Stephen A. Smith makes a suggestion [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Tom

03-19-2015, 09:34 AM

Maybe someone put 2 and 2 together and figured out voting democrat for generations has not been a real productive move.

Everyone here seems to agree Blacks always vote democrat.
Yet everyone here thinks Blacks are getting a raw deal.

Duh.

Black, women, Latinos really need to look at what they are really getting from the dems other than lip service.

As I have said in other thread, Blacks need to stop whining and start voting. And voting with their minds, not their race.

JustRalph

03-19-2015, 09:54 AM

Think he is making this suggestion for the good of black people,
or that he doesn't like the tax bracket he finds himself in?

Keep telling yourself that kind of crap.

The words "Black Conservative" should scare the crap out of you.

More and more, they are being led away from the Dem's.

It's a natural fit.

horses4courses

03-19-2015, 10:49 AM

The words "Black Conservative" should scare the crap out of you.

More and more, they are being led away from the Dem's.

Solid proof to back this up, apart from some right wing blog?

Very little scares the crap out of me, and certainly not party politics.
If the GOP could ever achieve something for regular people, instead
of being champions for the wealthy, they might get somewhere.
Until then, it's the same old song.

Tom

03-19-2015, 11:18 AM

Solid proof to back this up, apart from some right wing blog?

Will you accept a cartoon?

HUSKER55

03-19-2015, 01:46 PM

same democratic dribble

Clocker

03-19-2015, 01:48 PM

Will you accept a cartoon?

Now, now. It's cute to see the youngsters try to get involved in political discourse, even if their communication skills aren't fully developed.

Or should that have been "skillz"? :p

Spiderman

03-19-2015, 01:58 PM

Clocker

03-19-2015, 02:40 PM

They are not today's Democrats.

That's right. Today's Democrats pander to blacks for votes and then kick them to the curb until they need the votes again. By all economic measures, Obama's policies have done nothing to help blacks.

"The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category," Tavis Smiley, a black radio talk-show host, said on Fox News in October. "On that regard, the president ought to be held responsible."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-blacks-poverty-education/2014/01/08/id/545866/

Blacks may or may not be moving to the right, but they are certainly losing faith in the left. Look at the trend of black voter turnout in the 3 elections since 2008. Especially in 2014 when Obama, much to the dismay of his party, proudly announced that it was his policies that were on the ballot.

JustRalph

03-19-2015, 04:20 PM

Smith fails to connect that the southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) ) are today's southern coalition. They left when the Civil Rights bill was made law. They are not today's Democrats.

Smith doesn't care. He is stating that the current foolhardy endorsement of Dems being automatic disenfranchises blacks.

The Dems are already pandering to Hispanics in such a manner that blacks are long forgotten annoyance

classhandicapper

03-19-2015, 07:29 PM

Hank

03-19-2015, 07:58 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/18/espn-host-has-a-dream-that-for-just-one-election-every-black-person-in-america-would-do-this/

Stephen A. has grown on me over the last few years

Listen to the audio......very compelling

You're right.Its compellingly inane and compellingly inaccurate, so of course righties think its great.Smith has made a fool of himself here.

"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,” Smith explained.

“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. So because President Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, black America assumed the Democrats were for it.”

"there was a Senate, a Republican Senate"..Dems controlled the senate from1955-1981

Democrats who were against civil rights legislation — the southern Dixiecrats...[B].The racist Dixiecrats were the only Dems to oppose the bill they are now racist republicans.

"black America assumed the Democrats were for it.”No Blacks understood the realpolitik of the racist southern strategy employed by republicans and reacted appropriately.

NJ Stinks

03-19-2015, 08:03 PM

He's UNQUESTIONABLY right. I was saying this in lunch time conversations 20 years ago.

You have no power if one side assumes they've got you all wrapped up and the other side assumes they have no chance to get you no matter what they do.

The ONLY way to change that is for blacks to start voting for republicans in larger enough numbers that both parties are worried about where the black vote is going to go.

You ignore the fact that blacks have absolutely zero reason to vote Republican unless they personally stand to gain more from tax cuts than they do from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, and other federal safety net programs. Because if you cut taxes, you have to cut into these programs.

So, do the vast majority of blacks stand to gain by voting for the GOP?

