This is kinda shocking. Can you imagine the hell he is about to get from the left?

Quote:NASHVILLE, TN – On Tuesday, ESPN regular Stephen A. Smith spoke at the Impact Symposium at Vanderbilt University on the topic of “How You See It: Perceptions of (In)Equality.”

Smith believes that every black person in America should vote Republican at least once so that both parties could address their interests.

“What I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote Republican,” he said. “Because from what I’ve read, and I’m open to correction, but 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. 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. So because President Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, black America assumed the Democrats were for it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/1...epublican/

I used to have no use for this guy when he was in Philly. He, interestingly, cut his teeth and gained acclaim during the whole Mcnabb/Rush kerfuffle, which was of course sheer nonsense.

But it's interesting, he's willing to take on the "establishment" of race hustlers.As well as the Tom Jacksons/Bermans and others that cried so hard that day, it was morose comedy.

My guess is he's out by next Monday. It'll be a "suspension". Can't rock the gravy train!

He came to a good conclusion but for the wrong reason.

It is time to move the F on. Blacks shouldn't be voting based on which party supported what bill 50 years ago.

Good or not for your political team this just isn't the right way to go about things.

In terms of racism, I can't think of anything I would find more insulting as a black person than the fact that both the left and right assume they are utter morons and whomever has the best one liner will get the masses of those "trusty ignorant blacks" to line up for them. It's also why nobody who matter pays attention to problems facing the black community. They are in the bag, no reason to spend any time convincing them of anything.

Hell, the South has that problem. The South is in the bag for the right and so our political right spends no time talking about our issues or promising us anything.

It's just giving selling your influence for a handshake.

(03-19-2015 06:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He came to a good conclusion but for the wrong reason.

It is time to move the F on. Blacks shouldn't be voting based on which party supported what bill 50 years ago.

Good or not for your political team this just isn't the right way to go about things.

In terms of racism, I can't think of anything I would find more insulting as a black person than the fact that both the left and right assume they are utter morons and whomever has the best one liner will get the masses of those "trusty ignorant blacks" to line up for them. It's also why nobody who matter pays attention to problems facing the black community. They are in the bag, no reason to spend any time convincing them of anything.

Hell, the South has that problem. The South is in the bag for the right and so our political right spends no time talking about our issues or promising us anything.

It's just giving selling your influence for a handshake.

You have to put this in context with what SAS said on the Arsenio Hall Show, where he specifically mentions how voting one party ticket all the time for the past 50 years has marginalized the black vote. The plan to vote for the GOP is just a way to jump start a more nuanced voting perspective amongst blacks. It won't work of course but he at least gets an E for effort.

The parallels that you allude to regarding the GOP and the South are spot on though.

I think people should vote on what they view suits their needs. Too many people toe a company line and are more like sheep following the herd more-so than being individuals.

(03-19-2015 07:10 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 06:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He came to a good conclusion but for the wrong reason.

It is time to move the F on. Blacks shouldn't be voting based on which party supported what bill 50 years ago.

Good or not for your political team this just isn't the right way to go about things.

In terms of racism, I can't think of anything I would find more insulting as a black person than the fact that both the left and right assume they are utter morons and whomever has the best one liner will get the masses of those "trusty ignorant blacks" to line up for them. It's also why nobody who matter pays attention to problems facing the black community. They are in the bag, no reason to spend any time convincing them of anything.

Hell, the South has that problem. The South is in the bag for the right and so our political right spends no time talking about our issues or promising us anything.

It's just giving selling your influence for a handshake.

You have to put this in context with what SAS said on the Arsenio Hall Show, where he specifically mentions how voting one party ticket all the time for the past 50 years has marginalized the black vote. The plan to vote for the GOP is just a way to jump start a more nuanced voting perspective amongst blacks. It won't work of course but he at least gets an E for effort.

The parallels that you allude to regarding the GOP and the South are spot on though.

I understand why he said it.

My problem lies with his rationale in this instance. Blacks should not be lining up to vote Republican because of a party stance on a bill 50 years ago. That's a backwards rationale. Likewise, they shouldn't be voting Republican to spite the Dems who have abused their vote. It's time the black community as a whole break up and vote their actual opinion on the issues.

