David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
It’s happened again. My most quoted article, “What’s Up With White Women?” has been cited in another new book: Michael Medved’s The 10 Big Lies About America: Combating Destructive Distortions About Our Nation (Crown, 2008).
In his new book The 10 Big Lies About America, leading talk show host and movie critic Michael Medved quotes extensively from my column, “What’s Up With White Women?“
I was tipped off by a friend who was reading the book. Medved cites me in the introduction, on pages 9-10. He quotes a full 221 words from my column, “What’s Up With White Women?” Here is what Medved wrote:
An American Indian academic and musician named David A. Yeagley (an enrolled member of the Comanche Nation) tells a sobering story about one of his students at Oklahoma State University-Oklahoma City. A “tall and pretty” girl with amber hair and brown eyes, she spoke out in a class discussion about patriotism. “Look, Dr. Yeagley,” she declared, “I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing.”
“Look at your culture,” she continued. “Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.”
Concerning this unforgettable interchange, Professor Yeagley observed: “The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.
“Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?
“They say that a warrior is measured by the strength of his enemies. As an Indian, I am proud of the fact that it took the mightiest nation on earth to defeat me.
“But I don’t feel so proud when I listen to Rachel. It gives me no solace to see the white man self-destruct. If Rachel’s people are ‘nothing,’ what does that say about mine?”
Back in 2002, author and sometime presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan also quoted from my column “What’s Up With White Women?” in his book Death of the West. See quote at Google Books.
Medved’s citation of my article was also noted on a blog called The DU d’RAT Review. Interestingly, I discovered upon closer inspection that d’Rat was not quoting directly from Medved’s book, but rather from a column Medved wrote at Townhall.com more than a year ago, on December 5, 2007. Medved’s article was called, “Resisting the Smear of a ‘Tainted Legacy’“. Evidently Medved incorporated this 2007 article into his just-released book The 10 Big Lies About America.
David Horowitz first published my column “What’s Up With White Women?” in his FrontPageMagazine.com, May 18, 2001.
Medved on the Indian Question
The very first chapter of Medved’s book is about American Indians. The first of the “10 Lies” he seeks to debunk is: “America Was Founded on Genocide Against Native Americans.”
In fact, Medved has been on this topic for some time. Back on September 19, 2007, he published “Reject the Lie of White ‘Genocide’ Against Native Americans” at TownHall.com. Medved wrote, “I’ve never denied that the 400 year history of American contact with the Indians includes many examples of white cruelty and viciousness.” But he denies that the “mass migration of Europeans to the New World and the rapid displacement and replacement of Native populations”, as he calls it, rises to the level of “Hitlerian, mass-murdering” genocide.
Medved argues that America’s white settlers — unlike Hitler — never set out consciously or deliberately to exterminate an entire race of people. He notes that most of the killing was done by epidemic diseases which wiped out 95 percent of America’s native population.
Medved is partly right and partly wrong. It is true that diseases killed far more Indians than did the guns of white settlers. However, it is also true that prominent white Americans called openly for the extermination of Indians as a race — among them Civil War hero and Indian fighter General William Tecumseh Sherman — a fact that I have noted many times, most recently in an interview with the San Diego Jewish World.
Jihad Watch founder Robert Spencer quoted from my column “What’s Up With White Women?” in at least two of his books; Religion of Peace? and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.
The Hearts of White Women
Still, I agree with Medved’s larger point. There is no reason to single out white Americans as a uniquely evil or brutal race. They are not. What Medved calls the “mass migration” of white people to America and the “displacement” of Indians from their land is a type of drama which has been repeated many times, over many thousands of years, on many different continents, among many races of people.
Medved writes, “A nation ashamed of its past will fear its future”, and he is right. America will not survive if Americans — and white Americans in particular — keep teaching their children to be ashamed of who they are.
I think this explains why so many writers have been struck by my column “What’s Up With White Women?“. My account of the pretty college girl who was ashamed of being white struck a peculiar nerve in conservative American writers, from Pat Buchanan, who first quoted it in 2002, to Robert Spencer, who has used it at least twice, in his books Religion of Peace? and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).
In my column, I cited a Cheyenne proverb: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.
White men — conservative white men, at least — really feel the truth in that old saying. The arrow sinks deep in the heart. If white women’s hearts are on the ground, it is because white men have failed them. Most women need and want guidance from strong men. If they cannot find such men among their own people, they will look elsewhere.
“I applaud Michael Medved for featuring Dr. David Yeagley in this column; this is a man who has long known what to honor.
