0
   

Liberal Cartoonists, Liberal Racism

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 03:03 pm
Larry434 wrote:
MerlinsGodson wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
Naw. It was an exaggerated response to the claim the Bush girls were asking for it and deserved what they got... like prosecutors sometimes hint to the jury re: rape victims..


Larry, you're all wet on this one. It was a poor and inflammatory analogy.


I am not playing on your merry go round of denial, MG.


Really? I got the impression you were. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 03:26 pm
I think what clyp is saying is that the actions that the Bush got up to was newsworthy, chelsie on the other hand was just born with her looks. When you are a girl and you are twelve and you hear on TV someone calling you a dog that is bound to have an impact.

The Bush girls themselves joke about their behavior as though they think it is cool. I doubt very seriously that Chelsie goes around joking about being ugly. (which she is not)
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 04:01 pm
revel wrote:
I think what clyp is saying is that the actions that the Bush got up to was newsworthy, chelsie on the other hand was just born with her looks. When you are a girl and you are twelve and you hear on TV someone calling you a dog that is bound to have an impact.

The Bush girls themselves joke about their behavior as though they think it is cool. I doubt very seriously that Chelsie goes around joking about being ugly. (which she is not)


I do not defend Limbaugh's slur of Chelsea, for which he later apologized on air and in person to Hillary. It was contemptable.

As are the slurs about the Bush twins.

Of course, we will still disagree over the appropriateness of the Bush twin remarks.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 05:59 pm
Well, I won't.

I think attacking any public figure's family - unless they are involved in an activity which involves the public figure in something absolutely relevant to their performance of their public duties - is wrong.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 07:12 pm
If your family is involved in something illegal, like fake ids to 'buy controlled substances" , Ill do the cartoon of that one myself.

Well, it appears that gunga is the only one offended here , and Ill wager a farthhing that he only wished to stir the pot a bit. Did Limbaugh come up with anything new for your decoder rings today? Its been kinda quiet.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 09:16 pm
Tempting providence - duck and cover!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:58 am
The relentless attacks by the media and the liberal establishment continue against Secretary of State Nominee Condoleezza Rice. As predicted, the left has now decided to play the "sellout" card. You see, any black American that does not agree with the agenda of liberals in this country is a traitor -- an Uncle Tom -- a sellout -- and they can't be trusted. It's the same thing that happened to Clarence Thomas.

The latest example of this comes to us courtesy of some radio guy in Madison, Wisconsin named John Sylvester. On the air Wednesday, he called Dr. Rice "Aunt Jemima" (after the black woman on the pancake mix box) and Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom." His reasoning? "I was aiming that directly at a black person that is letting himself (and herself) be used by an administration that has been extremely hostile to minorities." Oh really? What could he possibly be talking about? How has George Bush been the least bit hostile to minorities? By being the first to appoint them to high offices? Please. It seems that there are some members of the minority community out there who would dry up and blow away if they couldn't whine that someone somewhere was being "hostile" towards them.

Actually, this has nothing to do with race. It's about an intolerant leftist ideology that doesn't accept any other views. Unless you tow the line for the Democratic party, you're an Uncle Tom and a sellout.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 10:36 am
Well, the radio guy was wrong. That came straight from God's lips through my ears. Razz The reason she's a sellout isn't b/c she is black. The reason is b/c she's taking Bush's party line, that they aren't making mistakes. Rolling Eyes She backed up her president's erroneous allegations that Saddam was making weapons, that there was aluminum for that specific purpose, even though there was evidence at the time to the contrary. It has nothing to do with her race, only her allegiance to a misinformed president.
http://www.opednews.com/wade_100404_rice2.htm
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 10:46 am
The thing that fascinates me with this thread is NUMEROUS examples of racist or inappropriate remarks about conservatives are dismissed with ONE purported 'dog' comment that occurred well over ten years ago and wasn't a comment at all. What happened was on the Limbaugh television show, a picture of a very cute little dog was put up with a caption of Chelsea under it. Rush apologized saying it was an accident by the crew and was completely unintended. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. I don't know. He did apologize.

To the best of my knowledge, none of these other people have ever apologized for the racist and/or other cruel comments made about the Bush twins or other figures on the right.

The main objection I have is the unadultered sexist racist bias being shown on the left re Condi Rice. With other Bush appointments, they say the people are not 'qualified'. With Condi, they say she just isn't up to the job. In fact, that seems to be the trend with all the minority appointments.

Racism is not a disease of the right by any means. At least there are a few intellectually honest Democrats who do recognize and denounce racism from within their own ranks.

AP Story today:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20041119/ap_on_re_us/radio_host_remark_2&printer=1
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 01:13 pm
Quote:
With other Bush appointments, they say the people are not 'qualified'. With Condi, they say she just isn't up to the job. In fact, that seems to be the trend with all the minority appointments.


She isn't qualified to be Secretary of State, she wasn't qualified to National Security Advisor. It was thought that she would grow in the job of NSA, but her lack of administration skills doomed her almost from the first day. Instead of leading, she waited till she got a clue from the President or Cheney and then fed any information that fit, ignoring all else.

She did prove herself to be a fine sounding board for the President in her many appearances on news programs, but that's the job of Press Secretary not NSA.

At State, she will be in way over her head, a place Colin Powell never found himself, but then he was a formidable and knowledgeable leader. He had vast amounts of experience at running large numbers of people through a variety of tasks. You kind of learn that sort of thing in Officer's Training School..

