0
   

Liberal Cartoonists, Liberal Racism

 
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 05:40 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
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


What do you want us to do? Post links to other slurs offered by conservatives? Like these?
Quote:
"Islam is a peaceful religion as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered, and the infidels killed." (11/22/2002)

"Let's see exactly why it isn't the case that Islam is a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion? Where's the proof to the contrary?" (04/24/2004)

"So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it." (02/16/2002)

"JaneFondaKerry is being heavily funded by Iranians -- check out how Gore was funded by the Chinese in 2000. May not come out until after the election but when it comes to JustForKerry the old rule applies in every aspect of his life - "FOLLOW THE MONEY." (03/02/2004)

"The Rats better think twice about the bogus charge that the President went "AWOL." Looks like John F*ing Kerry went traitor." (02/04/2004)

"John Commie-Kerry has voted for decades to dismantle the US military." (02/01/2004)

"After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal gradparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?" (03/04/2004)

"Just don't let anybody put a tablet with the Ten Commandments in front of the school where that girl wants to wear a Muslim scarf -- OH, No --- then the RATS would complain. Anti-Christian, Anti-American -- just like their Presidential Candidate -- Jean Francois Kerrie." (03/31/2004)

"The only way to beat this bitch is to nail her on the issues." (Talking about Senator Hillary Clinton on 06/08/2003)

"Let the FAT HOG run!!!" (Again about Hillary Clinton on 08/30/2003)

"And now we get Pooh-LEFTY pushed on us by the RATS as Minority Leader in the House -- here come the SanFrancisco liberals -- hope the RATS go back to focusing the debate on gay marriages and other pro-choice topics close to Pelosi's heart." (Comments on Nancy Pelosi posted 11/18/2002)
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_5012.shtml

The Bush twins seem to enjoy their notoriety. If I can find the link to Rolling Stone where they were talking about going to a gay wedding with the intent of getting shitfaced wasted and celebrating diversity, I will.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 05:47 pm
Well if you want to go toe to toe on message board slurs, I'm sure somebody would do that with you Princess. I'll decline as I give no credibility to unlinked, unidentified slurs. Would you care to elaborate, however, on how your post relates to or absolves those who are using racist, sexist slurs to oppose Condi Rice?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 05:51 pm
I also want to credit Foxfyre for her civility in this and other threads, all of which we disagree in. Having said that, gungasnake deserves no such credit...
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 05:59 pm
JustWonders wrote:
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).


This is an example of what should've gotten her fired: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/03/le.01.html

Quote:
BLITZER: Let's get to one final thing. It's in The New York Times today. On this program, almost exactly two years ago, we were talking about those aluminum tubes that the Iraqis were getting, and you said this on "LATE EDITION." Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICE: We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance -- into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Now, in The New York Times today, they say that, at that time, for a year you already knew the Department of Energy and others in the U.S. government were suggesting they probably were being used for small artillery rockets or other purposes, that it was a debate that was ongoing.

RICE: Well, at that time, when I came on your show, I knew there was some debate out there. But I tell you, I did not know the nature of the debate. We learned later, as we were going through the NIE, the Department of Energy's objections.

I also knew, of course -- but I did know at the time that the DCI and the intelligence community had said -- the intelligence community as a whole, believed that these were for centrifuge parts.

Now, there are debates in the intelligence community all the time. It is the job of the intelligence community, through its NIEs, through the DCI, to resolve those debates and to present to the administration, to the political leadership, its most likely case for what this is.

And throughout this entire period, the case that was presented to us was that, because of the nature of the tubes, they're a very fine specifications, because they were extremely expensive, because they had gone through particular bank accounts, that they were associated with the nuclear weapons programs.

Yes, the NIE and indeed the white paper that was unclassified said that there were people who disagreed with that.

What the Department of Energy did not disagree with, is that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program. What the key judgment said that had the support of the intelligence community is that he could have a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade.

And, Wolf, if you're a policy-maker, you are going to be certain that you're not wrong on the short side, that you're not wrong in underestimating. Because, after all, if you underestimate the nuclear threat of a tyrant, you make a really big mistake.

And I stand by that decision of the administration to this very day.

BLITZER: And the way you phrased that statement, do you stand by that too?

