0
   

Liberal Cartoonists, Liberal Racism

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 03:31 pm
Just Wonders

Liberals arose where ever they were born. Democrats were not always liberal in the past and a few are not today. The hard core racist element, such as the KKK gravitated to the Republicans long ago. Now I've lready done more to legitemitize this stink hole of a thread than I intended. This will be my final visit here.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 03:45 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
So would calling Condi "Aunt Jemima" qualify as a 'slur' do you think Princess? And how about those who refer to minority nominations, including Condoleeza Rice, as "not up to the job" and "bootlickers" when they don't apply those same negative comments to the white nominees? Would that qualify as racism in your eyes?


Why would those phrases, "Not up to the job," and "bootlickers," signify racist remarks? Bootlickers are generally dogs, aren't they? Tony Blair has been described as America's poodle b/c of the way he fawns and supported our war in Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2711623.stm There was even a video cartoon about that...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2077598.stm (note his wife's BIG LIPS, btw Rolling Eyes) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2081611.stm Does that make him black or a bootlicker? Max Lucado has been described as a bootlicker. Is he black? http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/famous.html
Shall I go on making my point that the term does NOT indicate a RACISM??? Or, do you have an argument to prove your point that it does?

Aunt Jemima's another matter... do you have a cartoon caricature of her portrayed as Aunt Jemima? Or a link to an essay alleging she is based upon her race?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 03:49 pm
It denote racism when it is applied to Bush appointees who happen to be minorities and is not equally applied to white nominees. The implications are clear: "token subserviant black" rather than highly qualified, competent woman. Of course it is the left who keeps promoting minorities as 'victims' who 'need whitey's help' to succeed at all, much less get ahead.

Anybody who applies the term 'bootlicker' to Condoleeza Rice will be racist in my eyes no matter how much they can't see themselves that way.

http://www.620wtmj.com/620programs/charliesykes/weblog.asp
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 03:54 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
It denote racism when it is applied to Bush appointees who happen to be minorities and is not equally applied to white nominees. The implications are clear: "token subserviant black" rather than highly qualified, competent woman. Of course it is the left who keeps promoting minorities as 'victims' who 'need whitey's help' to succeed at all, much less get ahead.

Anybody who applies the term 'bootlicker' to Condoleeza Rice will be racist in my eyes no matter how much they can't see themselves that way.


Why only Bush appointees? Because that makes your point? A bootlicker is a bootlicker. Why are you upset about Condi Rice's features being exaggerated as a parrot but not Bush's features being exaggerated int he same cartoon? It makes no sense. Rolling Eyes She's portrayed as subserviant b/c she acts that way when she supports his policies and justifies his ridiculous actions. She's where she is b/c she's loyal to her president, fawningly so.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 03:56 pm
I'm not referring only to the cartoons PP. I'm referring to the whole liberal diatribe against the President and his appointees that, in my opinion, are transparently couched in prejudice, malicious bias, bigotry, and narrow mindedness of a very high degree.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 04:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm not referring only to the cartoons PP. I'm referring to the whole liberal diatribe against the President and his appointees that, in my opinion, are transparently couched in prejudice, malicious bias, bigotry, and narrow mindedness of a very high degree.


Ok, but you realize this thread is about whether or not cartoons portraying exaggreated features is racist and an example of bigotry, right? Here's the quote from the OP
Quote:
Limbaugh, Hannity Protest Racist Attacks on Rice
newsmax.com ^ | Nov. 17, 2004 10:04 p.m. EST


Posted on 11/17/2004 7:33:22 PM PST by notkerry


Led by the nation's number one radio host Rush Limbaugh, America's conservative talkers blasted a series of cartoons on Wednesday that used racist stereotypes to attack Secretary of State nominee Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

"You have to see these [cartoons] to appreciate the pure racism, bigotry, and grotesqueness, as well as the prejudice that's involved," Limbaugh fumed, referring to caricatures of Dr. Rice that have appeared recently in the Washington Post and New York Times.

