

As for the press, this has been the most overwhelmingly one sided press in modern history, certainly since FDR.

BTW, the editorial endorsements of the press are almost meaningless. What matters is the day to day tone of the coverage, particularly of the TV networks, but also the leading papers, especially since their stuff is picked up by the rest of the media.

Among other things there's been just about no willingness to go after the ample indications that Obama's voting record, pre campaign political positions, and political associations place in on the far left wing of the Democrat party.

[tommy]

Linda,

"Just the fact that blacks are willing to consider half-whites and even 3/4whites to be "African American" shows they are accepting of other races."

No it doesn't. Do they accept Obama in spite of the fact that he is half-white or because he is half-black?

"By contrast, whites demand virtually 100% white purity to be considered white."

Yeah, because sure blacks don't adhere to the one-drop rule. Give me a break.

"So are you saying that she knew the war was wrong, but voted for it anyway? There were plenty of senators who voted against it, and not all were Democrats."

I'm saying politicians with nothing to lose tend to compromise less.

"The war was popular at the time he opposed it, even among Democrats."

Not that popular. He wasn't risking many Democratic votes by opposing a war he didn't have a vote on and would not have been held to account for.

"Even now, most are voting for the virtually 100% white McCain and the virtually 100% white Palin. Meanwhile blacks are willing to accept a candidate who is only 50% black (and from a different region of African than they're from)."

Far fewer blacks are crossing racial lines than whites. Plenty of blacks are voting for Obama because 50% black is still 50% more black than Hillary or McCain can offer.

Vim,

"Linda: Well argued."

Hardly. Her points are garbled, contradictory, and full of non sequitur. Look more closely.

"here could be a similar issue going on with African-Americans where the lack of other groups in Africa or the changing the proportions of groups actually increases the variance in the population. I would actually expect them to have a higher diversity because there is 20% white admixture and outliers significantly affect variance"

The point about variation is irrelevant. The important thing is that Obama is perceived as an African-American. If an East African were adopted into a West African tribe from birth there would be more loyalty displayed toward the adoptee by members of his tribe than toward a more closely related rival West African tribe. So long as Obama is perceived as a member of the African-American tribe and displays an interest in the welfare of the tribe, he will be accepted by blacks willing to vote their race.

[tommy]

For those interested in this little debate between Linda and I, let me ask you to consider six (leading) questions:

1. Without regard to the nuances of his background, do blacks perceive Obama as an African-American, yes or no?

2. If blacks perceive Obama as an African-American, why do they perceive him as such?

3. Are blacks voting for Obama out of ethnocentrism or out of a loftier desire for racial equality in the realm of American presidencies?

4. If blacks are seeking equality in the field of presidencies, would they equally support Alan Keyes as a presidential candidate?

5. If they would not support Alan Keyes as a presidential candidate, in spite of the fact that this would provide blacks with their first African-American president, then why not?

6. If blacks would not support Alan Keyes as a presidential candidate, and it is merely because of his conservative stances on topics like abortion or guns, then why do so many blacks support Obama with almost no knowledge of his positions (as humorously demonstrated by Howard Stern)?

[Linda]

"No it doesn't. Do they accept Obama in spite of the fact that he is half-white or because he is half-black?"

It doesn't seem to bother blacks that he's half-white, but a lot of whites are bothered by him being half-black.

"By contrast, whites demand virtually 100% white purity to be considered white."

Whites created the one-drop rule to maintain the purity and exclusivity of the white race. By contrast blacks welcome hybrids of every shade.

"I'm saying politicians with nothing to lose tend to compromise less."

You don't compromise your integrity on a matter as serious as war, unless you're a psychopath with no respect for human life.

"Not that popular. He wasn't risking many Democratic votes by opposing a war he didn't have a vote on and would not have been held to account for."

Considering his middle name is Hussein, it took far more courage for Obama to oppose the war than it would have for Hillary. No one would have questioned Hillary's Americanism had she opposed the war the way many other senators did. She probably just incorrectly calculated that the war would be quick and easy and wanted to later take credit for being on the right side of history. Obama by contrast had the IQ to realize the war would be a disaster, and democrats rewarded him by giving him the nomination.

