Stephen A. Smith channels @theworldismine13

[Digga38]

And F u and your whole pro-segregation argument. Thats the whole point of seperate but "equal"..keep blacks away from nicer neighborhoods and starve out their neighborhoods. Why dont people suggest asians, hispanics, and jews stay in "their" neighborhoods, which are purposely shtty after decades of neglect and racism. No, they integrate to where the jobs, nice parks, resources, and nice schools are. Shut the F up, your jim crow cac on the low.


because they do stay in their neighborhoods

 

[hashmander]

in order to be a black republican you have to undergo ben carson levels of transformation, i just don't have any interest in that.

 

[Digga38]

I'm following SAS advice.......

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

my two biggest problems with the democratic party

not supporting vouchers and charters and trying to force black children into decrepit public school systems while their children go to private

Is there any solid evidence that school vouchers are better? I only ask that because maybe Democrats don't think vouchers are a good idea and will only increase education inequality among black (minority) and white students. Private institutions are allowed to choose which students they want and don't want and since 70% of private schools are religious

making amnesty for illegal immigrants the top objective of the democratic party, which involves flooding the labor market with cheap labor which will hurt black people who already are the least educated and have the highest unemployment

1. Immigration is ONE OF THE top issues among many for Dems, yes. But immigration is generally a border/security issue that impacts everyone hence the reason why its important for both parties to address.

2. No one is suggesting outright amnesty for the umpteenth time. It's a very complex issue that deals with a lot of aspects such as those with families here while their status is not legal even though they've been here for quite some time now. And rounding up every undocumented immigrant and deporting them isn't a viable or humane solution and neither is keeping things the way they are now....so now what?

3. There are studies from prominent institutions that show immigration has little impact and positive impact on wages. So which studies are Dems suppose to accept as fact and which studies are they suppose to ignore?[/QUOTE]

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Is there any solid evidence that school vouchers are better? I only ask that because maybe Democrats don't think vouchers are a good idea and will only increase education inequality among black (minority) and white students. Private institutions are allowed to choose which students they want and don't want and since 70% of private schools are religious



1. Immigration is ONE OF THE top issues among many for Dems, yes. But immigration is generally a border/security issue that impacts everyone hence the reason why its important for both parties to address.

2. No one is suggesting outright amnesty for the umpteenth time. It's a very complex issue that deals with a lot of aspects such as those with families here while their status is not legal even though they've been here for quite some time now. And rounding up every undocumented immigrant and deporting them isn't a viable or humane solution and neither is keeping things the way they are now....so now what?

3. There are studies from prominent institutions that show immigration has little impact and positive impact on wages. So which studies are Dems suppose to accept as fact and which studies are they suppose to ignore?

[/QUOTE]

He doesn't like anyone but blacks. Arguing immigration with him is like talking to a white nationalist.

 

[theworldismine13]

Is there any solid evidence that school vouchers are better? I only ask that because maybe Democrats don't think vouchers are a good idea and will only increase education inequality among black (minority) and white students. Private institutions are allowed to choose which students they want and don't want and since 70% of private schools are religious



1. Immigration is ONE OF THE top issues among many for Dems, yes. But immigration is generally a border/security issue that impacts everyone hence the reason why its important for both parties to address.

2. No one is suggesting outright amnesty for the umpteenth time. It's a very complex issue that deals with a lot of aspects such as those with families here while their status is not legal even though they've been here for quite some time now. And rounding up every undocumented immigrant and deporting them isn't a viable or humane solution and neither is keeping things the way they are now....so now what?

3. There are studies from prominent institutions that show immigration has little impact and positive impact on wages. So which studies are Dems suppose to accept as fact and which studies are they suppose to ignore?

[/QUOTE]

This post is the perfect example of the problem, your mentals and logic and premises are wrong

I'm the voter remember, I tell them what I think, I'm trying to tell the politician what I think needs to be done, not the other way around

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

He doesn't like anyone but blacks. Arguing immigration with him is like talking to a white nationalist.

I know...I'm one of the many that have been down this road with him lol

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

This post is the perfect example of the problem, your mentals and logic and premises are wrong

I'm the voter remember, I tell them what I think, I'm trying to tell the politician what I think needs to be done, not the other way around

Yes, everyone that is eligible to vote is the "voter" and most of the "voters" in this country want Washington to address the immigration issue.

If most of the voters wanted to address economic revitalization in urban communities because it was a pressing issue then it would be prioritize. But its only an issue to a small certain group of people and only affects a small certain group of people unlike immigration.

 

[theworldismine13]

Yes, everyone that is eligible to vote is the "voter" and most of the "voters" in this country want Washington to address the immigration issue.

