Armstrong is no hero in Texas.

BikingBernie

BIG.AL.1 wrote:

The USA has a population of 300million people. Over 60million voted for a black president. Have a think about those figures.

Yes, and who were those who voted Obama into power? Mainly black voters, especially those who don't usually bother to vote, and even more importantly Hispanics. There was no significant shift in the white vote and in many 'Bible belt' states the white population votes overwhelmingly for the white Republican alternative to Obama...

andylav

Edited to remove comment - nothing useful to contribute

BIG.AL.1

HA HA, I just trolled you BB. I knew when I threw in the population figures you wouldn't be able to resist posting more crap.

You responded exactly as expected. With complete and total nonsense. And a total lack of knowledge or understanding.

This is my final post. I'll go back to reading about cycling and skipping through your posts. I now know you are not a troll. But a genuinely ignorant person.

AL

moray_gub

BikingBernie wrote:

There was no significant shift in the white vote and in many 'Bible belt' states the white population votes overwhelmingly for the white Republican alternative to Obama...

Those states generally vote Republican irrespective of the colour of the candidates skin.Yet you are portraying that as a racist issue when its not the case at all. People like you who imply racism when its clearly not get on my tits at times .

BikingBernie

Moray Gub wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

There was no significant shift in the white vote and in many 'Bible belt' states the white population votes overwhelmingly for the white Republican alternative to Obama...

Those states generally vote Republican irrespective of the colour of the candidates skin.Yet you are portraying that as a racist issue when its not the case at all.

That wasn't my intention. What I was trying to point out was that many people have tried to argue that the election of Obama was some sort of proof positive that white America has become blind to colour and that he got into power because of an awful lot of white voters shifted their allegiance to support him and the Democrats. The truth is he got into power largely because of a large shift in the Hispanic vote and, as you say, many voters simply followed their traditional party allegiances. To be fair it does seem that having a black candidate did not cost the Democrats that many white votes, but perhaps that would expected given that Democrats are supposed to be more liberal in their values than Republicans. Then again, is also seems to be the case that some disillusioned Republicans and 'swing' voters who might have switched their allegiance, so giving the Democrats a bigger winning margin, did not do so for 'racial' issues. For example:

People still see things in black and white.

...a closer look at the polls uncovers a stubbornly consistent racial divide. A recent Gallup poll had 91% of black voters backing Obama - indicating a nationwide trend in tune with Mississippi. Hispanics were keen on him too, with 68%. But non-Hispanic whites showed a clear preference for McCain, at 49% to Obama's 39%. When you factor in gender, the disparity is yet more glaring. White women came out evenly divided between the two candidates, but look at the findings for white men: McCain 55%, Obama 34%.

That may not matter so much in the south, where white voters have - ever since Reagan's Philadelphia speech - tended to vote sheeplike for the Republicans anyway. But it could matter a lot in several northern states such as Ohio, Michigan or Pennsylvania where the contest is likely to be tight and where there is a preponderance of white working-class voters struggling in the economically stricken rust belt.

...it is the north that today hosts the most segregated cities in the US. The most recent census in 2000 shows that nine out of the 10 most segregated cities are northern, including New York, Chicago, and Cleveland and Cincinnati in the crucial electoral battleground of Ohio. "The northern system of segregation has never been about symbols of power on the streets - separate water fountains - but about segregated neighbourhoods and workplaces," says Kevin Boyle, a specialist in race and culture at Ohio State University. He reminds us that Obama struggled to gain support among white working-class communities in several northern states in the primary fight against Hillary Clinton, where issues of race and class are interwoven. In Ohio, almost one in five Democratic voters told exit pollsters that race had loomed large in their decision (Clinton won by 54% to 44%). "States like Ohio are so close that just a couple of percent of voters who decide not to vote for him on grounds of race could swing the result," Boyle says.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/au ... s2008.race

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

You choose to live in France, a country in which Jean-Marie Le Pen attracts 10-20% of the electorate, even coming second in the 2002 Presidential Election.

The vote for Le Pen in the primary round of the 2002 election was very much a 'protest' vote due to the unpopularity of the mainstream parties and he was annihilated in the final round. He also got nowhere last time around.

To be honest I have found that racism is more common and certainly more open in the UK than it is in France. Just look at the constant rants about Gypsies, immigrants and ‘asylum seekers’ in the most popular newspapers in Britain such as The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Express - who are, of course, in the business of pandering to the prejudices of their readers.

It is also the case that in the UK the mainstream political parties, and especially the Tories, mindful of the appeal of racist rhetoric to a large part of the British electorate, have managed to marginalise the BNP by the simple expedient of ensuring that they themselves do enough to pander to the ‘send them home’ brigade.

BikingBernie

colint wrote:

He's a one eyed bigotted kn*b incapable of constructing a point of his own, which is why he has to resort to copy and pasting so much.

I have always believed that it is important to be able to back up what one says with evidence; you don't seem to think this is important. I guess it is also a bugger when the evidence supports a position you would like to deny. I guess that is why so many on here, instead of arguing the point, resort to ad hominem attacks...

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

You choose to live in France, a country in which Jean-Marie Le Pen attracts 10-20% of the electorate, even coming second in the 2002 Presidential Election.

The vote for Le Pen in the primary round of the 2002 election was very much a 'protest' vote due to the unpopularity of the mainstream parties and he was annihilated in the final round. He also got nowhere last time around.

There may well have been a protest element to his vote, but he took 16.9% in the first round in 2002, compared to 15% in 1995 and 14.3% in 1988, with over 4m votes each time. His share dropped to 10.4% last time, but he still got 3.8 million votes. That's a substantial proportion of the population.

Now I wouldn't say that France is a racist country. It's not, and most find Le Pen repellent. But while you point at other countries, selectively choosing reports to denounce their repugnance, you fail to acknowledge that your 'superior' adopted homeland hosts one of the very few consistently widely supported racist parties in the western world.

paulcuthbert

RichN95 wrote:

Now I wouldn't say that France is a racist country

You've obviously never been to Marseille...

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

your 'superior' adopted homeland hosts one of the very few consistently widely supported racist parties in the western world.

As I said, in the UK the mainstream political parties, and especially the Tories, mindful of the appeal of racist rhetoric to a large part of the British electorate, have managed to marginalise the BNP by the simple expedient of ensuring that they themselves do enough to pander to the 'send them home' brigade. At least in France Le Pen and what he stands for seems to be kept out of mainstream politics to a much greater degree than it is in the UK.

If you bother to look you will also find that there are plenty of popular parties around that are every bit as extreme as the FN. Just take a look at the Swiss, whose biggest party - the SVP - is not only openly racist, it is practically fascist...

colint

BikingBernie wrote:

colint wrote:

He's a one eyed bigotted kn*b incapable of constructing a point of his own, which is why he has to resort to copy and pasting so much.

I have always believed that it is important to be able to back up what one says with evidence; you don't seem to think this is important. I guess it is also a bugger when the evidence supports a position you would like to deny. I guess that is why so many on here, instead of arguing the point, resort to ad hominem attacks...

Not quite true, there are plenty on here who argue a similar position as yours on LA very well without trying to railroad every thread they contribute on down the same road and basically being a total bore. Crack on and enjoy yourself, I'll be doing what I did with the Aurelio posts and ignoring them. If I want to debate doping I'll do so with the other contributors who do it better than your search engine happy copy and paste trolling