Last Friday's Seattle Times demanded that Geraldine Ferraro apologize for claiming that Obama's candidacy benefits from his ethnicity. The Times attacked the straw man that:
It does not follow that his campaign is based on race or that he is a token candidate.Ferraro's actual statement is here
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position ... And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."Ferraro said nothing about tokenism or that Obama's campaign is "based on race" (the Seattle Times editorial board has a track record of making stuff up, after all). But it's not unreasonable to suggest that some, and possibly a decisive component, of Obama's support is attributable to people who consider his ethnic heritage to be one factor in his favor. I've heard and read statements from more than a few Obama supporters to that effect. Take, for example, the Seattle Times own endorsement editorial from Jan. 27:
Obama's personal story offers progress in the ongoing struggle to be a more comfortable, racially diverse country. The son of a white mother from Kansas and an absent father from Kenya, he doesn't need to say much about diversity. He moves the issue forward just by waking up in the morning.I think it's fair to suggest that if Obama was a white man, the Seattle Times would not have made that argument in his favor. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 21, 2008 10:16 AM | Email This
Ya forgot to turn off the comments.
Quick, before anyone notices .....
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 21, 2008 10:43 AMUntil the Pastor is put out to Pasture, expect the fallout to be placed squarely on the shoulder's it belongs on....Barack Obama.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 21, 2008 10:49 AMRacist.
He is free to think that all whites are racist bigots of course, but should not pretend to be surprised when he fails to get their votes. Of course, if he fails to win, we will all be told about the racist country we live in.
Posted by: Hmmm on March 21, 2008 12:09 PM(excerpt)
CNSNews.com) - The lengthy Democratic primary contest bodes well for Republican chances of holding the White House, a new poll suggests.
As Democratic Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York slug it out for the nomination, many of their supporters -- at least in Pennsylvania, site of the next major primary -- aren't committed to the party's ticket in November, according to a Franklin & Marshall College Poll.
Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee. (See poll)
The significant number of potential defectors underscores how divisive the Democratic primary has been.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080321a.html
Posted by: Elephant on March 21, 2008 12:21 PMOther than his hypnotic mass speech asset, the guy is nothing.
Obama has to be glad the topic is race and not his real Achilles heel- Rezko and Obama wife's phony salary increase at a hospital.
Posted by: swatter on March 21, 2008 12:24 PMIf you think Barack's gaffe's are revealing, wait till they take the muzzle off her.
As Michael Kinsley famously said:
"A gaffe in Washington is when a politician tell the truth"
The keyword is Divisive, the trademark of the Democrat party.
Posted by: REBEL on March 21, 2008 01:02 PMWe REALLY need a viable third-party in America.
Posted by: Splinter on March 21, 2008 01:09 PMThis whole topic of he said/she said is so overplayed...*yawn*
When are we going to start talking about Mccain's hatred of American workers. He did say that no hard working American would ever pick lettuce in Yuma for $50/hr. Especially not for the whole season.
Maybe we can talk about his disapproval of the Bush tax cuts. Or about how he's flip-flopped more times than Romney & Kerry combined.
Of course McCain is a war hero, so we're not going to give equal scrutiny to his out of context quotes about the war in Iraq and the future war with Iran.
Nope, no equal scrutiny here. Just the same ol' trash the other candidate rhetoric so yours doesn't look so bad.
I actually don't think Ferraro's first statement was terribly wrong. It was her later statement defending the first one where she said "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" that betrayed her true feelings.
Go back to Queens, Gerry. The age of the white ethnic Democrat machine pol is over.
As for the Times "demand," they can get bent. Even McCain is saying this cycle of supporter quote "gotcha" and cries for "apologies" is spinning out of control and is counterproductive for America - even though his own political fortunes are rising because of it at the moment.
Posted by: bollox on March 21, 2008 01:16 PMToo bad for you that the Libertarians chose the populous state of New Hampshire over a more sparsely populated state like Wyoming.
I guess you have no choice but to support the Constitution Party.
I wonder though, can you refute any of it?
Posted by: Ragnar on March 21, 2008 02:09 PMLet me get this straight, you're asking people to refute a post about racism in America written by a known anti-Semite?
HAHA, I thought I'd seen it all, but this one really tops the cake Ragnar.
