Why Wright Will Remain Important — How Many Degrees of Separation Between Obama and Black Nationalist Separatist Movement?
Posted by WLS:
This would have been a kooky post 2 weeks ago, but I think this subject may now find its way into the bloodstream of the body-politic, and I think the events of this week elevate it above crackpot conspiracy theory.
For several decades since the advent of the Civil Rights Movement, there has existed at the fringe of that movement a BlackNationalist movement. One of the tenets of the “Black Nationalist” movement is the idea of “racial separation” in the United States — the creation of a majority black sovereign entity within the confines of the United States as a remedial measure to redress the long-standing impact of institutional racism.
This Black Nationalist movement found intellectual heft in the writings of W.E.B. DuBois, but was most prominently embodied in secular terms by the creation of the Black Panther Party by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton.
At the same time, however, the Black Nationalist movement found traction in the Mosques of the Nation of Islam …… in Chicago. Black Muslims advocated the establishment of a separate African American homeland in the United States. Wallace D. Muhammad, who succeeded his father Elijah Muhammad in 1975, downplayed black nationalism, admitted nonblack members, and stressed strict Islamic beliefs and practices. In the late 1970s, however, a dissident faction, led by Louis Farrakhan assumed the original name Nation of Islam and reasserted the principles of black separatism.
This is the same Louis Farrakhan that was given a Lifetime Achievement Award by the Trinity United Church and Rev. Wright.
And, as pointed out in his column today by Michael Medved, a heretofore unexplored aspect of the political theology of the Trinity United Church that Obama has been a member of for 20 years is the Church’s self-described “Black Value System”.
The website for the congregation begins with an introductory paragraph under the heading, “About Us,” that unequivocally proclaims: “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
For many years, the next paragraph (recently removed due to the Wright controversy) appeared on the website and shamelessly explained explained: “Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System….We believe in the following twelve precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.” Those “precepts and covenantal statements” include, “Commitment to the Black Community” (Number 2), “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness’” (Number 8), “Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System (Number 11) and “Personal Commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.” (Number 12).
Medved points out that still on the Church’as website is a Rev. Wright’s “10 Point Vision” for the Church, which begins with “A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITTMENT TO AFRICA.”
So, Obama has been a member of a Church for 20 years, and developed a close and abiding relationship with a minister who preachs hate from the pulpit, who advoctates in writing a “Black Value System” that is based on racial identity, and has a vision that is fixated on an ancestral land and not the land and country of one’s birth that is responsible for the blessings he has received in life.
How are these “values” different from the racial separatism values of the Nation Of Islam and the Black Nationalism movement? They arose in the same city by religious leaders who are contemporaries, friends, and political allies.
Does Barack Obama’s embrace of the political theology of Rev. Wright, and all that it entails given its foundation and city of origin, create less than Six Degrees of Separation between Barack Obama and the Black Nationalist movement for racial separatism?
These are questions that deserve to be asked now.
Is Barack Obama simply a the smiling face and eloquent voice of a new Black Panther Party built upon the twin spires of racial identity and liberal white guilt?
I doubt that those assholes will have more than a handful of black people without felony time on their side, WLS.
nk (34c5da) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:26 pmI can only hope this will bring racisim in the non-standard flavors into the mainstream, where it can be torn to bits.
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:34 pmIt has been posted elsewhere that until earlier today, the Obama campaign website featured an endorsement from the New Black Panther Party.
gahrie (5ae14f) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:13 pmThe Rev. Wright issue has one big problem for Obama.
Wright said the American government created AIDS and put it in Africa to kill blacks.
1) Mr. Obama do you agree?
2) If not, is this an appropriate statement to be made to a black congregation?
Under the doctrine of relative morality, if you think it is appropriate to say this, how are you going to bring us together?
Alta Bob (23fc42) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:47 pmThe post raises good questions, ones that should be asked of Obama. I suspect, however, that Obama is not the racist or anti-semitic that his former pastor is, nor does he really believe in the tenants of Black Liberation theology. Obama’s relationship with his church and Wright is probably explained by rather crass & mundane political reasons. Obama came to Chicago as an Ivy league educated & non-religious outsider, needing to build a base of support in the South side Chicago Black community if he was going to succeed politically. So naturally, he joins a local Black church. Moreover, Wright’s brand of racist anti-semitic thinking, while it would be totally unacceptable in the white community (what elective office has David Duke ever won?) is tolerated when practiced in the Black community. This explains why Obama didn’t walk out on Wright & his church years ago but instead, made him & it cornerstones of his adult life. Now, however, Obama finds himself needing to appeal to a large voting segment of white voters & is trying to do so by saying he’s not running as a Black candidate but as someone who has transcended racial & partisan political issues. Problem is, Obama’s long-standing relationship with Wright suggests that Obama is just another politician. He relies on packaging, not substance, & a packaging that is significantly misleading.