That brings me to my next point, have you seen the video where Howard Stern walked around Harlem asking black voters if they support Obama's policy on X and then telling them McCain's opinion? Every one said they agreed with Obama's policy, which was actually McCain's and most went on to justify why they agreed.

It's time for issues, not colour. Coming back around to our Pringles topic, that's why SAS is wrong here and on the topic. We do no good if we simply get a voting block to flip sides. The idea of the block itself is what needs to be challenged. I think you would agree that opinions in the black community do vary wildly and do not align with either party at a 85% clip. It's time to encourage people to vote the issues, not race, not their collective power as a racial group, not because Democrats were against civil rights 50 years ago, or because Lincoln was a Republican. It is time to move on.

(03-19-2015 07:12 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think people should vote on what they view suits their needs. Too many people toe a company line and are more like sheep following the herd more-so than being individuals.

The Big picture today is Not the individual politician as such as both Major parties agendas. It used to be You could vote for representatives from different parties and have local needs covered and They could support Your needs. Now its become the Party line first and foremost way before local issues come into play. If They don't follow along , They get replaced by another party mouthpiece and recieve nothing for campaign contributions. You pretty much have to know the Party platform and not the individual candidate to know which version is closer to Your core beliefs when voting.

(03-19-2015 07:33 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I understand why he said it.

My problem lies with his rationale in this instance. Blacks should not be lining up to vote Republican because of a party stance on a bill 50 years ago. That's a backwards rationale. Likewise, they shouldn't be voting Republican to spite the Dems who have abused their vote. It's time the black community as a whole break up and vote their actual opinion on the issues.

That brings me to my next point, have you seen the video where Howard Stern walked around Harlem asking black voters if they support Obama's policy on X and then telling them McCain's opinion? Every one said they agreed with Obama's policy, which was actually McCain's and most went on to justify why they agreed.

It's time for issues, not colour. Coming back around to our Pringles topic, that's why SAS is wrong here and on the topic. We do no good if we simply get a voting block to flip sides. The idea of the block itself is what needs to be challenged. I think you would agree that opinions in the black community do vary wildly and do not align with either party at a 85% clip. It's time to encourage people to vote the issues, not race, not their collective power as a racial group, not because Democrats were against civil rights 50 years ago, or because Lincoln was a Republican. It is time to move on.

The bolded is the ideal and I would love to live in a nation where such was true. But the reality is that identity politics work. It is that political effectiveness that keeps blacks voting for the DNC at record levels. Maybe once the Baby Boomers have given up the ghost you might see those numbers go down. But as long as members of the Civil Rights Era still have political influence, they will use that power to ensure that blacks remain loyal to the Democratic Party and not good governance.

(03-19-2015 08:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 07:33 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I understand why he said it.

My problem lies with his rationale in this instance. Blacks should not be lining up to vote Republican because of a party stance on a bill 50 years ago. That's a backwards rationale. Likewise, they shouldn't be voting Republican to spite the Dems who have abused their vote. It's time the black community as a whole break up and vote their actual opinion on the issues.

That brings me to my next point, have you seen the video where Howard Stern walked around Harlem asking black voters if they support Obama's policy on X and then telling them McCain's opinion? Every one said they agreed with Obama's policy, which was actually McCain's and most went on to justify why they agreed.

It's time for issues, not colour. Coming back around to our Pringles topic, that's why SAS is wrong here and on the topic. We do no good if we simply get a voting block to flip sides. The idea of the block itself is what needs to be challenged. I think you would agree that opinions in the black community do vary wildly and do not align with either party at a 85% clip. It's time to encourage people to vote the issues, not race, not their collective power as a racial group, not because Democrats were against civil rights 50 years ago, or because Lincoln was a Republican. It is time to move on.

The bolded is the ideal and I would love to live in a nation where such was true. But the reality is that identity politics work. It is that political effectiveness that keeps blacks voting for the DNC at record levels. Maybe once the Baby Boomers have given up the ghost you might see those numbers go down. But as long as members of the Civil Rights Era still have political influence, they will use that power to ensure that blacks remain loyal to the Democratic Party and not good governance.

Yea, they do.

That is what speaks directly to my initial point. I don't have any time for what SAS has to say on the topic because while his outcome is different, vote the other side, his rationale is more of the same. He isn't offering anything new or encouraging anything good. He clearly doesn't see the issue in its full depth. He is still stuck in the politics of race.