(Heck, can any majority in any race afford to vote Republican?

Tom

03-19-2015, 10:11 PM

You ignore the fact that blacks have absolutely zero reason to vote Republican unless they personally stand to gain more from tax cuts than they do from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, and other federal safety net programs.

So's yo plan is to keeps 'em shackled and quiet by keepin' 'em dee-pendent on da gubbernmint? You is 'zactly what the man is talkin' 'bout, Stinky. 'zactly.

Your view of Black America is pretty disgusting.
I bet you don't eat peanuts out of spite.

PaceAdvantage

03-20-2015, 03:35 PM

NJ Stinks

03-20-2015, 11:34 PM

This quote is pretty telling...and disturbing...

If CurtisOnTheBay had written it, you lefties would be all over him calling him a racist...again....

But it's ok when a lefty states such things...nice world you live in.

What's disturbing is that the GOP perpetually wants to cut taxes that will, in turn, cut entitlements no matter what the repercussions to people in need.

Valuist

03-20-2015, 11:45 PM

What's disturbing is that the GOP perpetually wants to cut taxes that will, in turn, cut entitlements no matter what the repercussions to people in need.

What's disturbing was your post, which was more racist than anything any conservative wrote in here.

NJ Stinks

03-21-2015, 12:27 AM

What's disturbing was your post, which was more racist than anything any conservative wrote in here.

We disagree.

tucker6

03-21-2015, 07:29 AM

We disagree.
Who is we?

fast4522

03-21-2015, 10:53 AM

So, do the vast majority of blacks stand to gain by voting for the GOP?

The real question is if the vast majority of everyone gain by less taxes? To open up jobs for those who want to work, forget those who do not. Leave race out of it completely, reward those who choose the right path and work hard to raise a family.

Tom

03-21-2015, 10:55 AM

Must be a god idea - the deflection crew is out in force to try to change the topic. Special nod to Dan, who really pulled all the stop to try to deflect everything ever posted rather than address the idea.

But no one is really surprised. :lol:

Spiderman

03-21-2015, 11:05 AM

You're right.Its compellingly inane and compellingly inaccurate, so of course righties think its great.Smith has made a fool of himself here.

"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,” Smith explained.

“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. So because President Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, black America assumed the Democrats were for it.”

"there was a Senate, a Republican Senate"..Dems controlled the senate from1955-1981

Democrats who were against civil rights legislation — the southern Dixiecrats...[B].The racist Dixiecrats were the only Dems to oppose the bill they are now racist republicans.

"black America assumed the Democrats were for it.”No Blacks understood the realpolitik of the racist southern strategy employed by republicans and reacted appropriately.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Hank

03-21-2015, 11:16 AM

I don't know if by "in here" you mean this thread or the forum in general, but just in case the latter, just thought I'd feature some of "Snickster's" greatest hits.. :eek: :blush:

1/5/15: Back in the 1400's I bet slavery was not something to be thought of to be a totally bad thing. I mean imaging living in Africa before the days of electricity or anything modern we have today. You may live to be 20 or 30 if you are lucky living in a hostile jungle full of disease, bugs and wild animals that come to eat you at night. Hell then they get to live in a well developed civilized European white society that took care of them but the only catch is that they have to work all day. I bet the reality is that a lot of them were saying please sign me up - I want that gig. You really have to think of the times they lived in back then not the times we live in now to realize about what slavery really was back in those times. You have to use the perspective of those times not these times when talking about slavery. Back then living in jungles like animals in squalor and having absolutely no technical or intellectual achievement why should not the Europeans think that they on the level of monkeys?

Note how the mouth breathing bigots call racism on NJ's post but don't say a mumbling word when blatant racist thrash like that is posted.Game-set and match.

Spiderman

03-21-2015, 11:19 AM

That's right. Today's Democrats pander to blacks for votes and then kick them to the curb until they need the votes again. By all economic measures, Obama's policies have done nothing to help blacks.

Look at every budget that the gang who can't govern, the so-called Grand Old Party, has proposed. Slashes to any aid that can be given to the middle class, slashes in education, no funding to improve infrastructure, cuts to Medicare. Only to not add small tax to high income earners.

Blacks may or may not be moving to the right, but they are certainly losing faith in the left. Look at the trend of black voter turnout in the 3 elections since 2008. Especially in 2014 when Obama, much to the dismay of his party, proudly announced that it was his policies that were on the ballot.

