I do not see any reason why it would turn into a riot. Why would it turn into a riot?

 

Heck it might be a riot, if he DOES win.

 

Watched any fan celebrations lately for sports teams?

Did he play the race card all election? No, but Obama sure did, and that's why you can expect it IMO.

 

 

There won't be riots, RTS, and "predicting" them is beneath anyone on this board, IMO. There are many reasons that one may disagree with Obama, and I can see the "other" side, although I don't agree with it. But what many threads are, is character assasination, IMO. Things are out of hand, and I'm tired of it, frankly. I noticed a new "label" for Obama supporters spouted here on the board the other day...Obamunists. It's beneath any intelligent person to try and conduct a serious discussion with such childish name calling. Threads like this are designed only to get under people's skin, and not "discuss" anything at all.

 

I'm sure I'll get the requisite "You're blowing it out of proportion" from the usual suspects. But, I'm not. I don't throw childish names about when I'm talking about Palin or McCain. And of the two, I'd be more likely to throw them around about Palin. I have serious concerns about her, which I've discussed, while trying to ignore the apparently requisite labels thrown around about Obama, and anyone who supports him.

 

Maybe there's a legitimate message somewhere that was trying to be conveyed. But it was lost in the rhetoric.

 

In the end, there's absolutely nothing worthwhile to be gained by trying to say that Obama's party will end in a riot. Nothing. It shows with clarity what is thought about people who will be attending, and others who support him. The fact is, it's all a hypothetical, and it's insulting by design.

There won't be riots, RTS, and "predicting" them is beneath anyone on this board, IMO. There are many reasons that one may disagree with Obama, and I can see the "other" side, although I don't agree with it. But what many threads are, is character assasination, IMO. Things are out of hand, and I'm tired of it, frankly. I noticed a new "label" for Obama supporters spouted here on the board the other day...Obamunists. It's beneath any intelligent person to try and conduct a serious discussion with such childish name calling. Threads like this are designed only to get under people's skin, and not "discuss" anything at all.

 

I'm sure I'll get the requisite "You're blowing it out of proportion" from the usual suspects. But, I'm not. I don't throw childish names about when I'm talking about Palin or McCain. And of the two, I'd be more likely to throw them around about Palin. I have serious concerns about her, which I've discussed, while trying to ignore the apparently requisite labels thrown around about Obama, and anyone who supports him.

 

Maybe there's a legitimate message somewhere that was trying to be conveyed. But it was lost in the rhetoric.

 

In the end, there's absolutely nothing worthwhile to be gained by trying to say that Obama's party will end in a riot. Nothing. It shows with clarity what is thought about people who will be attending, and others who support him. The fact is, it's all a hypothetical, and it's insulting by design.

 

 

I look at it the way I posted early.

 

There are riots when sports teams win or at least turning over of cars and setting trash cans on fire and the like.

 

I think Obama winning would be even more exciting for his supporters than the Bulls winning the NBA title again.

 

If they rioted after the Bulls why would you not assume that there very easily could be riots after a Obama victory?

 

Now, is that indicative of all Obama supporters? Absolutely NOT!

Is that indicative of all Bulls fans? Absolutely NOT!!!

 

But again, if it is done after a Super Bowl, World Series (think it will happen in Philly on Wednesday night if the Phillies win it all? Very possible), than why not after something that dwarfs them?

There won't be riots, RTS, and "predicting" them is beneath anyone on this board, IMO. There are many reasons that one may disagree with Obama, and I can see the "other" side, although I don't agree with it. But what many threads are, is character assasination, IMO. Things are out of hand, and I'm tired of it, frankly. I noticed a new "label" for Obama supporters spouted here on the board the other day...Obamunists. It's beneath any intelligent person to try and conduct a serious discussion with such childish name calling. Threads like this are designed only to get under people's skin, and not "discuss" anything at all.

 

I'm sure I'll get the requisite "You're blowing it out of proportion" from the usual suspects. But, I'm not. I don't throw childish names about when I'm talking about Palin or McCain. And of the two, I'd be more likely to throw them around about Palin. I have serious concerns about her, which I've discussed, while trying to ignore the apparently requisite labels thrown around about Obama, and anyone who supports him.

 

Maybe there's a legitimate message somewhere that was trying to be conveyed. But it was lost in the rhetoric.

 

In the end, there's absolutely nothing worthwhile to be gained by trying to say that Obama's party will end in a riot. Nothing. It shows with clarity what is thought about people who will be attending, and others who support him. The fact is, it's all a hypothetical, and it's insulting by design.

"Obamunists" is a fitting label for Obama's radical supporters in organization such as ACORN, the Communist Party USA, the Nation of Islam and the other far left wing organizations that support him. Members of Obama's own campaign staff have been caught casting illegal ballots in Ohio.

 

It boggles my mind that a majority of Americans appear to support a man who was a proponent of infanticide only a few years ago and who believes that it is his destiny to bring economic justice to African-Americans through legislation that will redistribute the wealth of other hard working Americans of all races and ethnicities.

 

If you seriously see no danger in holding a victory celebration on election night when there is a real possibility that the election may not be decided for days or weeks - then I don't know what to say. I hope that you are right and in the event of a McCain victory or a delayed decision Chicago remains calm but if it doesn't I hope that you will place a good measure of the blame at the man's feet to whom it will belong.