In one Pat Oliphant cartoon carried by the Post, Rice is drawn as a parrot with thick protruding lips and buck teeth, echoing her boss in subservient tones. In a Jeff Danziger cartoon from last fall, Rice is shown as "Gone With The Wind" star Butterfly McQueen, nursing aluminum tubes instead of a baby as she says in an Amos n' Andy accent: "I Knows All About Aluminum Tubes."

Danizger is syndicated by the New York Times.

A third cartoon from a recent Gary Trudeau "Doonesbury" strip has President Bush admonishing Dr. Rice with the words, "Careful, Brown Sugar."

"If the truth be known here," Limbaugh told his audience, "J. William Fulbright and the Dixiecrats from the Old South who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have come back to life, and they live and breathe in the Washington Post editorial page as a cartoon. They live and breathe in the panels of Doonesbury. They live and breathe at editorial pages of the New York Times . . . . and wherever else Condoleezza Rice is being besmirched and impugned today."

ABC Radio host Sean Hannity, who has interviewed Dr. Rice on numerous occasions, echoed the same themes during his broadcast, calling the racist depictions of the senior Bush official "disgraceful and disgusting."

In New York, WABC Radio host Mark Levin opened the phones to self described liberals after blasting the anti-Rice cartoons. Most claimed to believe that the drawings were not racist.

The NAACP, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton and most of the rest of the civil rights establishment have yet to comment on the anti-black cartoons.
So again, if you have a cartoon that depicts Condi as Aunt Jemima, I want to see it. It's a racist remark b/c of the "Mammyism" ingrained in the image. I do believe, though that she was originally hired by Bush Sr. to be Bush Jr.'s tutor in foreign affairs and perhaps to keep her eye on him whether he was drinking or not, since he'd recently quit... That would sort of give her a more domestic role originally. Although she has the credentials to make her appointment reasonable, I am sure that her loyalty and her "yes, man," attitude has gotten her to where she is as much as her education has. That puts her ascendancy on a slippery slope, and makes sense why folks like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP aren't out defending her to the liberal media.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you are confusing the topics: one is her portrayal in op/ed pieces by the liberal media and the other is her portrayal in satire in the form of political cartooning in liberal media sources.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 04:26 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Having heard Condi speak on several occasions, I think it is safe to say that she believes that the battles for racial equality and opportunity have largely been won and that it is now up to the person to take advantage of it. Of course that is the position of all black conservatives as well as the position of most conservatives of all stripes.


actually she is still for affirmative action. In fact that is the only thing I remember her disagreeing with Bush about. I would say the same if she were white, btw. But of course you don't believe me or any other liberal actually has good motives or ethics. (will look up if asked, I know it is somewhere because I remember the whole to do about it)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 05:02 pm
Condi and Bush are pretty much agreed on the issue of Affirmative Action. She is of an age in which she would likely have benefitted from Affirmative Action in her youth; she would be the first to say that degree of Affirmative Action is no longer necessary. She is on record (and Bush has not contradicted her in any way) that race could be a consideration in achieving diversity in university populations and faculty but she did not support the rather extreme quota system employed by the University of Michigan. In other words, she has a reasoned, sensible, and practical approach to the issue of affirmative action.

I'm sorry I disappoint Princess along with Revel in not focusing solely on the cartoons that I continue to see as intentionally demeaning and insulting and likely racist and I don't believe merit any further comment. I do prefer to focus on the insulting condescending way in which the left treats Bush's minority appointments even more than the other appointments which suggests an element of racism to me. I did give the author of the thread an invitation to express whether he thought discussing Condi's qualifications and competency was highjacking his thread.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 05:54 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

I'm sorry I disappoint Princess along with Revel in not focusing solely on the cartoons


That's quite all right, Foxy. I understand that when there is nothing left to say in your defense, it's best to change the subject.