RICE: Wolf, at that time, that what we thought, but the fact of the matter is, the president made this decision based on a body of evidence, not just on aluminum tubes, and on the key judgment of his intelligence organization that this was a program of reconstitution of the nuclear program.
She knew and yet she still lied about it. Despicable!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:04 pm
I disagree that she lied about anything. And remember at the time of 9/11, she and President Bush had eight months in their respective posts. The Clinton administration knew about all this stuff for years before Bush came to office and they didn't do anything but a lot of sword rattling either. If there is any one person to most blame, it would be Jamie Gorelick for blocking communications between government law enforcement bodies, but even she intended no harm and did not know the terrible consequences of that policy that was done, coincidentally, in the Clinton administration.

As far as Iran goes, that threat has also been building over many years, not just in the Bush administration. The one thing the Left doesn't seem to get is that believing something that turns out later to not be true is not the same thing as lieing.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:06 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well if you want to go toe to toe on message board slurs, I'm sure somebody would do that with you Princess. I'll decline as I give no credibility to unlinked, unidentified slurs. Would you care to elaborate, however, on how your post relates to or absolves those who are using racist, sexist slurs to oppose Condi Rice?


I posted hastily without finishing any point except the one pointing out that there are many more slurs by conservatives than the one pointing Chelsea out as a puppy dog years ago. I can't find any sites where Condi is called a house n----, but one where Colin Powell was called one by Harry Belafonte: http://www.blacknewsweekly.com/195.html I did find one that compared Condi Rice to Sally Hemmings: http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000647.html
Quote:
Political Sally Hemmings was, technically, a house n---. Again, the person calling her that is a black woman, not any generic liberal. The offense is as one black person to another.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:07 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I disagree that she lied about anything. And remember at the time of 9/11, she and President Bush had eight months in their respective posts. The Clinton administration knew about all this stuff for years before Bush came to office and they didn't do anything but a lot of sword rattling either. If there is any one person to most blame, it would be Jamie Gorelick for blocking communications between government law enforcement bodies, but even she intended no harm...


I can't really agree with that. Gorelick's "wall", near as I can tell, was intended to prevent any sort of an investigation into Chinagate, i.e. it was meant to allow massive corruption to go unpunished. That, to my thinking, is harm.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:10 pm
ditto on the comments regarding Gungasnake pathetic juvenile remarks and Foxfyre's comments upon them.


Quote:
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?


It should be self evident. Richard Cheney has been for his entire career a back-stabbing, self-aggrandizing bureaucrat who by the fortunes of war is now one heartbeat from the leadership of the free world. He is a clear and present danger to the Constitution of the US. He has specific, inherently undemocratic, ideas as the base of his philosophy and, I believe, would in a minute, sacrifice any number of Americans in order to pursue his vision of how things should be.

Keep your eye on him. He is a bad man. A very bad man.

Joe (deadly serious) Nation
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:10 pm
You only have to go back to the links on this thread to see the insulting, racially laced cartoons and other quotes I think.

Are you sure about Gorelick and Chinagate, Gunga? I'll admit the timing is suspicious, but I think if there was anything to that, it would have surfaced by now.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:18 pm
This isn't about political incorrectness--it's blatant racism. Aunt Jemima jokes? I didn't know we were doing these things in 2004.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:22 pm
Quote:
I disagree that she lied about anything. And remember at the time of 9/11, she and President Bush had eight months in their respective posts.


I just think this comment, which I have seen numerous times, is the most ridiculous of anything posted on the net. How long does one get to start doing their job???? How about you guys? How many months did they give you on your job to start doing it? ONE? That's about right, isn't it? Then your ass is on the line.

Oh...... they were only on the job EIGHT months, well, they were both adults, so I hear, and their supporters say they are up to the job so it sounds to me like they were slacking for about seven of those months while Dick ran things.

Jeeze

Joe (on the job) Nation
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
You only have to go back to the links on this thread to see the insulting, racially laced cartoons and other quotes I think.

Are you sure about Gorelick and Chinagate, Gunga? I'll admit the timing is suspicious, but I think if there was anything to that, it would have surfaced by now.


They aren't any more racially laced than you want to see them be! OMG, what? Bush has big ears and looks like a chimpanzee. Does that become a racial slur for all caucasions? Or just big eared monkey-faced ones? Kerry had a big brow and looked a little bit like Lurch or Frankenstein. Does that become a racial slur? Condi has big lips, so what? And it's more the way her teeth stick out than her lips being all that big... but, I digress. Only black folks have big lips? That is so not true. Many don't. Then, take a look at any number of races, many have big lips- polynesians are a good example completely unrelated to negroid genes. I think you are seeing what you want to see in the cartoons if you see them only racially slurring. They were slurs against her character more than her race. A cartoonist need to say 1,000 words with just one picture and the good ones do that, with great nuance and flourish. Whatever is a recognisable feature gets exaggerated. That is the nature of cartoon caricature.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:25 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:
I disagree that she lied about anything. And remember at the time of 9/11, she and President Bush had eight months in their respective posts.