 

Obama has shown no respect for the US Constitution and I have absolutely no respect for him and make no apologies for it.

I look at it the way I posted early.

 

There are riots when sports teams win or at least turning over of cars and setting trash cans on fire and the like.

 

I think Obama winning would be even more exciting for his supporters than the Bulls winning the NBA title again.

 

If they rioted after the Bulls why would you not assume that there very easily could be riots after a Obama victory?

 

Now, is that indicative of all Obama supporters? Absolutely NOT!

Is that indicative of all Bulls fans? Absolutely NOT!!!

 

But again, if it is done after a Super Bowl, World Series (think it will happen in Philly on Wednesday night if the Phillies win it all? Very possible), than why not after something that dwarfs them?

This has the potential to be much worse than a typical sports celebration or riot. In sports, a winner and a loser are known when the game is over. This election will very likely not be decided early and after a few hours of premature "celebrating" in anticipation of the outcome, the danger of rioting will grow.

 

Remember when Al Gore conceded on election night only to later rescind his concession? Imagine what would happen if you had a million people gathered for a victory celebration and the election is mistakenly called for Obama and then followed by an announcement that the race is really too close to call and the winner may not be known for weeks.

There won't be riots, RTS, and "predicting" them is beneath anyone on this board, IMO. There are many reasons that one may disagree with Obama, and I can see the "other" side, although I don't agree with it. But what many threads are, is character assasination, IMO. Things are out of hand, and I'm tired of it, frankly. I noticed a new "label" for Obama supporters spouted here on the board the other day...Obamunists. It's beneath any intelligent person to try and conduct a serious discussion with such childish name calling. Threads like this are designed only to get under people's skin, and not "discuss" anything at all.

 

I'm sure I'll get the requisite "You're blowing it out of proportion" from the usual suspects. But, I'm not. I don't throw childish names about when I'm talking about Palin or McCain. And of the two, I'd be more likely to throw them around about Palin. I have serious concerns about her, which I've discussed, while trying to ignore the apparently requisite labels thrown around about Obama, and anyone who supports him.

 

Maybe there's a legitimate message somewhere that was trying to be conveyed. But it was lost in the rhetoric.

 

In the end, there's absolutely nothing worthwhile to be gained by trying to say that Obama's party will end in a riot. Nothing. It shows with clarity what is thought about people who will be attending, and others who support him. The fact is, it's all a hypothetical, and it's insulting by design.

Oh RM, please. Beneath anyone on this board? The same people are the ones that riot because their team wins a championship. No one said all of the Obama supporters either, just the fringe ones, and they are the ones that do things like riot. I can't help it if some people in this world do stupid things and are so predictable, RM.

Just curious, on the Obamunists subject, did you say how stupid it was when people called McCain things like McSame on this board, or did it not matter because you're not voting for him? If you did, I stand corrected and apologize for the question.

All the fraidy cats can grab their guns and lock themselves inside their houses with their bibles! LOL

That you Barack? :lol:

Have there been riots with any other recent presidential elections? If not, why should there be riots this time?

Have there been riots with any other recent presidential elections? If not, why should there be riots this time?

 

Has there been 1 million gathered in the streets of Chicago to celebrate a Presidential election before???

 

That is more reminscent of sports celebrations than Presidential elections. That is my basis for it.

Has there been 1 million gathered in the streets of Chicago to celebrate a Presidential election before???

 

That is more reminscent of sports celebrations than Presidential elections. That is my basis for it.

 

There was a "Vote for whether riots will occur" thread several days ago. Again, for those of you that think there will be riots...why for thie election and not others?

There was a "Vote for whether riots will occur" thread several days ago. Again, for those of you that think there will be riots...why for thie election and not others?

 

You didn't answer my point of whether the million in the streets like a sports celebration has ever occurred before?

 

I don't think it has. And the recent history of sports celebrations usually ends up in drunken riots.

 

That is the reason this election and not others.

There was a "Vote for whether riots will occur" thread several days ago. Again, for those of you that think there will be riots...why for thie election and not others?

 

The cops are planning for it so there may be something there. They may be underestimating the amount of people there. O is now asking people to take off work that day to help "make history".

You didn't answer my point of whether the million in the streets like a sports celebration has ever occurred before?

 

I don't think it has. And the recent history of sports celebrations usually ends up in drunken riots.

 

That is the reason this election and not others.

 

This was supposedly going to be an issue BEFORE the million in the streets of Chicago...why is that the case?

 

Sports celebration riots have happened before "recently". Again....why this election? Why not others?

This was supposedly going to be an issue BEFORE the million in the streets of Chicago...why is that the case?

 

Sports celebration riots have happened before "recently". Again....why this election? Why not others?

 

Well obviously, you are seeking an answer beyond the one I have given you.

I only got into this discussion in this thread, I think, so I will bow out as my answers are not what you are seeking.

This was supposedly going to be an issue BEFORE the million in the streets of Chicago...why is that the case?

 

Sports celebration riots have happened before "recently". Again....why this election? Why not others?

 

Give people from Chicago a chance to celebrate and they will. How many other candidates in other elections were from Chicago?