Anything more than less than .002% movement to the right is outrageous and hype from the right. The 2014 election was representative of voter apathy. It was midterm election, traditionally smaller than a general election turnout - only 31% of eligible voters participated in 2014 and in mostly states that are gerrymandered to the hilt in favor of the GOP. Deducing that the GOP won 51% of the 31% equates to 15.91% of all voters. Wait 'til 2016!

Clocker

03-21-2015, 12:11 PM

I don't know if by "in here" you mean this thread or the forum in general, but just in case the latter, just thought I'd feature some of "Snickster's" greatest hits.. :eek: :blush:

What is the point of reposting a lot of trash that the guy got banned for? What does it prove except that that crap isn't tolerated here?

classhandicapper

03-21-2015, 12:26 PM

You ignore the fact that blacks have absolutely zero reason to vote Republican unless they personally stand to gain more from tax cuts than they do from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, and other federal safety net programs. Because if you cut taxes, you have to cut into these programs.

So, do the vast majority of blacks stand to gain by voting for the GOP?

(Heck, can any majority in any race afford to vote Republican?

Both whites and blacks receive benefits from those programs. Yet some people can see why the republicans are correct.

The issue is that most of those programs are technically insolvent if you calculate the net present value of the future promises. So everyone stands to benefit if the growth of these programs is slowed down now to the rate of GDP growth or thereabouts. (they will never be cut except if we don't slow the growth now and are forced to later). If I can see that and am capable of thinking long term, so can many blacks.

thaskalos

03-21-2015, 01:23 PM

I don't know if by "in here" you mean this thread or the forum in general, but just in case the latter, just thought I'd feature some of "Snickster's" greatest hits.. :eek: :blush:
Who is this "Snickster", why don't you mention him by his REAL name? Do you suppose that he deserves protection?

Saratoga_Mike

03-21-2015, 01:31 PM

You ignore the fact that blacks have absolutely zero reason to vote Republican unless they personally stand to gain more from tax cuts than they do from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, and other federal safety net programs. Because if you cut taxes, you have to cut into these programs.

So, do the vast majority of blacks stand to gain by voting for the GOP?

(Heck, can any majority in any race afford to vote Republican?

How about better educational opportunities? Your party's de facto racism in the name of keeping the NEA happy is disgusting. Continue to rob minority kids of a decent education, and I'm sure they'll continue to vote for government largess. Well done.

mostpost

03-21-2015, 02:03 PM

Who is this "Snickster", why don't you mention him by his REAL name? Do you suppose that he deserves protection?
Snickster is his real name-or rather his real screen name. He joined here in March of 2014 and has 190 posts to his credit; most in the same vein as those quoted by Fantastic Dan.

mostpost

03-21-2015, 02:42 PM

mostpost

03-21-2015, 02:50 PM

How about better educational opportunities? Your party's de facto racism in the name of keeping the NEA happy is disgusting. Continue to rob minority kids of a decent education, and I'm sure they'll continue to vote for government largess. Well done.
Right. The best way to improve educational opportunities is to cut funding to schools. The best way to attract better teachers is to limit their opportunity to negotiate for better salaries and benefits. The best way to teach is to teach to a test rather than teach the students to think.

In case it is not clear; the above statements are sarcasm. They are also the policies of Republicans and conservatives. They are the cause of our educational difficulties.

Clocker

03-21-2015, 02:57 PM

I am amazed by the responses to this post. They show, beyond a doubt, the twisted view of the world held by conservatives. In their view, helping people is racist, whereas denying them opportunities is praiseworthy.

The responses to that post were based on the very strong implication in it that blacks are disproportionately dependent on "...Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, and other federal safety net programs..." and that those programs were the determining issue for black voters.

The issue is not that "helping people is racist", the issue is that liberals have a plantation attitude about helping blacks.

Tom

03-21-2015, 04:06 PM

What is the point of reposting a lot of trash that the guy got banned for? What does it prove except that that crap isn't tolerated here?

Game, set, match. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::T hmbUp:

OK, boys, your arguments are moot - now, are any one you going address the POINT of this thread, or keep hiding behind your sheets like NJ is?
Man, don't you hate it when reality steps in?

