Jump to content

Espn’S Stephen A. Smith Wishes ‘Every Black Person In America’ Votes Republican For One Election


Billy Ocean
 Share

Recommended Posts

March 19, 2015 - 10:47 AM
By Melanie Hunter

(CNSNews.com) – Speaking at the Impact Symposium at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., on Tuesday, ESPN host Stephen A. Smith said he dreams that for just one election, every black person in America will vote Republican, so that neither party takes the black community for granted.

“I have often said, and I’m not talking about President Obama. I’m just talking about the times we’re living in. I have often said that from a political perspective, what I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote Republican,” said Smith, according to audio obtained by Mediaite.com.

“From what I’ve read, Barry Goldwater is going against Lyndon B. Johnson. He’s your Republican candidate. He is completely against the civil rights movement. Lyndon B. Johnson was in favor of it – civil rights legislation. What happens is he wins office. Barry Goldwater loses office, but there was a Senate, a Republican Senate, that pushed the votes to the president’s desk. It was the Democrats who were against civil rights legislation – the Southern Dixiecrats, right – so because the president Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, black America assumed the Democrats were for it,” Smith said.

“Do you know that since 1965, black America hasn’t given the Republican Party more than 15 percent of its vote?” he asked.

“Here’s what that means: … black folks in America are telling one party, ‘We don’t give a **** about you.’ They’re telling the other party, ‘You got our vote.’ Therefore, you have labeled yourself disenfranchised, because one party knows they got you under their thumb. The other party knows they’ll never get you, and nobody comes to address your interest,” Smith said.

“So my point is…when you go buy a house, do you look at one? When you go looking for a car, do you look at one? When you want to buy some clothes, when you want to buy some shoes, when you want to buy anything, you’re shopping around. You know what you’re saying to somebody? ‘Flatter me. What you got? Let me see what you have to offer,’” he said.

“We don’t do that with politics, and then we blame white America for our disenfranchisement when it is us, because all we have to do is upset the apple cart by not doing what’s predictable, and it will force everybody to pay attention to us, because if Democrats will be scared of losing our vote, the Republicans will say, ‘Wait a minute. We might have a chance to get it,’ and then all of a sudden, everybody will cater to our needs just like they cater to Jewish folks, to the white folks, and beyond, and suddenly, we won’t be disenfranchised anymore,” Smith said.

“I do not understand for the life of me why we as a people don’t draw that conclusion and act accordingly. We play right into folks’ hands, and I hate the fact that anybody – I don’t give a **** Democrat, Independent, Republican – I hate the fact that anybody is allowed to believe that they have a block of people in the palm of their hands. That disgusts me. That’s never good for America,” he concluded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in the 4th Congressional district in GA, and in 2006, our choices were Hank Johnson or Cynthia McKinney.

That was the first time it occurred to me that the Democrats were just throwing out terrible candidates because they knew they didn't have any real competition, thus selling our district up the river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in the 4th Congressional district in GA, and in 2006, our choices were Hank Johnson or Cynthia McKinney.

That was the first time it occurred to me that the Democrats were just throwing out terrible candidates because they knew they didn't have any real competition, thus selling our district up the river.

Gerrymandering has played a big role in that on both sides. One party basically runs unopposed so you end up getting whomever can out-crazy their opponents in the primaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is never going to happen, especially with the republicans current attitude towards african americans. Calling people welfare queens and thugs is not going to get them to vote for you, but the dems have really abused the ability to have the vast majority of black votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerrymandering has played a big role in that on both sides. One party basically runs unopposed so you end up getting whomever can out-crazy their opponents in the primaries.

Yup. I voted Republican in 2010 and 2012. Hank Johnson ran unopposed in 2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For 50 years $22 trillion has not been the answer as far as education, a decent job, a stable livelihood, etc. Throwing money at the problem has only made the problem continue to rise and the situation worse.

You don't seem to understand that the alternative to spending money on these problems isn't knowable, so there's no way to gauge whether it would be better or worse without spending. Further, please show us how spending has caused the problem of poverty to increase?

Surely you see the merit of providing basic needs for people who do not have their basic needs met by any other means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the sentiment, but the problem is the Republicans need to work for their votes. No prominent Republican I've seen since Kemp has really sought to do so. The Rand-ian wing of the party is too hung up on "handouts" and "leaches" and the like, and the Rockefeller Republicans, well, they all became Democrats a while back.

