How about a man (skin color irrelevant) not ditching his wife and the mother (color also irrelevant) of his children (color still irrelevant) for a trophy wife (you guessed it – color once again still irrelevant)?

Is that GOP-esque enough for ya?

I wasn’t referring to any of your commentary. I was referring to Davis’s mother’s treatment by media and conservatives not exclusive to this weblog.

–Cobra

>>>”He’s psychotic. Gumbel is in the same boat as OJ and Charles Barkeley: hypocrites married to white women that they left black wives for.

**scoff**”

As opposed to Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, and Lynn Swann huh?

Please…can one of you kind posters spell out the rules of engagement (pun intended) for M.W.B.–Marrying While Black? Is there a GOP E-Z Pass for marrying white women or something?

I need some clarification.

–Cobra

**scoff**

He can’t complain about race if he’s not willing to take the heat all the way around.

But first, I wrote that I was surprised you “quoted that statement”, not that you said or wrote anything.

So, let’s try that one again.

I’m surprised you quoted it because the “theory” is asinine as are the statements, in general, about Black men who marry white women.

I agree concerning your statement about Black conservatives being called sellouts and such. And based on that, my comment was an attempt to point out that it is all silly.

I’ll take the hit on being unclear.

Did I say anything about whether love existed in such a pairing or not? Did I even address love? No. What I said was that *some* liberal black men become overly strident champions for the race when they are married to white women in order to avoid being labeled as “sell-outs,” “oreos,” etc.

Conservative black men (and women) are dubbed “sell-outs” and “oreos” regardless of who they marry, so the observation doesn’t apply to them.

Sheesh! Is it too much to ask for you to address what I *actually* said?

The author could have stated his case in a more PC manner, but the premise upon which he built the case for the South winning the Civil War included his basic assumption that no matter who won the war, slavery would have ended. I’m not sure I buy that theory, but it’s what he believed, and that should clear him of a lot of the accusations leveled against him.

To say that this man somehow minimized the evils of slavery is not quite accurate; it’s just that his topic was not about slavery, but the differing economic and political systems of North and South and how two separate nations might have evolved.

As for the hoopla within the California Republican Party, it sounds like open debate to me. What could possibly be more American?

“We are delighted to acknowledge it. That is a totally gratuitous allegation.”

What a jerk. Gumbel’s ex-wife should pulled a Brenda Richie on his butt. His ex-wife allowed herself to be a doormat.

LaShawn weighs in on Bryant’s hypocrisy…

And the Black conservatives who go that route, only do so out of love?

Baldi, I’m surprised you would quote that statement. Man…

I think people are really upset more about the GOP convention comment. Now, check this out.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/820110/posts