"Far fewer blacks are crossing racial lines than whites. Plenty of blacks are voting for Obama because 50% black is still 50% more black than Hillary or McCain can offer."

Whites have already had 43 white presidents in a row. The novelty of a white president has kind of passed. By contrast blacks have the opportunity for a near black president for the first time in history, so of course blacks are going to be especially loyal to such a candidate. Context matters. Think about it.

[Linda]

"Linda: Well argued."

Thank you!

[Linda]

"1. Without regard to the nuances of his background, do blacks perceive Obama as an African-American, yes or no?"

Blacks percieve any American with some black ancestry as an African American and do not discriminate against the non-black part of a hybrid's ancestry. By contrast, you can't join the exclusive white club unless you're virtually 100% white.

"2. If blacks perceive Obama as an African-American, why do they perceive him as such?"

Because unlike many whites, they're not racist enough to care about racial purity. They welcome the genes of other races into their race and don't discriminate against hybrids.

"3. Are blacks voting for Obama out of ethnocentrism or out of a loftier desire for racial equality in the realm of American presidencies?"

Out of a loftier desire for racial equality in the realm of American presidencies. Blacks have dreamed of the day when their sons and daughters could see a black face in the white house. A black president sends the message that blacks are equal like nothing else. It gives fatherless young black men something to strive for other than being an athlete, drug dealer, or rap star. It sends a message to people all over the world that blacks are not inferior and that blacks can amount to something.

"4. If blacks are seeking equality in the field of presidencies, would they equally support Alan Keyes as a presidential candidate?"

No

"5. If they would not support Alan Keyes as a presidential candidate, in spite of the fact that this would provide blacks with their first African-American president, then why not?"

Because his policies hurt the poor and since blacks are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, it would be stupid and unethical of them to vote for him.

"6. If blacks would not support Alan Keyes as a presidential candidate, and it is merely because of his conservative stances on topics like abortion or guns, then why do so many blacks support Obama with almost no knowledge of his positions (as humorously demonstrated by Howard Stern)?"

Because they know he's a democrat, and democrats have a reputation for fighting for equality.

[Vim]

tommy:

As far as I can tell there is one point being made: blacks are cliquish and only vote to advance the interests of blacks. Your main evidence consists of two points: Blacks are voting heavily for the current black candidate and that if Keynes (and other hypothetical black candidates of your imagination) fail to support pro-black policies, they do not get many votes.

1. Internal inconsistency. You say blacks are voting for Obama because he is black. You say that this is important part of why they are voting for him. When one points out other blacks who blacks will not vote for like Keyes, you say his being black is not important. What's important is that he supports pro-black politicies. In other words, it's irrelevant that Obama is black and pretty important that he's a Democrat. I suggest that if you are intellectually honest, you will drop the part of your argument that says voting for Barack Obama is significant evidence of blacks simple voting for the black guy. Moreover, you seem to have excluded the early example of blacks voting for Hillary and it seems to me no analysis can be complete without this example being thoroughly dealt with.

2. Empirical measures. Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004. Last I heard Obama has about 92% according to the polls so being black (if that's what's going on) is worth about 4%. This seems rather low.

3. As has been heavily emphasized on this site, blacks have on average an IQ of about 85. Rational self-interest and empirical evidence would lead them to realize they need more social support than other groups. This does not make them bad people. This is just the calculus of the situation.

4. As Linda pointed out, it's natural for people to want to support someone who looks like them if they have been at the bottom of society since the beginning of the country and continue to be at the bottom. What kind of fairminded person could interpret this aspiration as racism? Furthermore, many whites have the same feelings.