This part was my favorite:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
Oh yeah, black people should be thankful that Europeans brought them over as slaves. According to Pat it was the best thing that ever happened to them. You don't actually believe this crap do you Ragnar?
Obama should have completely disavowed Wright. His 20-year connection to him is going to sink his candidacy. Regardless, race has nothing to do with why I wouldn't vote for him. It's because he is far, far left.
Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2008 02:31 PMOr maybe as thankful as the blacks practicing slavery in Africa TO THIS DAY?
Odd that the people, so outraged by the practice of slavery that our Nation paid 600,000 mostly white lives for in a brutal Civil War, seems so quiet about slavery today. Yeah. Odd.
Posted by: hinton on March 21, 2008 02:34 PMPersonally I would say black people in Europe. Black people in Europe were integrated and accepted generations ago. As opposed to here where a generation ago we still had separate facilities for each race, black people had to sit at the back of the bus, police were beating them with clubs and attacking them with dogs, firefighters hosing them down while they marched for freedom (which is covered by the 1st Amendment)
I'm sure black people should be thanking whitey for shackling them and shoving them into tiny quarters to be shipped across the ocean away from their families.
I bet black people today are grateful that these events occurred and that they were sold like cattle to people who exploited their manual labor while beating and whipping them.
It's not like our founding fathers ever raped the slaves or anything.
Hate to tell you, that's Pat's point in that article. He thinks that black people should be bowing down and kissing the feet of the white man for bringing them here, abusing them, oppressing them and then finally giving them equal rights 175 or so years later.
race has nothing to do with why I wouldn't vote for him. It's because he is far, far left.
Then why do you defend the article which is clearly a bunch of crap?
outraged by the practice of slavery that our Nation paid 600,000 mostly white lives for in a brutal Civil War
I'm sure if you asked a Union Soldier at the time if he was fighting to free the slaves he'd respectfully disagree with you. I'd bet he would tell you it was about more about keeping America together as a country.
You know Unity, land of the free, home of the brave, all that good stuff that we still stand up and fight for.
Maybe, but that still doesn't justify the act of slavery itself. (metaphor) I'd be like talking about how great abortions is legal in this country because there are less mouths to feed which means more food for everyone else (end metaphor). The end doesn't justify the mean.
There is nobody alive who was brought over as a slave like you suggest.
I didn't suggest that at all.
Bull crap, Pat's point is right here:
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Pat thinks that black people should be bowing down and kissing the feet of the white man for bringing them here, abusing them, oppressing them and then finally giving them equal rights 175 or so years later.
You act like no one ever discriminated in this country against you if you were African, Irish, German, Native American, a Woman. I think America is a great country but no one should ever have to bow down and to their knees and thank white people for the years of suffering and oppression they went through to get the so called "equal opportunities" times we have today.
Click Here to see for yourself
Wrong. That's not what he's saying there at all. He's stating that Wright is far, far better off as a black American than he would be as a black African today. And he's absolutely right.
Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2008 04:21 PMWow you're right. Perhaps they are communist party pins, the ones he is comfortable wearing.
Posted by: MyOhMy! on March 21, 2008 04:35 PM"Close to saying" is a red herring. She didn't say it. But in many ways indeed, he has not earned his position.
He's almost entirely a media creation. He's had free and lavish promotion from MSM, beginning many months before this interminable primary season, and for what? Oh, he emits perfumed clouds of glittering generalities with "hope" and "change" in them. He has no legislative accomplishments of note, he leads no factions, he's avoided any specific proposals - other than to immerse Iraq in fratricide by an immediate pullout of US military there. But, his color is politically correct, whether we're allowed to notice or not, and the MSM is nothing if not politically correct. Not for nothing has a smarter guy than me pointed out that Obama's base is the media. His celebrity is a media production.
Let him earn his spurs by accomplishment and establish a record. Let's see if such accomplishment amplifies his far-left Senatorial voting record, or perhaps pleases more folks than just MoveOn.org. And then then let him run for President of us all, based on that record and all the rhetoric he can muster.
Coda: One anti-military Commander-in-Chief 1992-2000 was bad enough in this hazardous world. Another at this point would be even worse.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 21, 2008 04:44 PMMaybe you should reread Pat's bullet point paragraphs again. I think you will find that's exactly what he's saying.
