Well gee, forgive me for reading the details...and then why didn’t you tell us what it’s all about or what you wanted to discuss about this article when you had the chance to comment at post #1? That was your chance...
I quoted exactly what was relevant and set it up in the header. There wasn’t anything to add in Post No. 1. The reporter said Obama was talking about his own ancestry ... which has little if anything to do with slaves and the history of slave trade. That’s part of the point. The other point is that Obama makes a self-identification that is goes against the nature of one being a U.S. president.
I’m going onto explain it is also not good etiquette not to comment, or tell us about what you think of an article you have posted, at the given post #1, for the initial poster’s comment.
Unless it is a situation similar to where you wish to pass some important information and have to leave for work. Clearly not the case here. Let me compare it to what Rush terms the “drive-by-media”.
Don’t be offended, just understand where others are coming from. Some don’t have time to read entire articles because they are leaving for work, and others don’t like leaving this web site to read an article in it’s entirety at an unknown web site. And you wish to make a point, and this is where you have cheated yourself, by not using the opportunity given at post #1.