5. Let us assume tha voters are voting their self-interest. Again, as Linda pointed out, there are benefits to black Americans of a black president independent of his policies. There is the sense that he will make a good role model. He might also give the voter confidence that regardless of his or her race, racism is no longer a factor in achieving even the highest job in America. Now , I am sure you have disagreements with their perceptions. But nevertheless, if it is their perception that they have little hope of succeeding in life because of the attitudes of others then it seems to me that voting in an attempt to overcome that perception is a valid and reasonable action. Evidence that they support Barack without being clear on his policies might indicate that his policies are not the main perceived benefit. However, because of branding they might be assuming that his policies are best for them because he is a Democrat. This might actually make the most sense for people who feel their analytical ability is not up to accessing the policies directly.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

Vim,

Let's cut through the crap. Blacks will vote for whichever party or man promises to make the tax dollars and jobs flow their way. This has been the secret of what little success that they can lay claim to. A welfare state funded by the hated other is the stuff of dreams for low IQ dead weight, stuffed full of "you been wronged and they owe you for it" propaganda. Obama is of that party and is that man, as you correctly observe his race doesn't much enter into it. No need for feel good fairy tales about little Demarcus being inspired by the potential for a 2048 run for POTUS.

[Wade Nichols]

"Come to think of it, there's been 46 white vice presidents in a row, which further underscores the power monopoly whites have."

Not only that, the British Royal Family has been all white since the Union of the Crowns in 1603. Same with the Royal Family in Sweden - those dastardly Scandinavian "crackers" have been all white since the Standing Orders of the House of Knights was issued in 1626.

Quick! Linda! Vim! Call Al Sharpton on your mobile phones immediately! I think there's a clear case of systematic oppression of "persons of color" in both the British and Swedish Royal Families!

Now don't get me started on the Royal Family of Lesotho!

[Wade Nichols]

"Because unlike many whites, they're not racist enough to care about racial purity. They welcome the genes of other races into their race and don't discriminate against hybrids."

That's why the panties of Beta guys like Vim and David Alexander get all twisted whenever they see one of "their sisters" with "light skin and good hair" holding hands with a white guy! Then they give the white guy "dagger eyes" and mumble a few expletives to give further signs of their approval.

[tommy]

"Because his policies hurt the poor and since blacks are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, it would be stupid and unethical of them to vote for him."

So much for the nonsensical theory it is all about providing blacks their fair share of the presidents.

I think it's really about which man from the tribe will deliver goodies to the tribe. Keyes is an Uncle Tom because he won't hand out the taxpayer-subsidized goodies. In spite of Linda's claims to the contrary, Obama's white ancestry would be an issue among many blacks if he held the same positions as Keyes. Delivering for the tribe is the first prerequisite for any candidate blacks might support. Given two people, one white and one black, each willing to deliver goodies, blacks will almost always support the black candidate over the white. I don't think that would change if we had ten black presidents.

"Empirical measures. Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004. Last I heard Obama has about 92% according to the polls so being black (if that's what's going on) is worth about 4%. This seems rather low."

What was Kerry's share of the black vote during the Democratic nomination versus other contenders? Was it as lopsided as Obama's to Hillary's?

"As Linda pointed out, it's natural for people to want to support someone who looks like them if they have been at the bottom of society since the beginning of the country and continue to be at the bottom."

Unless blacks adopt eugenics, that isn't going to change.

[tommy]

"You say blacks are voting for Obama because he is black. You say that this is important part of why they are voting for him. When one points out other blacks who blacks will not vote for like Keyes, you say his being black is not important."

I never said any such thing. I asked a series of questions to stimulate thought. My point was that blacks aren't voting for Obama to even the score in the realm of American presidencies.

When two candidates are "pro-black," being black is the next most important thing. I don't think blacks supported Obama over Hillary because of Obama's stance on the war. If Obama had initially supported the war, I don't think that would impact his popularity among blacks. I think they supported him over Hillary because he is black. That simple.

Most blacks probably don't know much about the positions of either Obama or Keyes. All they know is that Obama will probably give them shit and Keyes probably won't. When it comes to Obama and Hillary, all they know is Obama is blacker than Hillary. There is no grand ideal of ensuring that 12% of American presidents are blacks. Those who claim otherwise are as disingenuous as Howard Stern's blacks in Harlem who claimed to supported Obama because of "the issues."

[Chic Noir]

That's why the panties of Beta guys like Vim and David Alexander get all twisted whenever they see one of "their sisters" with "light skin and good hair" holding hands with a white guy! Then they give the white guy "dagger eyes" and mumble a few expletives to give further signs of their approval.