I thought the Republicans were the party that brought people civil rights, yet here we have an example of a white man who opposed every piece of civil rights legislation talking about how great black people have it today. Kind of ironic isn't it.
I'm sure they're made in the same place (China).
One screw up Presidency (2000 - 2008) is enough to make think about going back. So much for Iraq's ability to pre-emtivley attack us. Mission Accomplished my ass.
Now we've got the President and Vice-President begging the terrorist supporters for more oil. The whole thing just sickens me.
National Black Republican Association
http://www.nbra.info/
Also:
"WASHINGTON -- Perhaps the biggest shift in American politics is the growing affluence of the Democrats' congressional constituencies and the influence they wield over party tax policy.
While Democrats like to portray themselves as the champions of middle- and lower-income Americans, a new study finds that they now represent a majority of the country's wealthiest districts and their richest voters are the ones they are listening to when it comes to tax reform."
Posted by: John Bailo on March 21, 2008 06:00 PMI have, and it's clear to me that's not his intent at all. But since you've already decided that Pat's a racist, you ascribe these words to mean something they don't so he fits the profile in your mind.
And you don't address anything of real substance in his article, namely that the black community refuses to address the real underlying problems and instead pursues Rev Wright's "institutional racism" cabal.
Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2008 06:14 PMWell it makes sense. After all, the chinese military is where Democrats trade sensitive US technologies for campaign contributions from Chinese military agents.
Posted by: MeOhMy! on March 21, 2008 08:13 PMWow, I bet if JFK didn't have his daddy's name, help, AND bribes..er, I mean money, and didn't get Daley to allow dead people to vote, he wouldn't have been President either. Imagine that. What's your point, Cato?
20. I can't stand to watch or listen to politics any longer. I've finally concluded that the 20% at each end of the political spectrum is totally stark raving mad, 10% in the middle are so totally gullible they will simply go with the wind and agree with whatever it is they happened to have heard last, and then the 40% of the 'moderates' that tend to be rational and reasonable, are held hostage by the two extremes and the vacilating jellyfish in the center.
We REALLY need a viable third-party in America.
Posted by Splinter at March 21, 2008 01:09 PM
The math may not be great, but I totally agree with you. In my opinon, many party zealots are just party Nazis. Most of the reasonable folks have been or are getting driven out of both parties.
(Maybe that's a good thing... no more bozos like Jeff Jared, whose 64,734 votes gave us Cantwell by a margin of 2,229 over Gorton)
Posted by: Yaddacubed on March 21, 2008 11:03 PM
While McCain can just keep putting all of his into the bank and sit back and watch them tear each other apart.
Gotta love it. That would have paid for one hell of alot of healthcare plans folks!
Buchanan's blog is right on, but Cato wants to turn it into something that it is not.
Hey Cato, lets see what you can do with this,
"Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?"
I can't wait to hear you come back with some idiotic theory that reverse isn't true because of white racism.
Cato, you need to change your brand of booze.
"We want a politics that reflects our best values," Obama said early in the campaign. "We want a politics that reflects our core decency, a politics that is based on a simple premise that we stand and fall together."
This is the type of message that Obama is successfully selling. It is what much of the electorate wants. It is unfortunate we have made a society so indulged in the values of their politicians while ignoring the morality of the policy positions of their politicians.
Are his foreign policy credentials and healthcare solutions less important than his pastor? A lot of people seem to think so.
Obama so far has been an incredible salesman we will see if it continues. I don't think he is a talking head either but a Liberal who sells himself to a changing electorate very well.
But what happens when one disagrees with the policies of "Hope?" More division???
Posted by: A-Rob on March 22, 2008 09:33 AMThe most delicious part is that neither/both candidates will be intact when the last carcass is barely left standing.
Whorrabullary will be stuck with the facts that folks don't like her; that she lost primary after primary after primary. She is wearing her duplicity like a stinky bra under a designer Mao jacket.... as her recently released papers are proving.