As for the end of race politics, I think they will get worse before they get better. Obama's administration has planted the ideas behind race politics directly in the middle of everything.

What bothers me the most about the politics of race is the fact that the logic and reasoning behind it are identical to that used in the times we lampoon as a nation.

1950: We hate N----s.
2015: We hate racist.

1950: Society would be better if there were no n-----s.
2015: Society would be better if there were no racists.

1950: We shouldn't tolerate n----s in our schools and influencing us.
2015: We shouldn't tolerate racists in our schools and influencing us.

1950: N----s shouldn't be able to voice an opinion.
2015: Racists shouldn't be able to voice an opinion.

1950: We are going to cut n----s and every person who agrees with them out of society.
2015: We are going to cut racists and every person who agrees with them out of society.

1950: You are just a good for nothing n-----r lover.
2015: You are just a good for nothing racist.

etc

etc

etc

The only difference is the target is different these days and the target isn't clearly marked by skin colour. But, and perhaps most importantly, both takes serve only a single purpose, to cut people out of the public discourse.

That's why I have absolutely zero respect for any person who cries racism or wants to affix that title on somebody. It is also what makes it so ironic. The ones calling everybody a racist are so stupid they don't even know what they are expressing. They are just the non free thinking sheep of today, not the ones with some sort of deeper understanding. Fools always think they are on the cutting edge. Those folks are identical to the people they supposedly hate. They are just in control today.

(03-19-2015 08:32 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yea, they do.

That is what speaks directly to my initial point. I don't have any time for what SAS has to say on the topic because while his outcome is different, vote the other side, his rationale is more of the same. He isn't offering anything new or encouraging anything good. He clearly doesn't see the issue in its full depth. He is still stuck in the politics of race.

As for the end of race politics, I think they will get worse before they get better. Obama's administration has planted the ideas behind race politics directly in the middle of everything.

What bothers me the most about the politics of race is the fact that the logic and reasoning behind it are identical to that used in the times we lampoon as a nation.

1950: We hate N----s.
2015: We hate racist.

1950: Society would be better if there were no n-----s.
2015: Society would be better if there were no racists.

1950: We shouldn't tolerate n----s in our schools and influencing us.
2015: We shouldn't tolerate racists in our schools and influencing us.

1950: N----s shouldn't be able to voice an opinion.
2015: Racists shouldn't be able to voice an opinion.

1950: We are going to cut n----s and every person who agrees with them out of society.
2015: We are going to cut racists and every person who agrees with them out of society.

1950: You are just a good for nothing n-----r lover.
2015: You are just a good for nothing racist.

etc

etc

etc

The only difference is the target is different these days and the target isn't clearly marked by skin colour. But, and perhaps most importantly, both takes serve only a single purpose, to cut people out of the public discourse.

That's why I have absolutely zero respect for any person who cries racism or wants to affix that title on somebody. It is also what makes it so ironic. The ones calling everybody a racist are so stupid they don't even know what they are expressing. They are just the non free thinking sheep of today, not the ones with some sort of deeper understanding. Fools always think they are on the cutting edge. Those folks are identical to the people they supposedly hate. They are just in control today.

Come on HOD, most everyone has some group they identify with and use said group as a touchstone for how they vote. From sexual identity, to religion to race, being affiliated with those groups are what give the opportunity to wield control of federal power. Very few people actually vote for good governance because doing so would require sacrifice. And since politics has been redefined as a game, it's become a competition the few are interested in losing.

As for the role reversal, the mental gymnastics have been performed and a justification has been provided for such hypocrisy: that minority prejudice is OK because said group lacks the power to marginalize or act on their feelings. For majority groups, being prejudice is racism since that group can enact policy due it's size. That type of thinking is something that can only be eliminated through time and death.

I think every black person should vote GOP in every election. Currently, women, blacks and gays who have escaped the Democrats Plantation deserve special recognition.

I think this is a good thread to post this here again....

Why is my blackness in question?

Quote:Recently, many black people have questioned my blackness. Apparently, for some, I’m not black enough.

But, what makes the claim so bogus to me is that our bi-racial president has been accepted as black by the black masses, even though his mother is white and he was raised by his white grandparents.

Some people have said what makes a person black is “the struggle.” What struggle, I ask? What more does Obama know about struggle than me? For a very brief time he lived in Indonesia, but, even in Indonesia, he lived a fairly comfortable life.