Tom

03-21-2015, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by mostpost
I am amazed by the responses to this post. They show, beyond a doubt, the twisted view of the world held by conservatives. In their view, helping people is racist, whereas denying them opportunities is praiseworthy.

So by your standards, the plantation owners were good people,. providing all the things government has people dependent on today - food, shelter, clothing.....

There are no opportunities when you are a government slave.

Saratoga_Mike

03-21-2015, 07:36 PM

Right. The best way to improve educational opportunities is to cut funding to schools. The best way to attract better teachers is to limit their opportunity to negotiate for better salaries and benefits. The best way to teach is to teach to a test rather than teach the students to think.

In case it is not clear; the above statements are sarcasm. They are also the policies of Republicans and conservatives. They are the cause of our educational difficulties.

Your ignorance is breathtaking.

1) "Teach to a test." What a stupid statement. My bet is 25 years ago even you would have said, "why wouldn't teachers teach to a test?" But now like a blind sheep, you repeat the mantra of the NEA. Oh we mustn't stifle creativity OR hold teachers accountable with test scores.

2) Some of the most successful schools (that teach poor kids) in NYC spend less per student than the public schools. One example: St Aloysius in Harlem. There's very little correlation between per capita spending and educational outcomes (above a certain baseline of spending of course). If there were, DC would have some of the best schools in the country.

School choice disproportionately benefits minority kids. It's a policy generally opposed by white suburbanites. You go ahead and continue to support the de facto racist policy of opposing school choice. It will keep you in lock step with the Dem Party. You're so predictable.

Clocker

03-21-2015, 08:24 PM

There's very little correlation between per capita spending and educational outcomes (above a certain baseline of spending of course).

Liberals have been beating the same dead horse for decades. The education system is not working so we need more money. Rinse and repeat.

Insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different outcome. More money for education produces no result, so we need more money for education.

Charter schools almost universally provide better education at lower cost. Those that don't soon fail. I think there may be a moral to this story here. Charter schools that fail go out of business. Public schools that fail get more money.

mostpost

03-22-2015, 01:16 AM

Liberals have been beating the same dead horse for decades. The education system is not working so we need more money. Rinse and repeat.

Insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different outcome. More money for education produces no result, so we need more money for education.
I am so tired of that stupid definition of insanity. Here is the real definition:
the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.

Charter schools almost universally provide better education at lower cost. Those that don't soon fail. I think there may be a moral to this story here. Charter schools that fail go out of business. Public schools that fail get more money.
Wrong again. Charter Schools cost more. In FY 2015 the city of Chicago will spend $769,000,000 on its District high schools and $666,000,000 on its Charter Schools. There are 504 District schools and only 132 Charter schools.

It is counter intuitive to think that the less money you spend for education, the better the education you get. Because that is what you are saying even if that is not what you mean. The best schools are the one's that have the most money. Of course you have to know how to spend it.

Clocker

03-22-2015, 01:52 AM

Wrong again. Charter Schools cost more. In FY 2015 the city of Chicago will spend $769,000,000 on its District high schools and $666,000,000 on its Charter Schools. There are 504 District schools and only 132 Charter schools.

Call me prejudiced, but with no further facts, I reject the very idea that anything that happens in Chicago has any relationship to fiscal reality.

mostpost

03-22-2015, 01:59 AM

What is the point of reposting a lot of trash that the guy got banned for? What does it prove except that that crap isn't tolerated here?
Did not realize he had been banned. When did this happen?
ETA: Never mind, I found it. Well deserved.

NJ Stinks

03-22-2015, 03:14 AM

The responses to that post were based on the very strong implication in it that blacks are disproportionately dependent on "...Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, and other federal safety net programs..." and that those programs were the determining issue for black voters.

The issue is not that "helping people is racist", the issue is that liberals have a plantation attitude about helping blacks.

Blacks are disproportionately dependent.

People who received Food Stamps by race:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/

People who recieve Welfare by race - "Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits"

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Just using the tables in the links above, 63M people have collected some form of the aid defined above. Almost 40% (25M) of those people are black. In the U.S census taken in 2010, 13% (or 41M people) of the U.S.population was black. No matter how racist you think I am, I believe it is indisputable that blacks would be the most affected race if tax cuts resulted in cuts in Welfare or other entitlements like Medicare and Social Security.