The pros and cons of a democracy.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, but what I am trying to say is that I already know what I think about those issues, and the Democratic Party is taking positions that I disagree with

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, but what I am trying to say is that I already know what I think about those issues, and the Democratic Party is taking positions that I disagree with

You know what I'm talking about. Grow up and stop playing dumb

but what I am trying to say is that I already know what I think about those issues, and the Democratic Party is taking positions that I disagree with

Okay that's fair. As long as you don't peddle the myth "Democrats ignore black issues" you can have your opinion on immigration.

 

[CACtain Planet]

Like @hayesc0 said above. The FBI generally acted on their own guise and the COINTELPRO bullshyt was not operated under only democrats or the "democratic party" like you said before.

LMAO at this blantant c00ning for the CAC democratic party...

"Robert Kennedy authorized wiretaps on King’s home and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) offices in October 1963."

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index...edia/enc_federal_bureau_of_investigation_fbi/

No, Nixon literally committed a felony. Previous presidents before and now have been accused of commiting several war crimes but there's nuances to each accusation.

No, Liberal Baines Johnson really is a war criminal in the same vain as George W. Bush

"The U.S. government has committed war crimes, crimes against peace and against mankind. In South Vietnam, half a million U.S. and satellite troops have resorted to the most inhuman weapons and most barbarous methods of warfare, such as napalm, toxic chemicals and gases, to massacre our compatriots, destroy crops, and raze villages to the ground. In North Vietnam, thousands of U.S. aircraft have dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs, destroying towns, villages, factories, schools. In your message, you apparently deplore the sufferings and destruction in Vietnam. May I ask you: Who has perpetrated these monstrous crimes? It is the United States and satellite troops. The U.S. government is entirely responsible for the extremely serious situation in Vietnam."

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3641

Even Martin Luther King eluded to this in his beyond Vietnam speech which made ole Lyndon angry as fukk

"Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor."

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm

Link??? Sounds conspiracy to me.

Of course it sounds like consipiracy to you, you c00n for all things democrat

No im explaining how other circumstances surrounding what he said and did that got him kicked out of office outweigh the FEW policies he supported and enacted as president. He supported black policies but plays up to white voters in the south via the infamous southern strategy. LBJ, a senator from the south, was willing to lose the support of the dixiecrat south to gain black voters. im sure lbj was quite racist, bigot at minimum, but a racist willing to lose southern voters to advance black policies is commendable.

This doesnt even make sense lmao..All that matters is that he enforced civil rights via executive orders meaning that he circumvented Congress and hacks in his on party to enforce what was law..LBJ also said "I'll have them ******s voting Democratic for two hundred years"..Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. Source: Kessler, Ronald (1996). Inside the White House. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 33. ISBN 0671879197. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 19:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

So tell me c00n, why do you defend LBJ so much when he clearly didnt give a fukk about blacks other than for votes? lmao keep tap dancing though maybe one day you will see

Sounds like some bullshyt you read from Thomas Sowell, in which case is nonsense. If black communities were doing better or blacks didnt feel thet needed integration to other schools then blacks part of the civil rights movement wouldve been against it.

Its not like white people forced blacks to choose integration over seperate but equal school facilities.

So tell me why since 1964 integration has divorce rates, single parent households, economic disparity between blacks and whites and incarceration rates increased?

 

[theworldismine13]

Yes, everyone that is eligible to vote is the "voter" and most of the "voters" in this country want Washington to address the immigration issue.

If most of the voters wanted to address economic revitalization in urban communities because it was a pressing issue then it would be prioritize. But its only an issue to a small certain group of people and only affects a small certain group of people unlike immigration.

you edited your post, so you make a little more sense but

but overall you are still displaying the weak mentality, so let me repeat, our goal is to control and dominate

immigration is not important to anybody, very few people care about immigration reform which is just a euphemism for amnesty and flooding the labor market, democrats make it a big issue because they see amnesty as a way to lock in their political power

as far as black people, immigration is not important to black people, why is the democratic party making it the primary issue? obama is going as far as to break the law, why?

if anything its important that we make sure immigrants come from black countries in africa and the caribbean, why are black democrats fighting for racist immigrants from latin america

 

[Digga38]

LMAO at this blantant c00ning for the CAC democratic party...

"Robert Kennedy authorized wiretaps on King’s home and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) offices in October 1963."

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index...edia/enc_federal_bureau_of_investigation_fbi/




No, Liberal Baines Johnson really is a war criminal in the same vain as George W. Bush

"The U.S. government has committed war crimes, crimes against peace and against mankind. In South Vietnam, half a million U.S. and satellite troops have resorted to the most inhuman weapons and most barbarous methods of warfare, such as napalm, toxic chemicals and gases, to massacre our compatriots, destroy crops, and raze villages to the ground. In North Vietnam, thousands of U.S. aircraft have dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs, destroying towns, villages, factories, schools. In your message, you apparently deplore the sufferings and destruction in Vietnam. May I ask you: Who has perpetrated these monstrous crimes? It is the United States and satellite troops. The U.S. government is entirely responsible for the extremely serious situation in Vietnam."