Here, in America, he has lived a privileged life, gone to top notch schools and colleges—and he hasn’t even spent enough time around black people to pick up, as one Democratic politician put it, a so-called “negro dialect.”

I, on the other hand, know a little bit about struggle. My family was poor by America’s standards, as were many other black, white, Hispanic, and “other” families that I know. We didn’t have many luxuries. We just had the basics. My family had been on food stamps before there was such thing as an EBT card. For years, we received our monthly allotment of government cheese, rice, boxed potato flakes, powdered milk, and dry cereal from our government taskmasters, in exchange for a small slice of our privacy and a big chunk of our dignity.

I know a little bit about struggle. I’ve lived in crime-ridden and poor Rochester, N.Y. neighborhoods. For those who are familiar with the area, I have lived on both the east side and the west side.

What does Obama know about the likes of Treyer St., Fourth St., Hoeltzer St., Clifford Ave., Flint St., Bronson Ave., Jefferson Ave., St. Simons Terrace, Fight Square, Fight Village, and Orleans St.? Those were my hoods.

I know a little about struggle. I’ve endured both racial and gender-based discrimination.

I’ve been sexually harassed, disrespected, spit upon, and called names.

I know something about struggle.

So, if I have the same sufferings and struggles of other blacks in America, why is my blackness in question?

My skin is black. But apparently black skin isn’t black enough. My jet-black hair is fashioned in locks, but I guess natural black hair is not enough. My lips are full, my nose is wide, my mouth protrudes, and my dress size? Full. But, for some reason, that is not enough! My mother? Black. My father? Black. My children? Black. My husband? Black . . and fine! So, why is my blackness in question?

I will give you a clue. During all the years I voted as a Democrat, I was considered blacker than black. I had been considered a “sista,” down for the struggle. My skin, my hair, my lips . . . black, black, black! My blackness was undeniable!

But, after I realized that I preferred a Republican and Conservative form of government, and began voting as a Republican (denouncing my allegiance to the Democratic Party, the party of the KKK, Jim Crow, and segregation), my blackness came under attack.

Instead of being considered a “sista,” many black people began believing I hated my own black skin. Instead of being down for the struggle, many black people started to think I wanted to see black people struggle. By these same people, I have been considered worse than a racist. I have been called a “sell-out” to my people, an “Uncle Tom.”

I have received all that criticism for believing this welfare state impedes economic growth and minimizes opportunity, and that it does not lift people out of poverty, but instead condemns them to it.

I have received all that hate from people who share my pigmentation, because I believe our rights come from God and not from government, and I exercise that belief with my vote. I have received all that hate because I believe that our federal, state, and local governments should be as fiscally responsible with other people’s money as they expect individuals and businesses to be with their own—and I exercise that belief with my vote. I have received all that name-calling, because I vote my values.

Nevertheless, although names hurt, they don’t define me. I am black because God said it is so, and so it is—and I love my blackness.

Yet, apparently, for some, blackness has more to do with the DNC than it does with DNA!

All this, despite overwhelming documented proof of Democratic racism, past and present, and an outright disrespect and disregard for the dignity of the black man.

So, I cannot let group think, peer pressure, persecution, or bullying inform my personal decisions and inclinations.

My blackness does not depend upon my political preferences. I am black because God said it is so, and so it is.

http://www.teoti.com/journals/129932-why...stion.html

(03-19-2015 10:23 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  I think this is a good thread to post this here again....

Why is my blackness in question?

Quote:Recently, many black people have questioned my blackness. Apparently, for some, I’m not black enough.

But, what makes the claim so bogus to me is that our bi-racial president has been accepted as black by the black masses, even though his mother is white and he was raised by his white grandparents.

Some people have said what makes a person black is “the struggle.” What struggle, I ask? What more does Obama know about struggle than me? For a very brief time he lived in Indonesia, but, even in Indonesia, he lived a fairly comfortable life.

Here, in America, he has lived a privileged life, gone to top notch schools and colleges—and he hasn’t even spent enough time around black people to pick up, as one Democratic politician put it, a so-called “negro dialect.”