DWC (06ea11) — 3/19/2008 @ 8:11 pmOne of the tenants of the “Black Nationalist” movement…
That would be “tenets.”
CraigC (802489) — 3/19/2008 @ 8:25 pmOpps. Didn’t mean to suggest a landlord/tenant relationship.
DWC (06ea11) — 3/19/2008 @ 8:30 pmFoxfier, Yes, and it’s about time.
If a more or less reasonably honest conversation like that really happened … maybe along the lines of Obama’s recent speech about race (don’t have a link)then an Obama candidacy could be worthwhile whether he wins or loses.
EdWood (c3ef9c) — 3/19/2008 @ 8:47 pmEven Mr. Huckabee has smart things to say about the subject (links elsewhere…. is it rude to talk about links at other blogs?).
EdWood (c3ef9c) — 3/19/2008 @ 9:02 pmNot rude at all, EdWood.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/19/2008 @ 9:05 pmSeriously, I don’t think Obama has any clue at all about who the hell he is. He appears to be quite malleable and without a faculty for defining himself in relation to more general realities/forces or even seeing and understanding those realities.
So he could indeed be a Black Separatist but without actually realizing what this means in the larger scheme of things. Iow, Obama is not a leader, certainly not one who could actually lead a Country on the strength of his own ideas.
hyothesis: to me, Obama’s looking more like the perfect Prog dupe or vehicle by which to gain national Socialist-Communist-Progressive power. Hillary would not fit this role quite as well because she wants to be in total control and is quite mean and dedicated toward this exact end, and perhaps not Progressive enough in policy or constituency, whereas Obama seems more happy with merely riding the crest of his own well honed appearance including, of course his speaking ability.
How did Obama come to have this tremendous organization nearly right from the start, one so good that it has essentially defeated the Clinton Machine?
But its only an hypothesis.
J. Peden (25dffe) — 3/19/2008 @ 9:07 pmI see what direction this thing is going now that the whole “Obama=Muslim” thing ate its own tail.
Yes, I’m sure pastor Wright would agree if someone put it like that. “But sir, what about the country of your birth that is responsible for every one of the blessing you have received in life?”
…
I think Chris Rock said it best:
Do you see the point? Can you imagine how that “blessings” crap would sound to a black man who grew up in the 50’s and 60’s?
Wow, this guilt by association thing is going on all cylinders today. Tell me where you’re getting this “embrace of the political theology,” except directly out of the air. Going to a church doesn’t mean you automatically accept every single one of the pastor’s view on every topic. Do you know where the whole “six degrees of separation thing comes from? It’s that you can connect any two people in the world by six personal connections.
At least Mike Huckabee had the balls to try and empathize:
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/19/2008 @ 9:57 pmJ. Peden-
As I pointed out elsewhere today, Obama reminds me of a very, very nice guy I dated for a bit.
This guy walked in on his prior fiancé having sex with a guy she’s only met that day, a week or so before they were supposed to be married.
*She broke off the marriage* a few days later.
If Obama is as he seems, he’s a spineless SOB who would go to a church his wife (a known racist, based off of her thesis) liked, that insulted his mother and grandmother, for two decades without speaking up once– if he’s not as he seems, he’s a lying racist who thinks that the CIA made HIV to kill blacks, which is based off of a lie the KGB told way back when.
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 3/19/2008 @ 10:16 pmRussell – Wouldn’t it have been nice if Obama had been able to absolutely condemn racism in his speech as the uniter he professes to be? Instead he qualified it, suggesting that black racism is justified, just look at the times in which Wright grew up, but that white racism is bad. That moral relativity on Obama’s part destroys his authority to speak on the subject, IMO, and makes him another grievance monger for his supporters.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/19/2008 @ 10:20 pmRussell – I don’t care what Huckabee had to say– he may have to cover his tail for association with white supremacists, so why on EARTH should I listen to his views on black supremacists?