Please also go to badeagle.com–it’s linked on my sidebar. That is Dr. Yeagley’s website and he has many more useful things to say that you will enjoy.”
41 responses so far ↓
1 Mike from California // Jan 30, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Doc, with the current state that our nation is in, can we survive as a country?
2 David Yeagley // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:01 pm
We may become simply a very different kind of country.
Michael Savage has been “savaging” Obama relentlessly about this. We are already showing signs of a dictatorship. Obama signed five executive orders in a week. This is stunning.
And Obama would never have been selected as chief power broker had he not received the white women’s vote (that is, the Hillary vote). To prove they aren’t prejudiced, people voted for essentially an alien, black African Communist. (I use Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Leftist, Liberal, and Progressive interchangeably.) Looks like prejudice to me.
3 David Yeagley // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:41 pm
By the way, just so there’s no misunderstanding, there’s obviously nothing wrong with being a “foreigner,” a Negro, or an African. We’re simply talking context here–American context. There is something profoundly inappropriate about Barack Hussein Obama being president of the United States.
Obama’s background is the most uncertain, ambiguous, and dubious, of any president in American history. He believes the US Constitution is flawed and must be put behind us, effectively. He is not part of the ethnicity of the founders, nor is he at all linked to the historical American Negro. Plus, he is associated with those who have despised America, and he openly flouts the long established principles of Communism.
Those who want to wash all this out, to let it all pass, themselves wittingly or unwittingly advocate the same principles. The erasure of boundaries–race, religion, language, nationality, etc. (which George Soros called “tribalism”) seems to me to be the whole point of modern “liberal” politics. Elimination of “private property” is another way of saying it.
As a matter of fact, this rubbing out of natural social realities is precisely something Isaac Deutcher preached, in the name of Communism, according to his famous pupil, David Horowitz. See, Radical Son, p.227.
4 Dat Beast // Jan 31, 2009 at 2:17 am
He even comes off as a Manchurian Candidate. He can’t even think for himself. He signed those executive orders, then turned around and asked his aide what was in them when the press inquired about their content. Goodbye, America…..
5 David Yeagley // Jan 31, 2009 at 10:11 pm
It all seems very unfortunate. Perhaps it could have been a great moment in history, but, I’m afraid it was all show, no substance. All “skin” deep. This is the kind of thing that happens when superficial values are placed above true values.
6 Terry Morris // Jan 31, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Dr. Yeagley wrote (”What’s up with white women?“):
I believe in my Comanche people. I know that someday we’ll stand as equals before the white man, strong, prosperous and self-sufficient. But we won’t get there by listening to empty praise from guilty white women. (emphasis mine)
That is a great quote! But if our female German correspondent Nora Brinker is right, it goes deeper than simple white female guilt and their empty praise for minority races.
7 Billy Reynolds // Feb 1, 2009 at 9:55 am
I am trying my best to express this in a way that is not offensive, I am not trying to offend anyone. I can only speak for my area down here around Dallas. And I can only speak about those I have seen, but if what I see at the local Walmarts is any indication of the national trend, I think we may owe a debt of thanks to many black men for taking on the responsibilty of loving many white women that white men simply won’t have. Man, are some of these girls ugly and fat. I am glad there is someone for everyone.
8 David Yeagley // Feb 1, 2009 at 11:16 am
Terry, I’m not sure anything’s deeper than white female “guilt.” However, I think guilt here is the term that needs clarification. I use moral conscience and sexual energy as Freudian terms. Compassion for others can be a form of sexual expression. Compassion for the suffering of others. PIty.
I wrote another, less popular article, “What’s Up With Dark Men?” (Our BadEagle archives are undergoing a major transfer right now, so many things are not available at the moment.)
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think there is an element of “compassion” which the white woman uses to justify sexual abandon with “dark” men. Yet, such “forbidden” abandon is immediately disguised as instant Christianity. Instant good deed doing. Instant “saving.” The white woman “saves” the miserable dark man by giving him her beautiful white body. Has nothing to do with religion, but operates on the very archetype of the same.
I’m not sure it’s possible to go any deeper here, psychologically.
9 David Yeagley // Feb 1, 2009 at 11:18 am
Billy, the social studies produce statistics that are informative. Many white women who get involved with “foreigners” (particularly black men) have been abused as young girls–by white men.
10 Terry Morris // Feb 1, 2009 at 11:58 am
Okay, okay, “deeper” wasn’t the right word to use. I think Nora’s point was/is that there’s something more sinister about it than white guilt.
