As for me: I have found the author of the aformentioned article tends to put forth one sided arguments, not being able or willing to engage in serious discussions/debates/etc.
And in all cases: I have also found it better to set a good example, not just react to others knejerk reactions, etc.
So, let us not be a bad reflection, of his claims or rants, as well...
But: I also do make a clear distinction, between the biased article you merely reposted, as opposed to jumping to the wrong conclusions, as regards what and who you are and are about, as well...
As was and is true of us all: Innocent until proving guilty...
Right, posters?
FYI
Chuck.
It is when I do not log in that I 'see' your post/reply to my post.
I have taken you off ignore (that you've been on for a loooong time),
to respond to some of your remarks in the above:
Many articles are not 'objective', that doesn't make them untrue, however
subjective they maybe. Go on Coger's "Politics from the Black Perspective"
thread. I challenge you to find no articles that are 'one-sided' over there.
Nothing wrong with that. Coger puts forth articles writings that speak
in defense/in favor of pres. obama (perhaps even holder, I don't often
visit that thread), I post articles writings that calls him (and or ilk), to
task. A dissenting view, admittedly.
I am not obligated to be 'objective'. And I've said many times: there
is no such thing as value-free objectivity.
Okay, so as to whether or not, the author is willing to debate his position,
I do not know. Is there evidence that suggest he would not? He has an
email, I'm sure he's on facebook, so get at him and see what is up. But
if not, that position is moot.
And....
I don't mind responding to "kneejerk" remarks, from time to time.
Ultimately, I make the attempt to get back to the focus of the the
topic, in this case, that statements of the article.
And the more folks
refuse to deal with what is said, the more it is a 'reflection' on them
and exposes them. Your stating:
jumping to the wrong conclusions, as regards what and who [I am] and are about...
...substantiates that point.