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3641

Even Martin Luther King eluded to this in his beyond Vietnam speech which made ole Lyndon angry as fukk

"Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor."

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm



Of course it sounds like consipiracy to you, you c00n for all things democrat



This doesnt even make sense lmao..All that matters is that he enforced civil rights via executive orders meaning that he circumvented Congress and hacks in his on party to enforce what was law..LBJ also said "I'll have them ******s voting Democratic for two hundred years"..Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. Source: Kessler, Ronald (1996). Inside the White House. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 33. ISBN 0671879197. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 19:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

So tell me c00n, why do you defend LBJ so much when he clearly didnt give a fukk about blacks other than for votes? lmao keep tap dancing though maybe one day you will see



So tell me why since 1964 integration has divorce rates, single parent households, economic disparity between blacks and whites and incarceration rates increased?

LBJ worse leader in world history

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

LMAO at this blantant c00ning for the CAC democratic party...

"Robert Kennedy authorized wiretaps on King’s home and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) offices in October 1963."

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index...edia/enc_federal_bureau_of_investigation_fbi/

c00ning? CAC? Please stop high-jacking your vocabulary from dumb ass coli members?

Anyway Kennedy was lied to by Hoover that MLK was still associating with the communist party. That's the reason he authorize the wiretapping. During the Cold War being accused of communist ties was detrimental for anyone and Kennedy took Hoovers word for it. However, Hoover also blackmailed the Kennedy's to have them do things he wanted.

No, Liberal Baines Johnson really is a war criminal in the same vain as George W. Bush

Several presidents have been accused of certain war crimes even before LBJ. Not saying war crimes are not an issue but they are things voters gloss over in general. Only one president has burglarized and wiretapped another political facility and tried to cover it up.

It ALSO didn't help that when the Nixon recordings were released pertaining to Watergate he referred to blacks as "dogs" and blacks "couldn't run a country". I don't think there's any recordings of LBJ saying anything as pressing as that about black people, at least evidently.

Of course it sounds like consipiracy to you, you c00n for all things democrat

Okay...can you provide a reputable linked source of LBJ green-lighting MLK's assassination?

This doesnt even make sense lmao..All that matters is that he enforced civil rights via executive orders meaning that he circumvented Congress and hacks in his on party to enforce what was law..

Yeah, yeah, yeah we get it he passed an Affirmative Action law for equal employment by executive order...woopty-fukkin-doo. Today's Republican party still ain't shyt and today's Republican party wouldn't support AA.

LBJ also said "I'll have them ******s voting Democratic for two hundred years"..Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. Source: Kessler, Ronald (1996). Inside the White House. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 33. ISBN 0671879197. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 19:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That's hearsay and no reputable source has proven LBJ ever said that. That's not in defense of LBJ that's just a fact. You can listen to the Nixon tapes and hear what he said.

 

[Spatial Paradox]

Thinking about this more and doing a bit of research, I think it's important to point out that realignment of black vote to the Democratic party wasn't an overnight phenomenon, at least in terms of overall voting patterns. It actually started back in the 1930s, during the Depression era. FDR's record on race isn't pretty at all, but him being a northern Democrat trying to tackle the Depression head on while the incumbent Republican president didn't seem to be trying to do much about it probably the reason the reason

And yet a black voter in the early 40s was as likely to be a Republican as they were a Democrat.

And then that changed in 1948. Probably because Truman ordered the desegregation of the armed forces and regulations against racial bias in federal employment. And the party explicitly making civil rights a plank in its platform (and caused the segregationists in the party to revolt as a result).

Democrats (well, northern/liberal Democrats) made honest efforts at addressing the issues blacks cared about and blacks responded by supporting them.

And it wasn't as if the black vote was completely out of play for Republicans at the national level. Eisenhower got almost 40% of the black vote in the 1956 election. Nixon got 32% of the black vote in the 1960 election

So when Barry Goldwater won the Republican presidential nomination for the '64 election, blacks noticed. In the same year the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, a candidate carrying the banner of state's rights and small government won the Republican presidential nomination. They're already the party of big business and the wealthy and now some guy from Arizona who opposes the Civil Rights Act and supports "state's rights" was chosen to be their candidate to the highest office in the land? And his opponent for the nomination was a liberal supporter of civil rights ?


If history is a guide, then my prediction is that when/if Republicans make honest efforts to address the plights and issues black Americans face, then the black vote will become more competitive again. If Republicans wanted to peel away black votes from the Democratic party, they certainly could do it.

Instead, when Republicans aren't being outright hostile towards blacks, they're apathetic