What would be nice is for someone to rise up and fill Kemp's shoes and start talking about ending poverty by growing opportunity in poor, largely black areas, helping start black-owned businesses, etc. And doing so in ways that are not pandering and talking down to black Americans, but respectful and willing to listen. But then Republicans would have to vote for them, and as Kemp proved, that's probably not going to happen.

Dang, I miss Jack Kemp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with saying 'what do the poor have to show for it' is that the alternative is an unknown. Food, shelter, and education are all things that come to mind when I think of what the poor have to show for social programs.

food and shelter I will go with. education, not so much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Department Of Education Study Finds Teaching These Little ***** No Longer Worth It

Newseducation ISSUE 46•46 Nov 15, 2010

Officials say these vicious little ******** are beyond any kind of help.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Education released a comprehensive, nationwide evaluation of American schools Monday indicating that attempts to teach absolutely anything to these little ***** is just a huge waste of everybody's time.

"We remain committed to providing every student in the country with access to a high-quality education," said Education Secretary Arne Duncan, adding that good schools are a key component to the success of American democracy. "But to be honest, none of that matters. We're not talking about promising young scholars here—we're talking about a bunch of ******* animals."

"We've basically flushed $11,000 down the toilet for every single one of these little ********," Duncan continued. "Not to mention 18 years of my life."

The study, which analyzed the effectiveness of both public and private schools, found that efforts to enlighten these terrors on the subjects of math, history, grammar, and science are as productive as slamming your head into a ******* brick wall. The research also confirmed that the unbearable *****, who take everything for granted, consistently piss away each learning opportunity they're given.

"When I first started teaching, I would see the smiling faces in my classroom and get excited about nurturing their young minds," said Melanie Whitman, 35, a first-grade teacher quoted in the report. "Now I can't look up from my desk without wanting to puke at the sight of all those little psychopaths."

Secretary Duncan said the study is the first to provide detailed evidence in support of the theory that third-grader Scott Kriesel is a complete ****-up and perhaps even the living incarnation of Satan.

According to the report, billions of dollars in federal resources have been spent to modernize classrooms and improve teacher training, even though the little brats spend their entire days carving profanities into desks, shouting at whoever's in charge, and refusing to sit down, shut up, and actually learn something for once.

In addition, research suggests that school boards across the nation have grown tired of fighting to obtain funding for brand-new textbooks only to have the miserable ****s just deface them all with ejaculating ***** drawings on the first day of class.

When asked if charter schools might help solve some of the problems faced by public education, Deputy Education Secretary Anthony W. Miller told reporters the data indicated any difference they made would amount to jack ****.

"Some charter schools perform better than their public counterparts, some don't," Miller said. "You can't change the fact that any school, no matter how it's funded, is ultimately just another type of building to contain these ******* monsters for seven hours a day."

Miller added that more involvement from home was not the answer, either, as the little ***** tend to have shithead parents who just make everything worse. The only findings from the study that provide a glimmer of hope, he said, are student absenteeism and dropout rates, which continue to increase.

"Christ, I dedicated my career to my students, actually thinking I could make a difference in their lives," middle-school teacher Joan Kubickers said Monday. "If I'd gone into public relations, I'd be making six figures by now. And at a PR firm, I bet I wouldn't have to worry about my tires getting slashed in the parking lot."

"Well, I have to go," she added. "The ******* hyenas in my third-period class await."

The Department of Education study comes on the heels of a survey last month that found 90 percent of all elementary school students resent being taught by pathetic losers who couldn't get a decent job in the real world.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/department-of-education-study-finds-teaching-these,18461/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Pic:NA:InFocus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rand-ian wing of the party is too hung up on "handouts" and "leaches" and the like

The way the GOP has framed the debate on the redistribution of national income has been pretty masterful.

The party that truly believes in redistribution

Which is the more redistributionist of our two parties? In recent decades, as Republicans have devoted themselves with laser-like intensity to redistributing America’s wealth and income upward, the evidence suggests the answer is the GOP.

The most obvious way that Republicans have robbed from the middle to give to the rich has been the changes they wrought in the tax code — reducing income taxes for the wealthy in the Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, and cutting the tax rate on capital gains to less than half the rateon the top income of upper-middle-class employees.