I prefer to think of myself as a realist. And the reality is - if the vast majority of black people thought it was in their best interest to reduce spending so the country could afford to cut taxes, the GOP would be getting 85% of the black vote rather than the Dems.

Personally, I don't believe giving tax cuts to people who don't need them is somehow a good solution for most Americans. That's the biggest reason I vote Democratic - I don't believe in "trickle down".

Saratoga_Mike

03-22-2015, 03:03 PM

1) Wrong again. Charter Schools cost more. In FY 2015 the city of Chicago will spend $769,000,000 on its District high schools and $666,000,000 on its Charter Schools. There are 504 District schools and only 132 Charter schools.

2) It is counter intuitive to think that the less money you spend for education, the better the education you get. Because that is what you are saying even if that is not what you mean. The best schools are the one's that have the most money. Of course you have to know how to spend it.

1) Feel free to disagree with me and others, but don't make up facts. The $769 mm number is absolutely wrong. There are roughly 400k students in Chicago public schools. Using your number, which is wrong, the per capita spending would be $1,923. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The $769 mm number is a subset of the overall CPS budget, a budget that exceeds $5 billion.

2) You do realize what has happened to real per capital spending on education since 1970, right? Stop reading the NEA crap. Stop listening to Karen Lewis. Go out and visit successful inner-city schools. You might learn something.

Saratoga_Mike

03-22-2015, 03:14 PM

Blacks are disproportionately dependent.

Crowning achievement of the Democratic Party? Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted all of this.

mostpost

03-22-2015, 05:11 PM

1) Feel free to disagree with me and others, but don't make up facts. The $769 mm number is absolutely wrong. There are roughly 400k students in Chicago public schools. Using your number, which is wrong, the per capita spending would be $1,923. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The $769 mm number is a subset of the overall CPS budget, a budget that exceeds $5 billion.

2) You do realize what has happened to real per capital spending on education since 1970, right? Stop reading the NEA crap. Stop listening to Karen Lewis. Go out and visit successful inner-city schools. You might learn something.
1. I'm not making up facts, but I did interpret them incorrectly. Let's start over. First, here is the link I used.
http://cps.edu/FY15Budget/Pages/schoolsandnetworks.aspx

Look at Table one Pre-K to 12 for 2015. Total number of students for traditional District Schools is 334,278.

Go Table 3. The budget for District Elementary schools is $2,156,007,000
while the budget for District High Schools is $768,042,000. The total is
$2,924,649,000.

Divide $2,924,649,000 by 334,278 students and you get spending of $8749.15 per student

Back to Table one: 57,234 students in Charter schools-elementary and high.
From Table 3: $666,083,000. Using old fashioned grade school division we learn that $11,637.89 is spent per student in Charter schools.

This means that CPS is spending $2888.74 more per student for students in Charter schools than it is for students in non charter schools.

2. I have to look this up.

JustRalph

03-22-2015, 05:44 PM

Wrong again. Charter Schools cost more. In FY 2015 the city of Chicago will spend $769,000,000 on its District high schools and $666,000,000 on its Charter Schools. There are 504 District schools and only 132 Charter schools.

It is counter intuitive to think that the less money you spend for education, the better the education you get. Because that is what you are saying even if that is not what you mean. The best schools are the one's that have the most money. Of course you have to know how to spend it.

A Chicago example , yeah that's the place to refer to about spending money

Saratoga_Mike

03-22-2015, 05:51 PM

Most - let's use your numbers (even though I don't think they correctly account for administrative overhead). You've already said definitively the more money we spend per kid, the better the outcomes. Therefore, you must believe the outcomes at the Chicago charter schools are better (using your numbers)? Yet, (I believe) you've already said that isn't the case? So which is it? May I try to answer for you? More money in the hands of NEA-friendly schools is a good thing, while more money in the hands of charter schools is a bad thing. Who knew that money had innate partisan feelings.

Anyway, when I said there are schools that generate superior outcomes with lower per capita spending, I wasn't even thinking of charter schools. I do support charter schools, though. I want the good ones to thrive and the bad ones to go out of business.