Anyway, I just thought she had an interesting perspective.
Billy, believe me, I live in rural Oklahoma, and I see the exact same thing … literally on a daily basis. Although, the white girls that I see parading themselves in public here with their black and/or Hispanic bos are generally quite a bit more attractive than those you describe in the Dallas area. Hmm, that seems kind of odd.
11 Terry Morris // Feb 1, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Dr. Yeagley wrote:
Many white women who get involved with “foreigners” (particularly black men) have been abused as young girls–by white men.
By who, their fathers, uncles, brothers, boyfriends?…
In any event no-one ever bothered to teach them about black savagery, which is itself a form of abuse, or neglect.
12 David Yeagley // Feb 1, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Terry, social workers learn early that it is the family of the white girl that has abused her, usually a step father, or a step brother, and yes, sometimes uncles, etc.
Interestingly, this doesn’t quite pan out the same way with typically abused black girls.
The usual situation is the black male with the white female. (Did you notice the Google Ad on my site here, recently, advertising “Interracial Marriage,” picturing a black male with a white woman? How’s that for “sinister”?) The abused black girl is not so likely to later hook up with a white man, or even a man of differe race. As a general thing, the aggressor is the black male (who himself is often abused by older black women in his domestic situation). As another general thing, non-black people are not anxious to have blackness in the family. It is simply too different. That’s all. Nothing “wrong” with it. These kinds of aversions/attractions are natural.
Of course, sex is one thing. Marriage is quite another.
13 Kidist // Feb 1, 2009 at 1:33 pm
The Internet is an endless forum for fantasy, strange alliances, opinions said off-the-cuff, soon to be regretted later!
Terry Morris seems to want to bring the ever-ominous Nora Brinker back to this forum. This is a woman who has been repeatedly run-off so many sites it’s impossible to count – just ask her about her experience before she even got onto Bad Eagle.
I don’t see what Terry sees. Brinker linked herself to a his blog and her very first words were invectives at David, which you, Terry, didn’t even see the iniquity of, hence will be judged accordingly. She couldn’t get any other site to host them, it seems, and decides to put her “words of wisdom”, through the sympathy from that site’s owner.
All I can say, having been obliged to link to the site trusting Terry’s judgment, is that Brinker has a strange dislike for women, and peppers most of her posts about women as “silly” and many more stronger words than that. ALL THE TIME! I wonder if there is subtle form of envy at work here. Or even the “condescension” she talks about. Or even white (female) guilt – over what, God only knows.
There’s nothing like finding self-projection in an irrational person’s writings.
I agree with David. The more I look at strange marriages – different races, even different (huge) age groups, the more I find out there is some kind of childhood “trauma” – this could have been just simple neglect by mothers, divorce, death of a parent, children separated from parent, etc… Possibly even physical and sexual, like David says, and since I have never been a social worker, I cannot make those kinds of observations.
A solid, normal, healthy and Godly childhood means everything. That is the biggest underestimation of our civilization, and what is behind its apparent decline.
14 Terry Morris // Feb 1, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Kidist wrote:
Brinker linked herself to a his blog and her very first words were invectives at David, which you, Terry, didn’t even see the iniquity of,…
I didn’t see the iniquity in Nora’s original post at my blog? Uh, I think you better read it again.
15 David Yeagley // Feb 1, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Ah, Kidist! We may have been drifting far afield here…Thanks for chiming in.
I wasn’t going to say anything about Nora. I didn’t know if Terry knew anything about her or not. I think Terry’s first post on me was a bit negative, and thus she was attracted to his blog. (I don’t know. I was unaware that she commented there in a negative way toward me.) Sometimes, I think I just try to let people find out who each other are, on their own. Kind of naive, huh?
16 David Yeagley // Feb 1, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Terry, Nora used to be a significant contributor to BadEagle.com When she first came on, everyone was suspicious and averse to her–even the people with whom she now associates, the Scotsman Maccoinnach (TBIS), for example. She was German, thus, suspect. This is a strong stereotype, even today.
I of course defended her, and everything unique about the German culture and ethos, as the old BadEagle forum archives will show.
However, she became offended, joined the opposition in the promulgation of libel, and has since remained averse. (Of course, it was I whom she called, “waffling.” )
Well, to each his own on that kind of thing. Terry, I’ll tell you this, Kidist is one very sharp sword. Of course, so is Mac, so is Nora, so are a lot of people. We’re not striving over intellect here, but, values, and maybe character.