Posted by: Wade Nichols
______________________________

Wade, how often do you see white men with light skinned blk women? I bet it's rare. If anything the blk women in those relationships are often medium in not outright dark skinned. Have you dated a blk woman and had some "brothers" give you the mean eye? Is that why you are so pissed? Can you define "good hair"?

[Vim]

TSR:

"Let's cut through the crap. Blacks will vote for whichever party or man promises to make the tax dollars and jobs flow their way."

I think that's basically true. If I recall, there is a study that says 75% of African Americans think race is a reason to vote for Obama. Not the only reason but one reason. My point was that it was not the only true idea and that other truths should affect how we look at this one.

"No need for feel good fairy tales about little Demarcus being inspired by the potential for a 2048 run for POTUS."

I've met a lot of people who were inspired. I'm inspired. Many people I know who do not live (and probably will never live) in America are inspired. I am sure there are blacks who feel invested in the status quo of perceptions that white America won't give them a chance so why try. But I think others will be open to the signal that white America is giving them through voting for Obama.

[Wade Nichols]

"Wade, how often do you see white men with light skinned blk women? I bet it's rare. If anything the blk women in those relationships are often medium in [sic] not outright dark skinned."

Hmmm...and why is that? Also, define "dark skinned"?

"Have you dated a blk woman and had some "brothers" give you the mean eye?"

C'mon, are you serious? Do you really think I would admit that to you? It's the only thing that a white person could say that gets MOST black people more discombobulated than if a white person said they were a member of the klan or the American Nazi Party.

"Is that why you are so pissed?"

I'm hardly pissed.

"Can you define "good hair"?"

You're not even being remotely clever with this one, you're obviously trying to "bait" me even more blatantly then my original lame attempt at baiting! You've obviously never had many conversations with black women over hair issues, or if you did, you don't wish to reveal your cards to "the crackers".

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

"Many people I know who do not live (and probably will never live) in America are inspired. I am sure there are blacks who feel invested in the status quo of perceptions that white America won't give them a chance so why try."

Oh, goody.

[Vim]

Wade:

1. (External inconsistency) What about either me or DA suggests we are the sort of person that would be so rude in our day to day lives?

2. (Internal inconsistency) If we are 'beta', then why would be trying to pick fights with people in the street for no reason.

3. That was a pretty random and childish comment.

[Insoluble Fact]

"Blacks victimize eachother at far higher rates than blacks victimize whites. In addition, blacks are the most genetically diverse race, so they have the least to gain genetically from helping one another. Whites are relatively genetically homogenous, so they are prone to favour their group." - Linda

Both statements are highly misleading.

For most crimes, the race of the perpertrator and the victim are the same. This is true of all races, but not to the same degree. As shown by FBI data: "Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the nation, committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial crime. Fifty-seven percent of the violent crime committed by blacks had white victims. Less than 3 percent of violence committed by whites had black victims."
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hatecrime.htm

Black Africans are only the most diverse group if you count junk DNA. In terms of DNA that actually codes for something, they are not the most diverse.
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/cavalli-sforza_ii.htm

[Chic Noir]

You're not even being remotely clever with this one, you're obviously trying to "bait" me even more blatantly then my original lame attempt at baiting! You've obviously never had many conversations with black women over hair issues, or if you did, you don't wish to reveal your cards to "the crackers".

Posted by: Wade Nichols

HUH?

[Vim]

Chic Noir:

I think he's having PTSD flashbacks and talking to imaginary black people, the ones that say "cracker" and laugh about deceiving whitey. Yeah, that's right we all have nothing better to do with our lives than delight in deceiving crazy-ass Wade Nichols, the blog commentor.

[Insoluble Fact]

Apropos of the thread title, does it count as a conspiracy when the left-controlled media harps endlessly on a few examples of purely psychological white-on-black hate crime (like a rope put in a tree by a white student to taunt another white student), while ignoring the above-cite massive scale of black-on-white sexual violence?

It's not a conspiracy. It's absolutely tacit and thoughtless - a knee-jerk application of the principle that racism is an inherently white trait, and that black people must not be criticized.

100% of rapes are hate crimes. Interracial rapes are racial hate crimes. Deny that if you dare.