Saratoga_Mike

03-22-2015, 05:59 PM

2. I have to look this up.

Try reading with an open mind.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/does-spending-more-on-education-improve-academic-achievement

Clocker

03-22-2015, 06:05 PM

A Chicago example , yeah that's the place to refer to about spending money

Charter schools in Chicago are public charter schools, meaning that they operate within the public school system budget and students pay no tuition. You expect them to be as efficient as the private sector? :rolleyes:

Private schools operate independently of public schools, and are generally funded by donations, tuition, and government school vouchers. These are the schools that are typically more efficient, more effective, and less expensive than public schools. Last I heard, there is no voucher system in Illinois.

Saratoga_Mike

03-22-2015, 06:26 PM

Charter schools in Chicago are public charter schools, meaning that they operate within the public school system budget and students pay no tuition. You expect them to be as efficient as the private sector? :rolleyes:

Private schools operate independently of public schools, and are generally funded by donations, tuition, and government school vouchers. These are the schools that are typically more efficient, more effective, and less expensive than public schools. Last I heard, there is no voucher system in Illinois.

Exactly. Of course there are private schools that cater to the wealthy, which Most will undoubtedly reference in order to refute your point.

PaceAdvantage

03-23-2015, 03:54 PM

I don't know if by "in here" you mean this thread or the forum in general, but just in case the latter, just thought I'd feature some of "Snickster's" greatest hits.. :eek: :blush:You're going to quote someone who is banned from posting in off-topic? Why would you do that?

He doesn't count...he's been banned

PaceAdvantage

03-23-2015, 03:56 PM

1/5/15: Back in the 1400's I bet slavery was not something to be thought of to be a totally bad thing. I mean imaging living in Africa before the days of electricity or anything modern we have today. You may live to be 20 or 30 if you are lucky living in a hostile jungle full of disease, bugs and wild animals that come to eat you at night. Hell then they get to live in a well developed civilized European white society that took care of them but the only catch is that they have to work all day. I bet the reality is that a lot of them were saying please sign me up - I want that gig. You really have to think of the times they lived in back then not the times we live in now to realize about what slavery really was back in those times. You have to use the perspective of those times not these times when talking about slavery. Back then living in jungles like animals in squalor and having absolutely no technical or intellectual achievement why should not the Europeans think that they on the level of monkeys?

Note how the mouth breathing bigots call racism on NJ's post but don't say a mumbling word when blatant racist thrash like that is posted.Game-set and match.Hey, dickhead award of the day #2, the person you claim we don't say a mumbling word about WAS BANNED A LONG TIME AGO from posting in off-topic.

We speak quietly, but carry a bigger stick.

#THE_REAL_GAME_SET_ AND_MATCH

PaceAdvantage

03-23-2015, 03:57 PM

I am amazed by the responses to this post. They show, beyond a doubt, the twisted view of the world held by conservatives. In their view, helping people is racist, whereas denying them opportunities is praiseworthy.Dickhead #3. I'm running out of awards today.

You guys don't read very well.

Stop trying to defend what was a BLATANT and HORRIBLY racist post by Mr. Stinks

FantasticDan

03-23-2015, 04:05 PM

You're going to quote someone who is banned from posting in off-topic? Why would you do that? :rolleyes: I didn't know he'd been banned until Clocker mentioned it.

PaceAdvantage

03-23-2015, 04:06 PM

Did not realize he had been banned. When did this happen?
ETA: Never mind, I found it. Well deserved.The fact that you would actually think he'd still be able to post in off-topic after the shit he posted says more about you than anything else. You're so biased, you actually think I would allow that stuff to continue.

PaceAdvantage

03-24-2015, 01:08 PM

I wish to apologize to NJ Stinks for the overzealous manner in which I went after one of his posts in this thread. I did it to prove a point...a valid one I might add, about how the same thing said by two different people will be interpreted quite differently depending on whether you lean left or right.

But nevertheless, I should have shown a bit more restraint.

My dickhead of the day awards (of which NJ Stinks was NOT a recipient I might add..lol) still stand.

NJ Stinks

03-24-2015, 01:58 PM

Hank

03-24-2015, 04:07 PM

Hey, dickhead award of the day #2, the person you claim we don't say a mumbling word about WAS BANNED A LONG TIME AGO from posting in off-topic.

We speak quietly, but carry a bigger stick.