I just think this comment, which I have seen numerous times, is the most ridiculous of anything posted on the net. How long does one get to start doing their job???? How about you guys? How many months did they give you on your job to start doing it? ONE? That's about right, isn't it? Then your ass is on the line.

Oh...... they were only on the job EIGHT months, well, they were both adults, so I hear, and their supporters say they are up to the job so it sounds to me like they were slacking for about seven of those months while Dick ran things.

Jeeze

Joe (on the job) Nation


The Clinton administration had 8 years. What does that make them?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:48 pm
The Clinton administration has it's record of eight years. It's a matter of history, but that is besides the point of this "golly, they were only in power for eight months" whine.

It's an excuse for incompetence. Dat zit.

Joe
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:57 pm
It isn't an excuse at all. When you start on any new venture, new job, new career, or whatever it is that you undertake, most difficult things are not mastered in a few days or even weeks. Most of us take awhile on a new job in a new industry to learn the language, identify the people, regroup the organizational structure. Nobody expects the new executive of a moderate sized corporation to make a significant different in the first six months figuring it takes that long just to figure out what the job should be. So the structure rocks along on the prior administration policies for some time after new blood is brought in.

Now translate that to the Federal government with its myriad departments, agencies, and hundreds of thousands of employees. Cabinet members and various other appointments have to be submitted to and passed by Congress that always takes awhile, security clearances have to be obtained--the Clinton administration didn't have all theirs intact well into the second and third years of his administration, and various agencies have to be assessed to see where changes should be made.

If you think you can turn even a small city government around in eight months Joe, by all means run for office. Otherwise, I suggest that you accept that the eight years of the Clinton adjministration is more culpable than is eight months of the Bush administration, and neither would have allowed 9/11 if they had known it was coming.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:14 pm
That is so naive. George W. Bush and his team were ready to hit the road running by DECEMBER, according to Woodward, and came into office with plenty of experienced people already in place. The fact of the matter is George Bush was, for his first eight months in office, lazy. He only showed up about half the time or less, he liked to go on vacation more then attending to the business of the nation unless it was pushing his trillion dollar tax cuts, and Dick seemed to have those pesky energy and environment things under control. He sidled out of inconvenient international treaties, let the Israeli thing take care of itself and went out to ride his bicycle. His lack of attention, not only to detail, but to anything resembling importance trickled down to his staff leaving Condi to stare at intelligence that shouted DANGER and wave it off as just another day.

I'm just sitting in the back seat while those people are driving the bus.\

Joe (seat 14B) Nation
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:15 pm
A number of us has admitted that some of the cartoons of condi rice has been racial. What do you all want us to, slit our wrist in shame?

Having said, being against condi rice does not make a person racist. I am against her because she has lied or couched her words or changed the subject or reworded her questions to suit her answers, take your pick, and not because she is a woman or that she is black. If we did like her just for those reasons then that would be just as racist as not liking her for those reasons. We have already went into the condi rice debate and I don't feel like doing it again as it is not important to the subject at hand.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:17 pm
Well said Revel.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:19 pm
Well I think Joe is the naive one if he thinks a U.S. government can be reformed, overhauled, or even significantly adjusted in eight months and I think Revel is totally biased re Condi Rice and cannot substantiate any of the criticisms of her; also Bush could not appoint anybody who would meet the standards of most of those who oppose him.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:20 pm
revel wrote:
A number of us has admitted that some of the cartoons of condi rice has been racial. What do you all want us to, slit our wrist in shame?
No, but I wouldlike the ones who said it wasn'tracist or made lame excuses for it to punch themselves hard in the face.
Having said, being against condi rice does not make a person racist.
No, really?
I am against her because she has lied or couched her words or changed the subject or reworded her questions to suit her answers, take your pick, and not because she is a woman or that she is black. If we did like her just for those reasons then that would be just as racist as not liking her for those reasons.
Liking her and acknowledging her acheivements aren't the same thing.

We have already went into the condi rice debate and I don't feel like doing it again as it is not important to the subject at hand.

Someone, please open the door for Revel.
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 11/27/2021 at 02:56:48