The less widely understood way that Republicans have helped redistribute wealth to the already wealthy is by changing the rules. Markets don’t function without rules, and the rules that Republican policymakers have made since Ronald Reagan became president have consistently depressed the share of the nation’s income that the middle class can claim.

Part of the intellectual sleight-of-hand that Republicans employ in discussions of redistribution is to reserve that term solely for government intervention in the market that redistributes income downward. But markets redistribute wealth continuously. In recent decades, markets have redistributed wealth from manufacturing to finance, from Main Street to Wall Street, from workers to shareholders. Rules made by “pro-market” governments (including those of “pro-market” Democrats) have enabled these epochal shifts. Free trade with China helped hollow out manufacturing; the failure to regulate finance enabled Wall Street to swell; the opposition to labor’s efforts to reestablish an even playing field during organizing campaigns has all but eliminated collective bargaining in the private sector.

The conservative counter to such liberal cavils is to assert that the market increases wealth, which will eventually descend on everyone as the gentle rains from heaven. Decrying such Keynesian notions as unions or federally established minimum wages, hedge fund guru Andy Kessler recently argued in the Wall Street Journal that “it is workers’ productivity that drives long-term wage gains, not workers’ wages that drive growth.”

But Kessler assumes — and this is the very essence of the “trickle-down” argument — that workers reap the rewards of productivity gains. Believing and asserting that requires either ignorance or willful denial of economic history. The only time in U.S. history when workers substantially benefited from productivity gains was the three decades that followed World War II, when median household income and productivity gains both increased by102 percent. Not coincidentally, that was also the only period of genuine union power in U.S. history, and the time when the tax code was at its most progressive. During the past quarter-century, as progressivity was lessened and unions diminished, all productivity gains have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent, according to research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. In 1955, at the height of union strength, the wealthiest 10 percent received 33 percent of the nation’s personal income. In 2007, they received 50 percent, Economic Policy Institute data show.

If that’s not redistribution, I don’t know what is.

The problem is not just that everyone but the wealthy is claiming a smaller share of the nation’s income; the absolute amount of income they’re getting is declining as well. Median household income has dropped to the levels of the mid-1990s, according to Pew analysis of census data, while the income of the 400 wealthiest Americans rose by a tidy $200 billion last year, according to data released this month by Forbes magazine.

Indeed, the United States has experienced an upward redistribution so profound that it affects far more than incomes. Whole sectors of the economy and regions of the country have been decimated by these economic changes. The descent in all manner of social indexes is most apparent among poorly educated whites. Conservative commentatorCharles Murray has documented in his new book the decline in marriage rates and family stability within the white working class. And now, as the New York Times’ Sabrina Tavernise has reported, that decline includes longevity as well. While other Americans’ life expectancy has advanced, the life expectancy of whites without high school diplomas has declined since 1990 — by three years among men and five years among women.

The market is not just redistributing income in the United States, then. It is redistributing life.

So, which party can claim credit for this — the real redistribution this nation has experienced over the past 30 years? Many Democrats have been complicit in this calamity by their indifference to the consequences of deregulation and trade. But the trophy for promoting the policies that have redistributed wealth, family stability and longevity upward goes to the Republicans, whose standard-bearers are championing even more radical versions of these policies today.

A pro-life party? More like its opposite.

meyersonh@washpost.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Department Of Education Study Finds Teaching These Little ***** No Longer Worth It

News education ISSUE 4646 Nov 15, 2010

Officials say these vicious little ******** are beyond any kind of help.

WASHINGTONThe U.S. Department of Education released a comprehensive, nationwide evaluation of American schools Monday indicating that attempts to teach absolutely anything to these little

***** is just a huge waste of everybody's time.

"We remain committed to providing every student in the country with access to a high-quality education," said Education Secretary Arne Duncan, adding that good schools are a key component to the success of American democracy. "But to be honest, none of that matters. We're not talking about promising young scholars herewe're talking about a bunch of ******* animals."

"We've basically flushed $11,000 down the toilet for every single one of these little ********," Duncan continued. "Not to mention 18 years of my life."

The study, which analyzed the effectiveness of both public and private schools, found that efforts to enlighten these terrors on the subjects of math, history, grammar, and science are as productive as slamming your head into a ******* brick wall. The research also confirmed that the unbearable *****, who take everything for granted, consistently piss away each learning opportunity they're given.

"When I first started teaching, I would see the smiling faces in my classroom and get excited about nurturing their young minds," said Melanie Whitman, 35, a first-grade teacher quoted in the report. "Now I can't look up from my desk without wanting to puke at the sight of all those little psychopaths."