#THE_REAL_GAME_SET_ AND_MATCH

The veracity of my statement is in no way affected by the bigot being subsequently banned.The fact remains that at the time of the racist post I posted as an example no one publicly called him on it.The fact also remains that many of the same people that pubicly called NJ's non-racist post racist did not say a mumbling word when the blatant actual racist post was made.

Tom

03-24-2015, 06:19 PM

Ever occur to you that maybe not everyone saw that post?
Maybe they missed it before it was taken down, may they had the guy in Ignore.....so where was the call out fro the left, from YOU?

GaryG

03-24-2015, 06:31 PM

Is there an award for the most use of the word "racist" in one post or by one poster?

Clocker

03-24-2015, 07:01 PM

Is there an award for the most use of the word "racist" in one post or by one poster?

You get a free deck of race cards, autographed by Al Sharpton.

Clocker

03-24-2015, 07:26 PM

Maybe they missed it before it was taken down, may they had the guy in Ignore.....so where was the call out fro the left, from YOU?

I had the guy on ignore, he was an idiot.

There is a red triangular icon in the lower left corner of every post here to report the post to a moderator. Anyone use it?

tucker6

03-24-2015, 08:23 PM

tucker6

03-24-2015, 08:34 PM

The veracity of my statement is in no way affected by the bigot being subsequently banned.The fact remains that at the time of the racist post I posted as an example no one publicly called him on it.The fact also remains that many of the same people that pubicly called NJ's non-racist post racist did not say a mumbling word when the blatant actual racist post was made.
The following was my retort to Snicksters post. Please feel free to apologize. The fact remains that you're an idiot.

"Sorry, but that shade of lipstick doesn't look good on that pig. Who would be thankful for being beaten and cowed all day, and then watching your women get raped repeatedly in front of you. You think that beats living in the jungle in squalor?"

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119392&page=2&pp=15

Clocker also disagreed.

Tom

03-24-2015, 08:52 PM

Well now, the truth comes out.
Funny how that happens.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hank, don't shoot! :eek:

Hank

03-24-2015, 09:31 PM

The following was my retort to Snicksters post. Please feel free to apologize. The fact remains that you're an idiot.

"Sorry, but that shade of lipstick doesn't look good on that pig. Who would be thankful for being beaten and cowed all day, and then watching your women get raped repeatedly in front of you. You think that beats living in the jungle in squalor?"

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119392&page=2&pp=15

Clocker also disagreed.

Point taken.However your challenge to his post was essentially expressing a difference of opinion.Not a condemnation of the racist nature of said opinion.My statement referenced the specific accusation of racism levied against NJ,your objection to snickster did not meet this criteria.So your BS call is false in the main.But at least you disagreed with his opinion. :ThmbUp:

Hank

03-24-2015, 09:51 PM

Is there an award for the most use of the word "racist" in one post or by one poster?

Funny,I was was just thinking is there anything that screams I am a racist redneck bigot louder the you avatar?I think not.

Hank

03-24-2015, 11:48 PM

Well now, the truth comes out.
Funny how that happens.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hank, don't shoot! :eek:

Premature :jump: Tom.You know, your doctor can prescribe something for that.

tucker6

03-25-2015, 07:03 AM

Point taken.However your challenge to his post was essentially expressing a difference of opinion.Not a condemnation of the racist nature of said opinion.My statement referenced the specific accusation of racism levied against NJ,your objection to snickster did not meet this criteria.So your BS call is false in the main.But at least you disagreed with his opinion. :ThmbUp:
You mean overt racist comments like his need to be retorted with the word "racist" in it?? His post was so over the top racist that it made me breathless to read. I don't need to tell you that the sun is yellow. I also don't need to tell Snickster or you that his posts were racists. In the face of such stupidity, what should a poster do? Snickster wasn't going to change his opinion on the issue no matter how many words and links I wrote. So I chose to keep my response short and simple and point out the basic flaw. It seems that you are attempting to diminish my response to fit your storyline.

