You're going to Charles Barkley for insight? He's good for laughs but dumber than shite.
So what's his truth is he isn't a liar? What exactly is he saying? Is it....
People, specifically black people, should vote based solely on how it affects them economically? Or is it...
Black people should vote for politicians that sell them on betterment for themselves as African-Americans as opposed to just as Americans?
What he's speaking to, and it's actually a point I agree with, is black people getting away from the notion that the democratic candidate is automatically the right candidate for them/us. It's the "What have you got to lose" stance. My point wasn't a counter of this. Again, I am a firm believer in this. My point is that Chuck is a clown and should never be quoted in any serious manner.
To back this up i'll offer these two items.
1. Black wealth had definely grown in the last 10 years, 30 years, 100 years, ect. In that time we've had both liberal and conservative leadership, liberal and conservative majorities. It would be a logistical nightmare to prove which side has been bettee for this growth. The fact is neither can take credit. We started so far back in this country that there was no where else to go but up. And that upward mobility has been more about individual effort than any parties policy. So his notion that voting democratically hasn't helped African Americans is flawed at best. Surely social programs supported by democrats, i.e. Headstart, ect. has had a positive affect. And the beautiful part od such programs is they positively affect all disadvantaged Americans regardless of race.
2. So if his point is N/A, at best, when speaking in a general sense, let's take him at his actual words and assume he's speaking directly about people he knows specifically. I would posit that at this point Chuck knows more weslthy African Americans than poor. Many of these wealthy African-Americans, many of who i'm sure vote democrat, have seen tremendous personal wealth growth. So I would call him a liar when he says.... whatever the quote was. Like I said, Chuck is a clown. A sound bite. And he isn't articulate enough to properly word the point he attempted to make. As I said, he should never be quoted in any serious manner.
Back from Vegas already and posting all of this on a Saturday night. The tables and the woman must not have been kind to you.
According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year 11 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers. Today about 75 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers. Is that supposed to be a delayed response to the legacy of slavery? The bottom line is that the black family was stronger the first 100 years after slavery than during what will be the second 100 years.
At one time, almost all black families were poor, regardless of whether one or both parents were present. Today roughly 30 percent of blacks are poor. However, two-parent black families are rarely poor. Only 8 percent of black married-couple families live in poverty. Among black families in which both the husband and wife work full time, the poverty rate is under 5 percent. Poverty in black families headed by single women is 37 percent. The undeniable truth is that neither slavery nor Jim Crow nor the harshest racism has decimated the black family the way the welfare state has.
The most damage done to black Americans is inflicted by those politicians, civil rights leaders and academics who assert that every problem confronting blacks is a result of a legacy of slavery and discrimination. That’s a vision that guarantees perpetuity for the problems.
https://walterewilliams.com/the-welfare-states-legacy/
https://walterewilliams.com/democrats'-hoodwinking-of-blacks/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/09/democrats-hurt-blacks-low-expectations/
One of these “favors” was the welfare state. A vastly expanded welfare state in the 1960s destroyed the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and generations of racial oppression.
In 1960, before this expansion of the welfare state, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent. By 1985, 67 percent of black children were raised with either one parent or no parent.
This is ultimately not a racial thing. Exactly the same welfare state policies and the same non-judgmental exemption from behavioral standards in Britain have led to remarkably similar results among lower-class whites there.
https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/11/14/a-legacy-of-liberalism
Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and "war on poverty" programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.
If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed "legacy of slavery" they talk about. Liberals should heed the title of Jason Riley's insightful new book, "Please Stop Helping Us."
What does mass murderers & Pelosi have to do with the 2nd debate?
Please stay on topic for cries sake.
So what, who the hell cares. you run your mouth and bitch about ANYTHING.
You need to understand that Bashar al-Assad is the legitimate President of Syria, and speaking with him can alleviate the crisis very possibly. diplomacy is not going to happen without COMMUNICATION you ignorant fool and naive jackass.
[Quote: Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim]..and another one and another one bites the dust ,..Washington state Governor Jay Inslee (D) announced Wednesday night on Rachel Maddow’s show that he will be dropping out of the 2020 race for the Democrat nomination.Inslee had centered his campaign around climate change..No one is interested Governor ...Climate change is way down on the list ..[/Qu
Not surprisingly, I totally disagree. Climate change is definitely a top 5 topic.
On the other hand, I'm glad to see the herd is thinning.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