I really did defend Nora, as no other German has ever been defended, in writing, by a non-German, anyway. I love ethnos and the ethos thereof–in all peoples. I know there are wars out there, but, individually, each ethnos has its wonders.
I believe God created the nations, for a reason. They must be honored, not dissolved.
17 Terry Morris // Feb 1, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Dr. Yeagley,
The short of it is that Nora said of you, in her initial post at my blog, that you are a “hatefilled punk.” Another commenter, drawn to my blog by a BadEagle.com post, jdogg, said other things equally offensive. … And then there was “Anonymous.” LOL
Here’s the message I wrote to both of them in the same thread:
“The larger point is this, I don’t care what your beef is with Dr. Yeagley, it’s not my beef and it won’t ever be my beef. Nora’s beef is not my beef, nor will it ever be my beef. Keep your personal problems with Yeagley to yourselves, in other words, particularly when they come in the form of such stupidity as “he’s a right-wing extremist”; “he’s a hate-filled punk,” and the like.”
Nora knows I won’t tolerate that kind of b.s. at my blog. Jdogg knows it too, but he knows nothing of self-restraint or just plain ol’ good manners.
18 David Yeagley // Feb 1, 2009 at 2:50 pm
To be honest, I think I’ve allowed too much “bad manners” on my own forums. Things got really heated at times. Race, gender, you know, the things people are born as, and have no choice or control over, these are very sensitive things. They need to be understood in the right way.
I created a “Heat” forum, and a “Scalp” forum, to try and handle things. Of course, I don’t think I have personally displayed bad manners, but, I’ve allowed others to. Of course, I don’t think that’s what Nora objected to.
All I wanted was a central European conservative. I’m thinking there really may not be such a thing. European “conservativism” is a significantly different concept that American conservatism.
Nora was a close as I ever got.
19 Kidist // Feb 1, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I’m just testing html codes for links and italics.
Just Checking
Just Checking
20 Kidist // Feb 1, 2009 at 5:09 pm
All I wanted was a central European conservative.
LOL! What’s that?
I remember saying a long time ago that Nora Brinker was not really a conservative. It’s a long story, but it’s in the forums somewhere.
The problem is that conservatives have shifted ground so much that they have gotten closer and closer to liberals.
Hard to tell who is who anymore, except to say that people are more liberal than conservative these days.
21 Kidist // Feb 1, 2009 at 5:32 pm
She was German, thus, suspect.
Sorry to chime in again.
I do have to say that the country of origin had nothing to do with my reaction to Brinker. It was her modus operandi.
Now, it has certainly put me on the alert for Germans, because she is the second (maybe third) German I know who has the same characteristics.
I hate to say this, but they are:
- An extreme overconfidence
- Followed by moments of supreme under-confidence
- A slightly envious and vindictive (maybe too strong, but revengeful might be better) personality
- And a desire to always be right.
- I suspect the flip side of all of this is a generosity of spirit – but this gets submerged under all that “up and down” going on.
Now the next step is WHY! Maybe modern Germans don’t want to get duped again like they did by Hitler, so they are overcompensating. The social worker in Dr. Yeagley might say: “trust issues”.
Unfortunately, this is how I will be assessing any Germans from now.
David, you forum really has taught us international affairs! But sincerely, it is good to know that people are really different.
Culture, ethnicity, race, environment do build a “national” character.
22 David Yeagley // Feb 1, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I think, for Europeans, conservatism is reactionary. It is a response of some kind. In America, it was (is) foundational. Liberalism (Communism, etc.) is a reaction against that.
Monarchy was what Europe was all about. “Liberty” was shaped very much by the reaction against the abuses of Monarchy. Only in America, where the government started from scratch, were they able to make liberty the foundation, in concept.
America may be considered a European thing, by many, but, because of its initial circumstances, I think America is unique. America could never have happened in Europe (if that makes sense).
Continental assessments of America have never impressed me. The singular ethos of America is independence. Shaping yourself for what you want, not what someone else thinks you should be. America started by rejecting European opinion.
23 David Yeagley // Feb 1, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Kidist, I think the nations are fabulous! I love them, every one.
Mac thought we sort of aggravated animosities. Ray (the Indian) came to the same conclusion.
I think this is a mis-reading of what’s happening. What I want is for people to learn to appreciate what’s out their, why people feel like they do, where stereotypes come from, why, and how to enjoy them. Case in point: GMS! Ha, ha!
