As of my  illogical fallacy that blacks can t be racists toward other blacks, perhaps that would be a worthy topic of discussion. I m sorry that you have chosen not to engage on that point.

It flows from a logical fallacy. Usually in the form of a belief that African-Americans have permission to use racial epithets and symbols when addressing other African-Americans.

So, tell me? Did all of the African-Americans have a meeting and decide unanimously that it’s okay to portray certain other African-Americans as minstrels?

No, it’s usually the case that liberals (both black and white) appoint jackasses like Galliard to be spokespersons for all African-Americans, when the truth is that there are substantial numbers of them who are outraged by stunts like this.

Not worthy of discussion.

Samuel Alito Jr.

Hide the women and children — get out the bloody coat hangers — nurn, witch, burn!

The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!

Hehe

Which means you re really not interested in addressing the underlying point, but would rather focus on parsing irrelevancies, and peddling illogicial fallacies (albeit illogical fallacies held dear by certain liberals) such as  blacks can t be racists toward other blacks.

I remarked on something you brought up in the first place! If you wish to plead irrelevance at this point, you’re levelling that charge at your own remarks.

As of my “illogical fallacy” that blacks can’t be racists toward other blacks, perhaps that would be a worthy topic of discussion. I’m sorry that you have chosen not to engage on that point.

Whether Mr. George or anyone else finds the attack repulsive is of no relevance to my point. I address only the charge of racism.

Which means you’re really not interested in addressing the underlying point, but would rather focus on parsing irrelevancies, and peddling illogicial fallacies (albeit illogical fallacies held dear by certain liberals) such as “blacks can’t be racists toward other blacks.”

Meanwhile, please notice that none of the liberals here is either defending or condemning Galliard.

That’s very telling.

technically, he did not call Gilliard a racist. He says that he was trading in racist imagery to attack another black man because he had the audacity to choose to be a Republican.

There’s nothing “technical” about it, JD. George was quite precise in addressing that term to the imagery, not the motives, character, or actions of Gilliard.

Whether Mr. George or anyone else finds the attack repulsive is of no relevance to my point. I address only the charge of racism.

I said “Before Halloween” and I obviously could not have meant next Halloween, because by then she would have been voted down or sworn in.

No, I didn’t say how soon bofore. So, as much as you are spoiling for a fight, you won’t get one from me. I predicted it, and I was right. Period.

You really do have some kind of problem with me, don’t you?

I remember I bumped into somebody in a bar on June 11, 1978, and they spilled their drink, and got real upset about it.

Was that you?

C’mon now, ‘fess up; what’s your problem?

Wait, I’ve got it! Were you in that rock fight I was in back in the Projects, in the summer of ’56 or ’57?

Maybe I bloodied your nose?

It depends what the definition of is, is.

You said Miers would withdraw before Halloween, but you didn’t say how soon before or what year.

Technically, you were not correct. Almost, but not quite.

You can state that with a straight face ?

Yes, of course I can.

Be clear on this: I’m not addressing, pro or con, the appropriateness of the post. I only asked Tuco if he was aware that Steve Gilliard is black. Racial insults between members of the same race can be motivated by all sorts of different hostilities. Calling it racism is a difficult case to make.

Who made you the authority on race relations that you peddle such trite nonsense.

Not an authority on race relations. An authority on my own opinions and observations. The passage you provided from Mr. George seems to support what I wrote earlier, doesn’t it? The same word, used by different people, is charged with different racial overtones, right?

Nevertheless, if you wish to continue to insist that the black writer Steve Gilliard is racist and biased against black people, please do be my guest.

I only asked Tuco if he was aware that Steve Gilliard is black.

Yes, actually I did. But unlike you, I’m colorblind when it comes to judging people for using symbols that are offensive to the majority of Americans.

Racial insults between members of the same race can be motivated by all sorts of different hostilities. Calling it racism is a difficult case to make.

One man’s racist is another man’s “hostile,” is that it?

I, for one, know how to express hostility without using racist symbols. What’s Steve Gilliard’s excuse?

Democrat Tim Kaine pulled his ad from Gilliard’s site because of the picture and description. I guess Kaine’s not as sophisticated as you and doesn’t know that it’s just good old healthy “hostility.”

Why are you not condemning Tim Kaine as well?

Robert A. George is also black:

Yes, I know that Steve Gilliard is black…That doesn’t change the fact that, in my view, he was happily trading in racist imagery as an attack against Michael Steele. Rather than try to even consider Steele on issues, it is far easier to mock and denounce his very existence as a black man who chooses to be Republican.

A few people raise the question as to whether it is truly “racist” for a black man to call another “Sambo.” Well, if we want to “go there,” as they say, then that means an entirely new discussion of whether certain words are only “OK” if they are uttered by a member of the ethnic/racial group that would be most likely offended if certain words were uttered. So, that would suggest that “Sambo” is now supposed to be in the same category as “nigger” or its hip-hop inspired variations (“OK” if uttered by a black person — regardless of the circumstance; sometimes OK when used by a non-black person to another non-black; most usually inappropriate when uttered by a non-black to a black person, but assessed on a case-by-case basis). Hmm…if that is the case then, the black community had better get, uh, crackin’ on figuring out how all those previously-insulting words can be adopted. Interestingly, of course, in this case of “Sambo,” the word doesn’t really have the dual or ambiguous sense that the “N-word” does.

You can state that with a straight face ?

But unlike you, I m colorblind when it comes to judging people for using symbols that are offensive to the majority of Americans.

Stick to the subject, Tuco. We’re not discussing “offensive,” we’re discussing “racist.” That was your charge that you made against Steve Gilliard back upthread.

Let’s go to Webster’s, shall we?

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

When a black writer calls a black politician “Simple Sambo,” I doubt the writer is claiming that the politician is inferior because he is black. My understanding would be that the writer feels the black politician holds positions that are deferential to whites.

I similarly doubt that Steve Gilliard, a black writer is motivated by prejudice or discrimination against black people. He seems to have a problem with the politician and his views.

Now go ahead and holler “racism” all you like. I’m done trying to keep you from making a fool of yourself.

One man s racist is another man s  hostile, is that it?

Yes, of course. If a white man uses the “n-word” it has a very different meaning than if a black man uses it.

Deal with it.

I assume you know, Tuco, that Steve Gilliard is black?

Well, allrighty, then. That makes his use of offensive racists stereotypes okay. Thank you for clearing that up, Quaker.