Secretary Duncan said the study is the first to provide detailed evidence in support of the theory that third-grader Scott Kriesel is a complete ****-up and perhaps even the living incarnation of Satan.

According to the report, billions of dollars in federal resources have been spent to modernize classrooms and improve teacher training, even though the little brats spend their entire days carving profanities into desks, shouting at whoever's in charge, and refusing to sit down, shut up, and actually learn something for once.

In addition, research suggests that school boards across the nation have grown tired of fighting to obtain funding for brand-new textbooks only to have the miserable ****s just deface them all with ejaculating ***** drawings on the first day of class.

When asked if charter schools might help solve some of the problems faced by public education, Deputy Education Secretary Anthony W. Miller told reporters the data indicated any difference they made would amount to jack ****.

"Some charter schools perform better than their public counterparts, some don't," Miller said. "You can't change the fact that any school, no matter how it's funded, is ultimately just another type of building to contain these ******* monsters for seven hours a day."

Miller added that more involvement from home was not the answer, either, as the little ***** tend to have shithead parents who just make everything worse. The only findings from the study that provide a glimmer of hope, he said, are student absenteeism and dropout rates, which continue to increase.

"Christ, I dedicated my career to my students, actually thinking I could make a difference in their lives," middle-school teacher Joan Kubickers said Monday. "If I'd gone into public relations, I'd be making six figures by now. And at a PR firm, I bet I wouldn't have to worry about my tires getting slashed in the parking lot."

"Well, I have to go," she added. "The ******* hyenas in my third-period class await."

The Department of Education study comes on the heels of a survey last month that found 90 percent of all elementary school students resent being taught by pathetic losers who couldn't get a decent job in the real world.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/department-of-education-study-finds-teaching-these,18461/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Pic:NA:InFocus

Hilarious and so very true

Edited by toadfishtom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the sentiment, but the problem is the Republicans need to work for their votes. No prominent Republican I've seen since Kemp has really sought to do so. The Rand-ian wing of the party is too hung up on "handouts" and "leaches" and the like, and the Rockefeller Republicans, well, they all became Democrats a while back.

What would be nice is for someone to rise up and fill Kemp's shoes and start talking about ending poverty by growing opportunity in poor, largely black areas, helping start black-owned businesses, etc. And doing so in ways that are not pandering and talking down to black Americans, but respectful and willing to listen. But then Republicans would have to vote for them, and as Kemp proved, that's probably not going to happen.

Dang, I miss Jack Kemp.

dhMeAzK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is never going to happen, especially with the republicans current attitude towards african americans. Calling people welfare queens and thugs is not going to get them to vote for you, but the dems have really abused the ability to have the vast majority of black votes.

Yea, we've heard this argument before but in the current political climate it's essentially like telling a woman who is being ignored to leave her husband for a man that beats her to get the 1st to pay attention.

Black voters in the US might get politicians to be more concerned with their community if they went out at voted in larger numbers outside of 2008 and 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the sentiment I was trying to convey with the $22 trillion in 50 years. Instead of giving poor communities a permanent meager stipend to live off of, find a way to perpetuate those communities into growing their own sustainability, in which they would be far better off from than waiting for the government scraps. .

That is pretty much the sentiment I was tryg t

They just sent crack... Then arrested everyone... Then there was that black wall street we weren't allowed to have...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From What I've read, Barry Goldwater is going against Lyndon B. Johnson. He’s your Republican candidate. He is completely against the civil rights movement. Lyndon B. Johnson was in favor of it – civil rights legislation. What happens is he wins office. Barry Goldwater loses office, but there was a Senate, a Republican Senate, that pushed the votes to the president’s desk. It was the Democrats who were against civil rights legislation – the Southern Dixiecrats, right – so because the president Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, black America assumed the Democrats were for it,” Smith said.

Problem for Smith is that he's been reading Snake's AFMB posts on this subject.

He is either ignorant or completely ignores 1) ALL of the Southerners opposed the Civil Rights Movement . . . Republicans and Democrats. At the time, MOST of the South was Democrat (the same politicians have all become Republicans). Outside of the South, More Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. 2) It isn't that Blacks aren't looking at both parties, they ARE looking at both Parties and the Republican Party's policies are contrary to their interests . . . . GENERALLY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...