The guy went to the black equivalent of a KKK sympathetic church for twenty years, and folks are trying to excuse it with “oh,they had a GREAT social program”? Or “oh, the statements were taken out of context?”
No.
Fred in that “Monsters Unleashed” movies was taken out of context, when he said “you’re trying to get me to say Coolville sucks!” and they played “Coolville Sucks!”
There isn’t a similar context to excuse the many horrific quotes from Obama’s Church.
I don’t care where he grew up. Doesn’t work for my grandma, who grew up as a Scottish immigrant.
I don’t care the situation he grew up in, doesn’t work for my grandfather whose mother divorced her husband and wasn’t seen there after.
I don’t care about his grandfather, doesn’t count for my godfather, born a few months after Indians murdered his father in the las Indian massacre in California. (the retribution for which put his mother nearly in the poor-house, with some ten children.)
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 3/19/2008 @ 10:24 pmdaleyrocks:
First of all, that’s not even true, he said that white complaint about affirmative action and so forth were grounded in “legitimate concerns,” and he never said that the Wright comments were justified, in fact he said they were “inexcusable.” Second, have you forgotten that black were the ones who were discriminated against? Of course black racism is more explicable–they were on the hole end of the lynching rope!
Obama’s not saying that black racism or white racism are justified, he’s saying they don’t exist in a historical vacuum, and that any sane discussion of race has to take that into account, and that categorical denunciations of racism get us precisely nowhere. Of course racism is bad, as Obama has said time and again. But to figure out how to get beyond it we can’t just pretend that it doesn’t have a historical legacy.
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/19/2008 @ 10:32 pmRussell – Here is the section of the speech where Obama explains why black people are angry, why that anger is justified, real and that we can’t just wish it away:
We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.
Legalized discrimination – where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/19/2008 @ 10:46 pmRussell – Here is the part where he say white people must make up for their racism against black people, which is real and ongoing, by giving them money to correct injustices:
“In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination – and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past – are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.”
It’s tough to see how you missed these messages and can’t see your way to condemning racism absolutely. Under a relative system such as yours and Obama’s, what level does racism have to rise to in order to deserve condemnation? Who makes such decisions? Isn’t it easier just to have absolute standards? Your temporizing is as bad as Obama’s.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/19/2008 @ 10:53 pmdaleyrocks —
Let me get this straight:
Rv. Wright is living in the past, by going over and over and over all the sins against any with his skin color, rather than forgiving–as he should– those who wrong him, and not having hatred against them who did him NO WRONG AT ALL. Instead, he hates those who LOOK like those who MAY have done him wrong, preaches this from the pulpit, and we’re supposed to have sympathy for those who flock in to listen? (for two decades, no less– longer than some of those who would vote for him have lived)
Shame, I say, shame on those who wallow in the vomit of their hatred, suck on the bile of the wrongs done to them and theirs as if it were some kind of a manna.
This hatred is not Christian.
This slander of an entire skin color isn’t even civilized.
It’s simply disgusting.
And the refusal of someone who claims to want to unite and lead all colors to notice the horrific attack on the *majority* of those he wants to lead–including his MOTHER–is simply unspeakable.
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 3/19/2008 @ 11:00 pmThere are no absolute standards Daley Rocks. We know that by looking at a system of law that constantly has to keep adding new wrinkles to every new rule. If a society had “absolute standards” gotcha-clowns like you would still parse people’s words to decide that people that you disagree with had broken those standards.
Russell has good arguments above and your parsing and analysis of Obama’s speech is unconvincing.
EdWood (08b41a) — 3/20/2008 @ 1:53 amRussell:
I’m not going to respond to your comment point by point — I had my say in the post.
But, since it appears that a fundamental principle underpinning the existence of the Trinity Christ Church is the “Black Value System” that it advocates, its fair to say that the Church’s theology is inextricably bound to the Socio-Political views of its pastor for 37 years. It seems that that his Sunday sermons went a little farther than simply covering the Ten Commandments, John The Baptist, and Jesus feeding the masses with loaves and fishes.
So, when a Harvard educated lawyer decides to sit and listen to this Political-Theology for 20 years, and to have his CHILDREN sit and listen to this Political-Theology PROPAGANDA, then I’m going to characterize it as “EMBRACING” that propaganda without hesitation.
