He felt compelled to try to cast an unfavorable light on Colin’s reporting, trying to imply that what was reported was due to racism in an attempt to smear it, evidently hoping to cast doubt on its credibility.

His attitude is similar to most black talking heads on t.v. They utterly despise hearing about black pathologies.

Eric Michael Dyson was on a talk show debating Pat Buchanan who was delineating the many deficiencies within the black community that need attention, like out-of-wedlock births, sky-rocketing crime rates, no fathers in the homes, etc., when Dyson loudly erupted into a litany of what he perceived to be crimes by the white man against humanity and wouldn’t shut up. It was his way of not allowing criticizations of the black community. He didn’t want to hear any of it, and he didn’t want the viewers to hear of it either.

Same thing on O’Reilly’s show with a black Congressman who O’Reilly thought he could prompt into initiating some kind of action within the black community that would work on solving their many problems, since their crime and incarceration rates were so high. Like Buchanan, O’Reilly was blasted with a, “Why don’t you talk about white serial killers….or Jesse Helms?” (As if O’Reilly was just being critical of blacks in general for the sake of being critical.)

I’ve yet to witness a t.v. interview with anybody in the black community who is concerned about black crime and violence, with nearly all of them in absolute denial. And when they can’t wiggle away in denial, invariably they state outright or imply the interviewer is a racist.

I’m pretty sure that’s why we have such different responses in these two articles. One writer is non-black and the other is half-black. He can’t credibly deny the reports on the mob attacks so he wants anyone who reads what he writes to believe that Colin writes what he does because of racism, rather than objectivity as an unbiased observer who wants to shed some light on this serious problem because nobody else will do it.

that is what I thought …. but I just wanted to make sure I was not imagining it — especially the “he does not dispute” part. It is amazing how many libs write long articles that do everything except dispute what I reported.

Mostly its: You are a bad person for noticing.

Seems I did not proof check either. Busted.

But this article is just badly written, ungrammatical and not proof checked.

His complaint appears to be that by suggesting blacks have targeted some attacks on homosexuals (which he does not dispute happened) you have therefore committed a libel on black people as a whole. The old fallacy of criticising the behaviour of a subset, means criticising the behaviour of the whole group.

He’s a gay man that can’t write for toffee or think for hand-jobs. That must mean I’m a homophobic who believe no gay men can write for toffee (sorry Gore) or think for…