GaryG

03-25-2015, 07:53 AM

Funny,I was was just thinking is there anything that screams I am a racist redneck bigot louder the you avatar?I think not.Somehow I knew you would like it.....:lol: :lol:

Hank

03-25-2015, 09:08 AM

Somehow I knew you would like it.....:lol: :lol:

I do indeed.Honesty is the best policy. :ThmbUp:

Tom

03-25-2015, 09:20 AM

Great thread deflection by Hank so far.
No mention of the real topic of the thread, just blowing smoker over and over.
Way to go Hank!
Ignore it and it will go away?:lol::lol::lol:

tucker6

03-25-2015, 09:47 AM

Honesty is the best policy. :ThmbUp:
except where you are concerned of course...

Hank

03-25-2015, 10:57 AM

You mean overt racist comments like his need to be retorted with the word "racist" in it?? His post was so over the top racist that it made me breathless to read. I don't need to tell you that the sun is yellow. I also don't need to tell Snickster or you that his posts were racists. In the face of such stupidity, what should a poster do? Snickster wasn't going to change his opinion on the issue no matter how many words and links I wrote. So I chose to keep my response short and simple and point out the basic flaw. It seems that you are attempting to diminish my response to fit your storyline.

I assure you, this is not the case.As you say the racist nature of his post was obvious, yet your response nor any others that I'm aware of called him on this fact,you disagreed with his opinion with respect to the "merits" of slavery which was good and I said as much.NJ's post Was neither overtly nor covertly racist,yet it was characterized as such by multiple posters.Why?The righties did this as a form of protest to illustrate the point, that if a rightie made a post similar to NJ, which alluded to Blacks and the social safety net,they would be called racist.So turnabout is fair play.But unfortunately for them this tactic only confirmed why they are perceived as racist in the first place.Why? Because when righties allude to blacks with respect to social services, the message is invariable that blacks socioeconomic status stems solely from some innate defect on their part.This very conveniently removes from the causal chain, centuries of great, intentional and never ameliorated harm done.This is crucial for the validation and legitimization of the rightwing worldview.

PaceAdvantage

03-25-2015, 11:07 AM

I'm pretty sure banning him from posting should be considered a condemnation...don't you?

We right-leaners are men of action...

Hank

03-25-2015, 11:16 AM

I'm pretty sure banning him from posting should be considered a condemnation...don't you?

We right-leaners are men of action...

I do indeed.I have already explained that I was referencing the in the moment reactions to the snickster and NJ post.

PaceAdvantage

03-25-2015, 11:18 AM

That was my in-the-moment reaction...

Hank

03-25-2015, 11:24 AM

Great thread deflection by Hank so far.
No mention of the real topic of the thread, just blowing smoker over and over.
Way to go Hank!
Ignore it and it will go away?:lol::lol::lol:
Come on Tom,yor're getting old :lol: I was expecting a better retort.

HUSKER55

03-25-2015, 12:14 PM

if anyone here thinks more money will enhance the ability of a teacher to teach, than I have some irrigated farmland that lies south of Florida for sale.

Let us try my approach. They get paid in relation to how many kids can pass their sat's.

And no dummy-down the tests. They have to read the instructions and complete the test by themselves

FantasticDan

03-25-2015, 12:19 PM

I'm pretty sure banning him from posting should be considered a condemnation...don't you? We right-leaners are men of action... :lol: The guy was posting racist crap going back months, but hey.. congrats for finally jumping into action. :ThmbUp: :p

Clocker

03-25-2015, 12:34 PM

That was my in-the-moment reaction...

What was the in-the-moment reaction of our leftist brethren? I can't seem to remember. :confused:

Tom

03-25-2015, 12:50 PM

Come on Tom,yor're getting old :lol: I was expecting a better retort.

You seem to looking for anything that allows you to dodge the original premise of the thread.

Sorry if my trying get the thread back on the real topic is not up to your
standards.

Hank

03-25-2015, 02:38 PM

You seem to looking for anything that allows you to dodge the original premise of the thread.

Sorry if my trying get the thread back on the real topic is not up to your
standards.

Tom, every premiss Smith put forward in support of his conclusion is fallacious. Refute my assertions, or move on. :rolleyes:

"there was a Senate, a Republican Senate"..Dems controlled the senate from1955-1981

Democrats who were against civil rights legislation — the southern Dixiecrats....[B]The racist Dixiecrats were the only Dems to oppose the bill they are now racist republicans.

"black America assumed the Democrats were for it.”No Blacks understood the realpolitik of the racist southern strategy employed by republicans and reacted appropriately.