Barry (middle name fear bomb deleleted) OBAAAAAHma is stuck with the fact he knowingly stuck with a hateful racist fo 20 years. He's stuck with the fact that he NEEDS those horrrible white people that he hates so much. He's stuck with the fact that his own mother would be insulted by that cretin he refuses to decry and he's stuck with the fact that the entire country saw him throw the white grandmother he claims to love under the political expediancy bus. He's stuck with the light increasinly shining on hes angry wife. Then of course there's the VERBOTEN! middle name. Hmmm, now why is he so sensitive about it? Did Richard MILHOUSE forbid his name use? Lyndon BAINES? John FITZGERALD? They all had the same familial history for the names incorporated into their legal name. Why doesn't he just legally change it if it is a source of shame to him? If it is not a source of shame, why would he try to conceal it from the American people? Or worse, attempt to shame people when they do use it?
I read that 19% of Whorrabullary supporters refuse to vote for Barry (middle name fear bomb deleleted) OBAAAAAHma if he is the dem nominee and that 20% of Barry (middle name fear bomb deleleted) OBAAAAAHma supporters refuse to vote for Whorrabullary if she is the nominee. OUCH!
We get to sit back and laugh all the way to Denver.
Tim Egam of the NYT calls them the Donner Party Democrats... Yum, yum little libs...eat up!
~~
~~
~~
~~
AND, we haven't even mentioned the intermission performances of Spitzer, Paterson and 3 way McGreevy! .... I think I need a scorecard!
Posted by: Ragnar on March 22, 2008 10:34 AMHow sad.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 22, 2008 10:40 AMThat statement is both factually incorrect as well as being non-germane.
On the first count: Presumably you are talking about the editorial page of the WSJ, since the news pages have never been or been accused of being "conservative". As for the editorial page, it is indeed conservative, but it has been so since LONG before the paper was owned by Rupert Murcoch, and LONG before Fox News was even a gleam in Rupert Murdoch's eye.
On the second count: The piece that Ragnar refered to was not a piece BY the WSJ editorial pages, it was an opinion piece by Shelby Steele, not affiliated with the WSJ, ON the Opinion pages. There have been opinion pieces by other authors on the WSJ Opinion pages, recently, by such "Fox News lapdogs" as George McGovern, Robert Reich and many others...
Posted by: Bill H on March 22, 2008 11:04 AMGood, so do I. If you would like to keep more of your money, you shouldn't vote for Democrats. They will waste it giving it away to people that sit on their assess all day while you work yours off. Has nothing to do with race. Lazy bums come in all colors and varieties as do good honest hard working people. Democrats pander to the lazy asses so they can take more of your hard earned tax dollars to give to the lay asses.
"I have to be happy to hear a black joke at work, lest if I don't, I am labeled a problem or a victicrat."
Umm no you don't. There are laws in place and if people are acting that way, you go to your Human Resources office and complain. Hostile work environment is the legal term. If they don't want to act, ask them how good it would look to the company if the NAACP was marching on their offices with the 5 O clock news filming. And tell me when and where and I will join the march. And I hate to tell you this, but you cannot go through life worrying what people think about you. If they tend to think bad about XYZ people, they are ignorant and will always think that way. They are not worthy of being friends with you and their opinion of you doesn't matter at all.
"How about we deal with how well he will run the country? How about we deal with the policies he is going to enact? If Obama were a white man, we would NOT have a fourm like this one, it would be about his policies and his actions, not his race or the race of his pastor."
Actually most are talking about his policies, mostly socialism warmed over. One of his main campaign themes has been "Uniting, not dividing". Let's talk about that shall we?
When you sit in a church with a man that is "like a father" to you who preaches that white people invented AIDS to kill black people, how does that unite us?
I recall the uproar when Ross Perot said "you people" yet when Obama goes on the radio after his speech and tries to defend throwing his white grandmother under the bus in his speech (characterizing her as a racist), he throws out stereotypes such as "typical white person" who had fear of blacks "bred" into them. How the HELL does any black person know what is a "typical white person" any more than a white person knows what is a "typical black person"?
" If Obama were a white man, we would NOT have a fourm like this one, it would be about his policies and his actions, not his race or the race of his pastor."
If Obama were a white man, he would have been run off months ago and forced to never enter politics again. Trent Lott comes to mind. This is hypocrisy and it is one of the reasons Obama finds himself in such a pickle today.