24 Kidist // Feb 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Case in point: GMS! Ha, ha!
LOL! Otherwise known as Grumpy (Old Italian) – other acronyms have been given, but I will not go there!
Some example there.
Just kidding, Nonno mio!
25 Kidist // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:09 am
Actually, I apologize if I have insulted anyone, in the past or the present. Nora Brinker, Mac Coinneach, GMS.
I’ve had contentions, and have been a little quick to join in the fray. It is a genuine attempt to defend myself, but for some reason it has become an endless cycle. New incidents also trigger older ones.
I won’t be doing this anymore.
26 David Yeagley // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:16 am
Don’t worry about it. We’re all the same! Defensive, aggressive, and working for something we value. It’s the human condition.
We demand to be loved, when we’re unlovable. We’re inconsistent, unpredictable, and generally contentious.
This is why love is so transcendent. Love is like the magic power that holds an atom together. Yes, we get lost in the whirling electrons, and the fascinating neurons, but, love is the power that keeps it all from spinning totally out into oblivion.
27 Kidist // Feb 2, 2009 at 12:05 pm
David, I think your social worker self is working overdrive.
I apologized partly for myself, for getting pulled into arguments with people who never really had any interest in arguing, or discussing issues, but just wanted one-up-manship. That was my naivete.
I should have been more astute.
That was my error, and in a sense I acted like the rest.
I actually have fought my battle, and I think made my points. It is discernible in the way these people behave – Mac Coinneach has left, Brinker is out of the loop, and GMS is, well, he’s really just fun when not Grumpy!
My apology is for continuing this thing when it was long over.
I think Terry Morris induced it. I’m not sure why he posted that link to Brinker’s comment. Also his comment “I won’t tolerate that kind of b.s. at my blog.” kind of begs the question why he paid attention to it in the first place. How can anyone trust a poster who starts the very first post in that manner? Something wrong there. I honestly feel he’s reacting to past events here. Trying to “right the wrongs”, it seems. He should do that on his own blog.
This is what I mean by new incidents trigger older ones – battles over and won.
That was my error. That was what my apology was for, and adding undue (new) vitriol to incidents past and gone. I am not in the least apologetic for my arguments.
28 Terry Morris // Feb 2, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Kidist wrote:
I think Terry Morris induced it. I’m not sure why he posted that link to Brinker’s comment.
Because, as I said, I thought it was an interesting perspective given the Oklahoma teacher’s perspective Nora was responding to at my blog.
Why are you trying to provoke me?
29 Terry Morris // Feb 2, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Kidist wrote:
Also his comment “I won’t tolerate that kind of b.s. at my blog.” kind of begs the question why he paid attention to it in the first place.
It doesn’t beg any question that I paid attention to it. I don’t give a hoot what Dr. Yeagley says of you, Kidist, you’re completely irrational, assuming you’ve read the Webster’s post in question, and that is a fact. My very first encounter with Nora was in that post, and I had had, at that time, but one other encounter with Dr. Yeagley. And you expect me to simply dismiss what Nora had to say altogether? You must be a complete idiot.
30 Kidist // Feb 2, 2009 at 2:23 pm
My very first encounter with Nora was in that post, and I had had, at that time, but one other encounter with Dr. Yeagley.
Exactly my point. How can you allow such a comment about someone you know very little about, and continue a “respectable” interaction with the person?
Personally I don’t care. I found your site by chance when there was that argument on Gates of Vienna when you linked to it after a comment. I was curious, and the first thing I see is that.
I remember linking all the goings-on with Brinker on this site (including her racist comments towards me) to your site, simply as a background for you, and since I see that you are regularly commenting at VFR. I was surprised at your behavior, that is all. So you have been privy to much more than just a few posts until now.
I am no longer the naive poster these days. People post for a reason. I was questioning your motives.
Rather than call me “an idiot” and “irrational”, you would have done better to answer my questions – legitimate and logical. Name-calling is becoming an art form – not really, just a low down vulgarity – on the internet.
I was calling you on your judgement, which I actually have a right to do as a participant on this blog. You except a civilized interaction here, yet you post a comment by a blogger who called someone form THIS blog (the host, as a matter of fact) a “hatefilled punk.” Weird.
Actually, David doesn’t mind – somehow he must like being called a “hatefilled punk” but a “central European conservative” – just kidding!!
I don’t really care either, but you pulled us into a conversation based on that link, and I was just making my arguments about why we should pay attention to your link, that’s all. Why should we interact with someone who is in the habit of calling people “hatefilled punk” and many other vitriolic phrases?