I, on the other hand, know a little bit about struggle. My family was poor by America’s standards, as were many other black, white, Hispanic, and “other” families that I know. We didn’t have many luxuries. We just had the basics. My family had been on food stamps before there was such thing as an EBT card. For years, we received our monthly allotment of government cheese, rice, boxed potato flakes, powdered milk, and dry cereal from our government taskmasters, in exchange for a small slice of our privacy and a big chunk of our dignity.

I know a little bit about struggle. I’ve lived in crime-ridden and poor Rochester, N.Y. neighborhoods. For those who are familiar with the area, I have lived on both the east side and the west side.

What does Obama know about the likes of Treyer St., Fourth St., Hoeltzer St., Clifford Ave., Flint St., Bronson Ave., Jefferson Ave., St. Simons Terrace, Fight Square, Fight Village, and Orleans St.? Those were my hoods.

I know a little about struggle. I’ve endured both racial and gender-based discrimination.

I’ve been sexually harassed, disrespected, spit upon, and called names.

I know something about struggle.

So, if I have the same sufferings and struggles of other blacks in America, why is my blackness in question?

My skin is black. But apparently black skin isn’t black enough. My jet-black hair is fashioned in locks, but I guess natural black hair is not enough. My lips are full, my nose is wide, my mouth protrudes, and my dress size? Full. But, for some reason, that is not enough! My mother? Black. My father? Black. My children? Black. My husband? Black . . and fine! So, why is my blackness in question?

I will give you a clue. During all the years I voted as a Democrat, I was considered blacker than black. I had been considered a “sista,” down for the struggle. My skin, my hair, my lips . . . black, black, black! My blackness was undeniable!

But, after I realized that I preferred a Republican and Conservative form of government, and began voting as a Republican (denouncing my allegiance to the Democratic Party, the party of the KKK, Jim Crow, and segregation), my blackness came under attack.

Instead of being considered a “sista,” many black people began believing I hated my own black skin. Instead of being down for the struggle, many black people started to think I wanted to see black people struggle. By these same people, I have been considered worse than a racist. I have been called a “sell-out” to my people, an “Uncle Tom.”

I have received all that criticism for believing this welfare state impedes economic growth and minimizes opportunity, and that it does not lift people out of poverty, but instead condemns them to it.

I have received all that hate from people who share my pigmentation, because I believe our rights come from God and not from government, and I exercise that belief with my vote. I have received all that hate because I believe that our federal, state, and local governments should be as fiscally responsible with other people’s money as they expect individuals and businesses to be with their own—and I exercise that belief with my vote. I have received all that name-calling, because I vote my values.

Nevertheless, although names hurt, they don’t define me. I am black because God said it is so, and so it is—and I love my blackness.

Yet, apparently, for some, blackness has more to do with the DNC than it does with DNA!

All this, despite overwhelming documented proof of Democratic racism, past and present, and an outright disrespect and disregard for the dignity of the black man.

So, I cannot let group think, peer pressure, persecution, or bullying inform my personal decisions and inclinations.

My blackness does not depend upon my political preferences. I am black because God said it is so, and so it is.

http://www.teoti.com/journals/129932-why...stion.html

Story of my life. I'm sure her family reunions are a blast.

(03-19-2015 08:32 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 08:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 07:33 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I understand why he said it.

My problem lies with his rationale in this instance. Blacks should not be lining up to vote Republican because of a party stance on a bill 50 years ago. That's a backwards rationale. Likewise, they shouldn't be voting Republican to spite the Dems who have abused their vote. It's time the black community as a whole break up and vote their actual opinion on the issues.

That brings me to my next point, have you seen the video where Howard Stern walked around Harlem asking black voters if they support Obama's policy on X and then telling them McCain's opinion? Every one said they agreed with Obama's policy, which was actually McCain's and most went on to justify why they agreed.

It's time for issues, not colour. Coming back around to our Pringles topic, that's why SAS is wrong here and on the topic. We do no good if we simply get a voting block to flip sides. The idea of the block itself is what needs to be challenged. I think you would agree that opinions in the black community do vary wildly and do not align with either party at a 85% clip. It's time to encourage people to vote the issues, not race, not their collective power as a racial group, not because Democrats were against civil rights 50 years ago, or because Lincoln was a Republican. It is time to move on.

The bolded is the ideal and I would love to live in a nation where such was true. But the reality is that identity politics work. It is that political effectiveness that keeps blacks voting for the DNC at record levels. Maybe once the Baby Boomers have given up the ghost you might see those numbers go down. But as long as members of the Civil Rights Era still have political influence, they will use that power to ensure that blacks remain loyal to the Democratic Party and not good governance.