Ah well. I look forward to the hearings on her confirmation. She will be confirmed, no doubt, then hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

BTW There was another National Security Advisor who was run off by Dick Cheney before he had a chance to become Sec of State. Dick didn't like him too much and thought he might derail some of his plans. That man's name was Henry Kissinger.

Joe
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 01:16 pm
If you look at Condi Rice's education, experience, and credentials, she is imminently qualified to be Secretary of State.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 01:18 pm
P.S. Joe, Kissinger is 81 years old and while he was a most capable Secretary of State in his prime, I don't know if he knows squat about national security. Do you?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 01:26 pm
How could Condi Rice be so wrong, over and over, re the situation in Iraq and be considered qualified to be Sec'y of State? Her track record as National Security Advisor is abysmal.

But she does support the Bush line. In that sense she's qualified. Unlike Powell.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 01:35 pm
Quote:
She isn't qualified to be Secretary of State


I keep reading this, both here and on other liberal websites. What no one ever says is why they think this.

Exactly what is it about her PHD and experience with policy and government for 25 years that makes her "unqualified"?

She has an amazing list of achievements that has earned not only my respect, but downright admiration.

(Joe - this isn't aimed at you specifically, but rather just a general musing on my part).
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 01:39 pm
That anyone, given the history as outlined in the 9/11 Commission report and by hundreds of other sources, could blame Condi Rice for 9/11 is so partisan to have zero credibility with any thinking person. We have had no other incidents since 9/11 and it is possible hundreds of attempts have been intercepted, thwarted, or otherwise prevented. Abyssmal record? I think not.

If Powell wanted to stay, he would still be Secretary of State. He said going in that he was a one-termer. I hoped he would change his mind. He didn't. Rice is a competent, well qualified, highly experienced, intelligent, and knowledgeable person even if she happens to like George Bush. That she happens to like George Bush seems to be the most damning thing her opponents can come up with.

I suppose you also wanted Bill Clinton to pick cabinet members who were opposed to his agenda and policy recommendations too? I mean come on, let's be fair and equitable about this.

Otherwise, you're all spitting in the wind for whatever your motives are. You can't come up with any credible evidence showing that Condi Rice is not qualified for her appointment. If you say she's not up to the job, you are supporting the same sexist and possibly racist bigotry demonstrated by many others from the Left this past week.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 02:21 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:
With other Bush appointments, they say the people are not 'qualified'. With Condi, they say she just isn't up to the job. In fact, that seems to be the trend with all the minority appointments.


She isn't qualified to be Secretary of State...


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/040317/tdy_lauer_albright_040317.vsmall.jpg

But dogface there was, right?

http://www.infosearchpoint.com/display/Madeline_Albright

Quote:

During the Rambouillet talks on Kosovo in France in 1999, Albright was said to have been mistaken for a cleaning lady by one of the Albanian delegates. She is said to have burst out angrily using very undiplomatic language. Critics say that since that incident, she has upscaled her wardrobe, added more color to it and now always wears oversized gold brooches.


For those unfamiliar, dogface (the cleaning lady) there is Madeline Albright, our last democrat secretary of state. Same lady who said "The Serbs need some bombing and they're gonna get it" before starting a 90 day bombing campaign against a nation which had given us no offense whatsoever.

Going from dogface there to Condi Rice is like going from an australopithicus to modern man. It's the sort of thing you expect to happen when the government gets put back under adult supervision, thank God.

You say you democrats aren't happy about it?

GREAT!!!!![/color]
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 02:37 pm
Quote:
BTW There was another National Security Advisor who was run off by Dick Cheney before he had a chance to become Sec of State. Dick didn't like him too much and thought he might derail some of his plans. That man's name was Henry Kissinger


Quote:
P.S. Joe, Kissinger is 81 years old and while he was a most capable Secretary of State in his prime, I don't know if he knows squat about national security. Do you?


Am I that much older than the rest of you, or do I just have a longer memory? I was thinking back to 1975 when Dick Cheney was trying to help Jerry Ford stay in the White House. Dick was Jerry's Chief of Staff. He got Ford to fire the two most moderate voices close to Ford, I know it's hard to remember Kissinger as a moderate voice but compared to Dick he's a flaming liberal. The other one axed was James Schleshinger from Sec of Defense position. The idea was to fend off the emerging candidacy of Ronald Reagan while at the same time make Ford's administration more conservative. Didn't turn out too well for Ford.

Joe

Okay....back to the present where everything old is new again.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 05:06 pm
You have to go back...what....29 years to find something to slam Cheney with Joe? Want to explain how that is relevant to the present?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 05:12 pm
Gunga, while I generally think your posts are right on target, I have to object to calling Madeline Albright 'dogface'. Let's leave it to the left to do the slurs. It is sufficient to point out that Madeline was largley incompetent and ineffective in her post. I had the opportunity to meet her once and she seemed nice enough.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 05:16 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Gunga, while I generally think your posts are right on target, I have to object to calling Madeline Albright 'dogface'. Let's leave it to the left to do the slurs. It is sufficient to point out that Madeline was largley incompetent and ineffective in her post. I had the opportunity to meet her once and she seemed nice enough.


Thank you foxfyre. While your views and mine are different, I appreciate your message to Gungasnake. While left of center myself, there really was no need for that comment from Gunga. It is possible to debate without resorting to slurs, a 'heads up' for both sides.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 01:31:21