Here is a perfect example. Don Imus said the phrase "Knappy Headed Hoes" and Obama called for him to be fired. Obama's paster says much worse and Obama sticks by him and even throws his white grandmother under the bus as yet another example of how all white people are racists. Harlem pastor James David Manning yelled out "knappy headed hoes" in his church. Where is the clamor for HIS resignation. Hypocrisy, hypocrisy hypocrisy.
"I do not represent all blacks, but I represent a majority of people who just want civil discourse in politics."
Umm but that isn't what your moniker says, is it? Hypocrisy.
Posted by: Ummmm on March 22, 2008 11:22 AMIf you were White, would you rather be living in the United States or in Afghanistan?
Okay, now a harder question. As a White person, would you rather be living in mostly White Afghanistan or in mostly Black Kenya?
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 22, 2008 12:47 PM"If you were White, would you rather be living in the United States or in Afghanistan?"
That is a Non sequitor. Since you addressed the question specifically to "White Folks", it doesn't logically follow with "If you were white".
How idiotic. No wonder you couldn't win any election contests.
Posted by: Typical White Person on March 22, 2008 12:54 PMWonder if you live in Pacific Beach with the moniker of Pirate, Steve, or atheist? Now let's get to the substance of what you said:
1. No one represents ALL of anything. Senator Clinton doesn't ALL represent women and from comments here, Senator Mc Cain apparently doesn't represent ALL republican viewpoints.
2. What you have is an opinion shared by many in the Black community like Dr. Bill Cosby and others. There are plenty of Black conservatives, in fact there are several groups. Rev. Perryman will be at the 47th District Republicans and he shares similar views.
3. What is happening in this country is a misalignment of parties in regard to those of color. If you are in fact the real thing, you no doubt know many people of color who are just as conservative on many issues as those here, but won't vote republican, but well, it is a republican. Calling Senator Obama names, no matter how much one disgarees with his views on the issues does nothing to expand the base of the republican party. Even though some folks may disagree with him, it is a matter of pride that he is running.
A lot, not all of the race problem in this country stems from lack of education which leads to lack of economic opportunity. Oprah, General Powell and Dr. Rice certainly have an easier time than Joe Black person.
To the average poster here, expanding the base is code for affirmative action and they want none of it. Expanding the base really means decent schools, clean government, a strong economy, and family friendly policies. You'd surprised how many folks could get with that program.
Posted by: WVH on March 22, 2008 01:11 PMLet's examine this one for a moment shall we? First off, I agree 100% that a lack of education leads to lack of economic opportunity. So we agree on that one.
You were vague in stating "the race problem", so I am left only to interpret. I interpret that to mean the black educational problem. Namely that joe black person lacks the education and thus the marketable skills to get equal economic opportunity. Again, I would tend to agree with you on this.
Taking this one step further, one must examine the educational system. Are schools not available to blacks K12? No, there are schools. Are the schools substandard? AHA, we may be onto something here.
Presuming the heart of the matter of your somewhat vague statement gets at the fact that the schools are failing the students, one must then ask, who runs the schools that are failing the students?
The National Education Association is who runs the schools. They are the ones that fight against accountability. They are the ones that fight against quantitative measurement of school success. They are also heavily in cahoots with the Democrat Party.
If one wants a case study of the NEA union establishment norms of expecting less than success of minority students, one can rent the movie "Stand and Deliver" and see how exceptional teachers must fight the entrenched union enforced bureaucracies in order to succeed.
Until the NEW grip on education in America is broken, innovation will continue to be stifled and those already at the bottom of the economic scale will remain there.
Posted by: AveragePoster on March 22, 2008 01:35 PMAs reported in this article on Escalante's program :
"Escalante's open admission policy, a major reason for his success, also paved the way for his departure. Calculus grew so popular at Garfield that classes grew beyond the 35-student limit set by the union contract. Some had more than 50 students. Escalante would have preferred to keep the classes below the limit had he been able to do so without either denying calculus to willing students or using teachers who were not up to his high standards. Neither was possible, and the teachers union complained about Garfield's class sizes. Rather than compromise, Escalante moved on."
Posted by: AveragePoster on March 22, 2008 01:44 PMOh do share with me some of my "token" racicst remarks Ragnar, I do look forward to seeing your exquisitely twisted logic that would cause you to label me a racist. Once comment regarding fake people on a fake anonymous site seem a rather weak argument.
"Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?"
That a fine thing to say but where is the source to back it up? Pat doesn't say. I doubt I could get away with some BS statistic on here.
But since you've already decided that Pat's a racist
I have not called him that, I just pointed out the irony of the situation where a white male tells black people they should thank white people for enslaving, beating them, segregating them,
and then granting them equal rights 175 or so years later.
The only thing I can accuse Pat of being is an anti-semite (which is well documented).
Wow, I bet if JFK didn't have his daddy's name, help, AND bribes..er, I mean money, and didn't get Daley to allow dead people to vote, he wouldn't have been President either.
Wow, and I bet if you took Illinois away from Kennedy on an 1960 electoral map and gave it Nixon, JFK would still be President.
Liberal Elites here
You forgot to mention the "conservative elites" who seem to dominate this board. I don't feel my views are superior in any way to yours, unlike Ragnar who's postings excerpt elitist rhetoric.
1. Many here support the group Where's the Math and their work with Math Standards.
2. The only reason I post here and continue to post here is the issue of competition in schools.
Unless some dem does the equivalent of Nixon going to China and bucks the union, change will come from the republican side of the aisle. There will be no progress in education for all children until there is competition in education.
The tough thing about being a ""mainstreamer like you and whatever nom de plume you use next is your ideas and hatred are pretty well fixed. Too bad the education you say you support probably never impacted your world.
Posted by: WVH on March 22, 2008 05:30 PMhttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
You think Buchanan's stats are wrong, prove it.
How quaint. What are YOUR results with the AP Calculus test? Do tell.
"2. The only reason I post here and continue to post here is the issue of competition in schools."
Really? You don't seem to have any ideas at all regarding that topic.
"The tough thing about being a ""mainstreamer like you and whatever nom de plume you use next is your ideas and hatred are pretty well fixed. Too bad the education you say you support probably never impacted your world."
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. - Matthew 7:1-2
One comment, hmm? That's no biggie, hmmm?
Can you say Trent Lott?
February 26, 2008
What WAS Ken Hutcherson trying to say?
Comment #146
They are YOUR words... OWN them instead of trying to weasel out of them. YOU willingly, knowingly typed these vile ugly hateful racist words: " Juanita Gonzales (token hispanic woman?), Jamal McCoy (token black guy?), Gregory Chang (token asian guy?), & Jeffrey Goldberg (token jewish guy?)".
Be a man, not a typical coward titmouse, and STAND BY YOUR STATEMENT... or are you trying to weasel in the way of Barry (fearbomb middle name deleted) OBAAAAAAHma, his angry wife or their political opponent, Whorrabullary.
It seems weaseling is rampant amongst liberals.... I wonder if mole traps would do the trick...
Okay, give him the electoral map. That still doesn't belie fact that if it weren't for his name and his daddy's bootlegging money, he wouldn't have been President. So, again I ask, what's your point?
Posted by: Dave on March 22, 2008 10:34 PMIf you were White, would you rather be living in the United States or in Afghanistan?
Okay, now a harder question. As a White person, would you rather be living in mostly White Afghanistan or in mostly Black Kenya?"
What does that have to do with ANY aspect of this debate? No only is it a non sequitor, it's a non-starter.
But, let's play anyway. I don't think the people of Afghanistan care what color skin infidels have.
Posted by: Dave on March 22, 2008 10:42 PMJudge not lest you be jusdged, where have I seen that before? Can't remember the specific nom de plume.
Not regarding my views on education, they are all over the archives, ever since I have been posting here.
Are you from out-of-town and thus you might have missed them?
Besides shouldn't you be proving to me Buchanan is correct as your defending him? His "fact" seems pretty bogus to me considering the sourced I fact posted above.
Juanita Gonzales (token hispanic woman?), Jamal McCoy (token black guy?), Gregory Chang (token asian guy?), & Jeffrey Goldberg (token jewish guy?)".
Yeah, they're token because they're FAKE people on a FAKE website who portray themselves as a specific racial demographic which they're likely not. If they were real people I would not identify them as "token" because they would be real people. Therefore I stand by my statement.
I don't see Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, or Condi Rice writing opinions about how slavery was the greatest thing that ever happened to black people. I wonder if they share Pat's opinion. Doubt it.