Yea, they do.

That is what speaks directly to my initial point. I don't have any time for what SAS has to say on the topic because while his outcome is different, vote the other side, his rationale is more of the same. He isn't offering anything new or encouraging anything good. He clearly doesn't see the issue in its full depth. He is still stuck in the politics of race.

As for the end of race politics, I think they will get worse before they get better. Obama's administration has planted the ideas behind race politics directly in the middle of everything.

What bothers me the most about the politics of race is the fact that the logic and reasoning behind it are identical to that used in the times we lampoon as a nation.

1950: We hate N----s.
2015: We hate racist.

1950: Society would be better if there were no n-----s.
2015: Society would be better if there were no racists.

1950: We shouldn't tolerate n----s in our schools and influencing us.
2015: We shouldn't tolerate racists in our schools and influencing us.

1950: N----s shouldn't be able to voice an opinion.
2015: Racists shouldn't be able to voice an opinion.

1950: We are going to cut n----s and every person who agrees with them out of society.
2015: We are going to cut racists and every person who agrees with them out of society.

1950: You are just a good for nothing n-----r lover.
2015: You are just a good for nothing racist.

etc

etc

etc

The only difference is the target is different these days and the target isn't clearly marked by skin colour. But, and perhaps most importantly, both takes serve only a single purpose, to cut people out of the public discourse.

That's why I have absolutely zero respect for any person who cries racism or wants to affix that title on somebody. It is also what makes it so ironic. The ones calling everybody a racist are so stupid they don't even know what they are expressing. They are just the non free thinking sheep of today, not the ones with some sort of deeper understanding. Fools always think they are on the cutting edge. Those folks are identical to the people they supposedly hate. They are just in control today.

Holy shiite. What a great post. You are dead on.

(03-19-2015 09:28 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I think every black person should vote GOP in every election. Currently, women, blacks and gays who have escaped the Democrats Plantation deserve special recognition.

The reality of the thing is that if the Repubs saw much of a glimmer of hope of the block voting starting to crack a bit, they would have more of an interest in working to make it happen.

This was, in my understanding another part of what SAS was saying- the Dims have taken the Black vote at such a clip 85-95% for so long their interests are no longer being served. Their votes are taken for granted. There is very strong evidence of exactly that. What areas have seen improvement in the parts of the Black American life we are talking about here?

OTOH, the votes seem so predetermined that the Repubs have (very shortsightedly IMO) simply written it off for another reason, they ain' voting for a Republican anyway even if they ARE black themselves. There's strong evidence there as well.

So I think, in part, what he was driving at is that written off is written off. Doesn't really matter by whom and why, just that it is. So how do we/they change that dynamic? How do we make our public "servants" stop and take notice?

No one cares much when the light comes on when you flip the switch. When it doesn't, everyone takes note. Same thing here.

He is the only watchable commentator on ESPN. His thoughts are interesting.

(03-20-2015 11:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  He is the only watchable commentator on ESPN. His thoughts are interesting.

Sometimes, but most of the time he's annoying, IMO. Wonder if he's trying to reach out for a future gig like Olberman did? We all saw how that worked out.

(03-21-2015 06:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 11:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  He is the only watchable commentator on ESPN. His thoughts are interesting.

Sometimes, but most of the time he's annoying, IMO. Wonder if he's trying to reach out for a future gig like Olberman did? We all saw how that worked out.

Most of ESPN is annoying LOL. I do think SAS has some passion for thoughts.
That daily roundtable show hosted by I think Skip Bayless, no thanks.

(03-19-2015 07:12 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think people should vote on what they view suits their needs. Too many people toe a company line and are more like sheep following the herd more-so than being individuals.

I think people should vote in the best interest of the country. People voting for whoever would "cut them the best deal" got us into this mess.

(03-21-2015 08:28 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 07:12 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think people should vote on what they view suits their needs. Too many people toe a company line and are more like sheep following the herd more-so than being individuals.

I think people should vote in the best interest of the country. People voting for whoever would "cut them the best deal" got us into this mess.

That's not exactly a sharp distinction. People think being cut the best deal IS what's best for the country.

As far as the American mindset goes, your way is always the best way.