See? This conversation went NOWHERE! Just like I thought it would.
Hmm, David, it seems like I will perennially be fending off comments from your commenters. Gets interesting each time.
31 Kidist // Feb 2, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I meant:
Actually, David doesn’t mind – somehow he must like being called a “hatefilled punk” by a “central European conservative” – just kidding!!
Jeez.
32 Kidist // Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 pm
And you expect me to simply dismiss what Nora had to say altogether?
No, you can personally pay attention to whomever you want. I was making an argument as to why we shouldn’t on this blog, based on past behavior and apparently an on-going one. This is a discussion board, you know. We can question sources, links and references. We are obliged to!
33 Terry Morris // Feb 2, 2009 at 3:04 pm
… and since I see that you are regularly commenting at VFR. I was surprised at your behavior, that is all.
Maybe you should go to Auster and tell him how surprised you are that he hosts my comments, given that I host Brinker’s comments at my site.
34 Kidist // Feb 2, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Hmmm…
You still don’t get it, do you? You obviously can post where ever you want and interact with whomever you want, I’m not the internet police.
But, on this open forum discussion, I questioned your judgment and motivations for the link you provided, given the type of person you’re trying to foster on this post. You are not completely “free” here. Here, I am a participant who can ask questions.
Like I said, I can “question sources, links and references” which are part of this particular open discussion, which is what I did.
And, in the final analysis, since you haven’t responded to any of my questions and suspicions, then I must be on the right track. Which then tells me about your judgment, which made this discussion pretty unfruitful.
35 Kidist // Feb 2, 2009 at 4:13 pm
To be fair, the problem with people like Brinker and Mercer is that they are continuously gauging their position. They really are more followers than leaders (of thought). So when someone unexpected challenges their ideas (which they have gleaned from 1,000 different places), it takes them by surprise, and they become defensive and aggressive.
By the way, in my previous post, I meant to write “wherever” not “where ever”. We really need an edit or preview function.
36 Terry Morris // Feb 2, 2009 at 4:38 pm
And, in the final analysis, since you haven’t responded to any of my questions and suspicions, then I must be on the right track.
Really? Who are you trying to convince, Kidist, yourself? It never occured to you that I chose not to answer any of your paranoid – he must have some underlying motive – questions, minus one, because none of them warranted an answer? You’re pretty full of yourself, aren’t you.
Nonetheless, I have no interest in pursuing this “discussion” further. You, as they say, win.
37 Kidist // Feb 2, 2009 at 5:26 pm
You win
Thank you. That says a lot.
Actually, it wasn’t about winning. Popping up at a message board and not expecting challenges is for the weak-minded. By not answering, you have forfeited your argument.
You also spoiled quite a good discussion.
By the way, I’m not far from wrong about Brinker’s liberalism, after all. She’s admitted as much herself in the link you provided.
She unhesitatingly understands that prime white liberal female position of condescension mixed with caring – which together become something twisted. She calls it typical female traits. I call it typical feminist (i.e. liberal) female traits. We should also add, a vociferous need to be taken care off, and implanting themselves in an unsuspecting male’s bosom. It kind of describes her behavior to a “t”.
38 Terry Morris // Feb 3, 2009 at 10:18 am
You also spoiled quite a good discussion.
(Against my better judgment)
What are you talking about? When I posted my initial comment in this thread that you took such issue with, ascribing to me some kind of sinister ulterior motive, there were a grand total of five comments in the thread, three of which belonged to Dr. Yeagley. Over the course of two days, therefore – the interim between the posting of the article and my posting my initial comment – the discussion involved three posters and had barely gotten off the ground. Yet you say of me that I came in and hijacked a potentially great discussion. Again, what in God’s name are you talking about?
Also, you said of me in an earlier comment that “you just don’t get it do you?” It’s not it that I don’t get, Kidist, it is you that I don’t get.
39 Kidist // Feb 3, 2009 at 3:18 pm
It’s not it that I don’t get, Kidist, it is you that I don’t get.
LOL. This forum has a long history, Terry, that’s all.
40 David Yeagley // Feb 3, 2009 at 11:30 pm
A long, illustrious, wonderful history!
41 Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com? : RichardPoe.com // May 24, 2009 at 1:26 pm
[...] On January 30, a Freeper calling herself Sioux-san had posted Dr. Yeagley’s article “Michael Medved and `White Women’” at FreeRepublic.com. She graciously provided a link back to BadEagle.com, where the original article appeared. [...]
You must log in to post a comment.