Why do I need your permission to characterize the facts as I see them? Is it necessary for us to wait for Obama to profess such an “embrace” or are we entitle to believe our own eyes?
As for Wright having secured blessings from his own country, he’s the son of a Baptist preacher from Philadephia. He attended the all-black Virgina Union University in Richmond, Virginia before joining the Marine Corps. He wasn’t consigned to kitchen duty or latrine digging by the Marine Corps, he was made a cardiopulmonary technician. After leaving the Marine Corps he attended and graduated from Howard University, and later received advanced degrees from the Chicago Divinity School and the United Theological Seminary.
Wright ran a Church on the South Side of Chicago on a tax free basis for 38 years, providing an income and life for himself, his family, and those close to him, and has the support of government funding to run a host of social programs for the poor residents of Chicago.
If you don’t recognize this as having been the beneficiary of the “blessings” of his country of birth, well take off the blind fold and have a look around at the wider world.
I don’t fault Wright for his historical grievances. But I do fault him for continuing to fill the lives of the generations that have grown up in his Church with a sense of grievance and hatred for the world around by spewing bigoted and anti-Semitic bile.
The story of John The Baptist is a good subject for a church sermon. Telling 13 year old girls that their government created the AIDS virus that killed their father isn’t.
Obama embraces this man. And I’ll be happy to watch his candidacy sink with that millstone around his neck.
wls (e9f058) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:12 amEdWood – Just because you have crappy arguments that are easily blown apart does not make those blowing them apart “gotcha clown”, at least according to my thinking. You might want to rething your victimology here and step up your game.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:43 amFoxfier – I think you are on to something.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:50 amwls – Given his tenure as a congregant, I think the burden of proof is on Obama to explain what tenets Trinity’s doctrine he accepts or rejects. He has not done this, all he has done is vaguely reject sensationalist rhetoric.
In order for Obama to campaign as a post-racial candidate, a uniter, shouldn’t he adopt a color blind or race neutral position, instead of continuing to focus on divisions as he did in his speech. Of course this would hurt him with the Democrats, who have evolved as the party of identity groups, and he is at his core a politician.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:01 amAccording to Debbie Schlussel, Obama has Nation of Islam members on his staff. That’s a pretty close association, I’d say! NOI and Obama
I agree that Wright lived in a time that was hard to bear and it would take courage for him to rise above it. He hasn’t. He has accomplished no good for his parishioners by keeping the wound, and the lies he spouts, alive.
Patricia (f56a97) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:48 amRev Wright is nothing but a ranting antamerican scumbag can you imagine if he was living in the SOVIET UNION and have said this about the USSR? they would have machinegunned him in his pulpit or shipped him off to the gullage
krazy kagu (c6e87a) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:10 amIt’s tough to see how you missed these messages and can’t see your way to condemning racism absolutely. Under a relative system such as yours and Obama’s, what level does racism have to rise to in order to deserve condemnation? Who makes such decisions? Isn’t it easier just to have absolute standards? Your temporizing is as bad as Obama’s.
How do you condemn racism “absolutely”? Do you start treating racists like terrorists/drug dealers, etc, declare them evil and start a “war on racism”?
I suspect that that’s really the only solution Republicans have to any disagreement anymore — declare the opposition evil, ostracize them, and begin extermination. Anything less is viewed as a total loss, apparently.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:21 amRev Wright is nothing but a ranting antamerican scumbag can you imagine if he was living in the SOVIET UNION and have said this about the USSR? they would have machinegunned him in his pulpit or shipped him off to the gullage
And therefor . . . we should treat Obama more harshly, because Russians would?
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:24 amPhil @27 – I know it’s hard for you, but try putting on a thinking cap. The democrats have so much invested in identity group politics to change overnight, but try reading #27.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:26 amMake that #24 Phil.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:30 amBarry should get a free pass for sitting under Wright for 22 years, but McCain should be shot down for shaking hands with Hagee. Yep, that’s about the way the argument goes.
I would suspect a lot of Barry’s current supporters must be wondering when they’ll be thrown under the bus when it’s convenient.
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:38 amAre you pointing me to a different post that doesn’t say “condemn absolutely” to explain what “condemn absolutely” means?
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:40 amHow about “condemn absolutely” means “when it become inconvenient to ignore it”?
It’s hard to take this at face value when he’s been sitting there quietly for 22 years NOT condemning it absolutely, but when it’s pointed out that damning America is bad for the polls, THEN it becomes a convenient statement? I’d have to ask, so for 22 years you were OK with this racist garbage & ranting lunacy, but NOW you’re suddenly condemning it? Not a very finely tuned sense of judgment there.
I know this is a shocking idea, but inconsistent integrity isn’t integrity.
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:45 amLet’s take a trip down memory lane.
In 2002, Barry Obama was not a US senator, but thought it was “wrong” to go to war with Iraq. (He would later change his mind several times, but in 2002 his judgment was rock-solid.)
He uses this judgment today to say “I was right in 2002 about the Iraq war, and since my judgment was right then, it shows my integrity & intellectual ability.”
In 2002 he was also attending TUCC with no complaints about the lunacy of Revrund Wright.
Fast-forward 6 years. Barry claims his judgment was impeccable on Iraq, and always was (except for the inconvenient times when he supported Bush), but he was unable to do anything about Wright at all during the preceding 22 YEARS.
Now, his claim to fame is “right decisions and judgment” (or perhaps “Wright decisions). But he got it wrong for 22 YEARS on Wright, while he claims to be right on Iraq for about 6 years (except for his changes over that time to support it or not support it).
And finally, he gets to condemn – absolutely – Wright after Wright is safely gone from the pulpit.
Now that’s about as nicely political as you can get – but what does it say to Barry’s judgment?
Seems to me that he condemns when it’s convenient, and in a way that’s convenient.
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:55 amFrom what I can tell, Obama is being perfectly consistent. He’s not treating Wright’s church, or Wright, any differently than he ever has.
He isn’t fighting/attacking the church. He’s recognizing it for what it is, and working with it., just as he always has.
He’s never adopted the rhetoric of pastor Wright. You’d think, after 20 years of attending that church, if he agreed with those statements he’d be standing up with Wright and repeating them. He’s not.
That’s the difference. He condemns the statement, but doesn’t condemn the person making it. He recognizes that Wright has done a great deal of good — good that is needed by the community — in addition to the racist/conspiracy theory rhetoric. He lives his life in a manner that shows he doesn’t agree with conspiracy theories or racism. And to me, that’s a far better means of dealing with such issues than being combative and attacking the church as “evil.”
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:02 amSo if John McCain attended Westboro Baptist Church for 22 years, you’d be OK with that?
I see. When it’s Barry Obama, there’s no need to actually listen to what’s being said.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:01 amI see we’ve gone from trying to refute that Wright made these statements in Barry’s hearing to “well, sure he SAID those things, and Barry HEARD them, but Barry sat there quietly & listened & let his wife & kids listen too, but he didn’t have to oppose it publicly because after all the church was feeding homeless people and what’s a little racist lunacy when you’re doing good things?”
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:05 amThere are no degrees of separation between black nationalists and black pride. Black nationalists invented it, as well as Kwanzaa. There is also just one degree of separation between myself and Patterico, whom I have met in person and whose blog I have been reading for years. We’re both in the California Bear Flag League and have been for years. And every commenter here can read my blog and the blogs of those African Americans who know more about black nationalism in our pinky toes than you will ever know.
And yet you will not read our blogs and participate in our discussions. You therefore will not have anything but idle prejudices and specious arguments in your cause. And because you ignore your proximity every day, you have no idea how off base you are in your assumptions.
Until you engage.
Cobb (995ecc) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:43 amYou therefore will not have anything but idle prejudices and specious arguments in your cause.
Thank you Cobb, for the put down of the non-black commenters here. The argument by appeal to authority is usually found more often on lefty boards. Reason is usually more often employed in places such as Patterico’s.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:15 amCobb @38.
I accept the invitation. I’ll be visiting regularly.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:17 amThe hypocrisy of the Obama supporters is more than astonishing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:18 amWLS – I took a spin through after Cobb’s comment and didn’t see anything I didn’t already know. I agree with his 1% separation comment. I disagree with his arrogant assumptions about the knowledge of others and whether they should be offering opinions.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:12 pmwhat exactly is a post-racial candidate and when was this thing invented? i’ve never heard of it before the meme exploded that obama is not one.
Cobb (995ecc) — 3/20/2008 @ 2:26 pm