So, what about the other image in the OP, the one of Nicolette Sheridan in a towel seducing Terrell Owens in a skit promoting both "Desperate Housewives," and football? Rush Limbaugh came out and said that he was shocked, that it reminded him too much of the Kobe Bryant situation. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041118/ap_en_tv/fbn_owens_mnf_apology&e=5 Do you think that is a racist remark? In the Kobe Bryant case, a black athlete was accused of raping a white woman. In the case of this skit, a black athlete is seduced by a very clearly willing white woman. Was he suggesting that any time black men and white women are "together" on TV it's going to be akin to rape? What else could that comment have meant?

If you want to explain why something intentionally demeaning and insulting equals racist, please feel free to elaborate and we can debate that until we make each other sick of the subject. Razz
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 07:21 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Condi and Bush are pretty much agreed on the issue of Affirmative Action. She is of an age in which she would likely have benefitted from Affirmative Action in her youth; she would be the first to say that degree of Affirmative Action is no longer necessary. She is on record (and Bush has not contradicted her in any way) that race could be a consideration in achieving diversity in university populations and faculty but she did not support the rather extreme quota system employed by the University of Michigan. In other words, she has a reasoned, sensible, and practical approach to the issue of affirmative action.

I'm sorry I disappoint Princess along with Revel in not focusing solely on the cartoons that I continue to see as intentionally demeaning and insulting and likely racist and I don't believe merit any further comment. I do prefer to focus on the insulting condescending way in which the left treats Bush's minority appointments even more than the other appointments which suggests an element of racism to me. I did give the author of the thread an invitation to express whether he thought discussing Condi's qualifications and competency was highjacking his thread.


Ok, I will go along with you on what you want to discuss. I will give you a reason that I think Condoleezza Rice is a "anything you say"kind of a person. I would think the same if it she were white. Laura Bush is the same. Bush seems to inspire that kind of attitude in the women around him.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/rice.action/index.html

"I believe that while race-neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body," Rice said.

"Quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution," Bush said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/bush.affirmativeaction/

You can spin that how you want but it just seems to me that they are coming in two different directions on that one. Rice said race should be a factor. Bush said using race to include or exclude people from... If they are saying the same, tell me what result does Rice want with race included in the factors among others in achieving a diverse student body? If you pick a student because they are a minority (using race as a factor) then you are naturally going to exclude someone else who is white or not a minority and thereby doing the exact opposite of what Bush wants.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 07:59 pm
And how do the links you posted in any way contradict what I said about the matter Revel? Other than I do not accept that Condi Rice is anybody's lapdog. I do not see that she and the President agree on policy and process in most things as a bad thing, nor would those in the Clinton administration expect cabinet members to be anything other than a team. Do you honestly think Bill Clinton surrounded himself with people who disagreed with his policy and goals?

I do not wish to discuss affirmative action on this thread, and would be happy to do so on another. I will not quietly allow the tunnel visioned, biased, racist, sexist, and/or otherwise misinformed slander this woman who does not deserve to be treated with anything other than respect. If you don't like her, fine. But don't try to spin with me all that garbage that's being said by mean spirited or misinformed liberals who would not agree that Bush did any good thing if he cured all diseases and eliminated world hunger tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 08:23 pm
I hate liberals almost as much as I hate broccoli, I rank covservative right up there with brussels sprouts.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 08:30 pm
dlowan wrote:
I suppose the other one is said to be racist cos of the "brown sugar" reference?

I do not know American mores enough to comment on that - but the rest of the content is very cutting and effective.

I shall leave it to Murricans to say if Brown Sugar is racist in such circumstances - I think it a demeaning way to refer to someone - I would certainly see it as somewhat sexist - but pretty funny despite that.


Dunno if its relevant but as I recall, Doonesbury actually did a series of cartoons there in which he had GWB call different Cabinet members / politicians by uncomplimentary nicknames - its not like Condoleezza was singled out.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 09:08 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
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.

Richard Clark testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
Quote:
10. 2001: On January 24, 2001 I requested in writing an urgent meeting of the NSC Principals committee to address the al Qida threat. That meeting took place on September 4, 2001. It was preceded by a number of Deputies Committee meetings, beginning in April. Those meetings considered proposals to step up activity against al Qida, including military assistance to anti-Taliban Afghan factions.

Source
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 08:29 am
The only thing regarding the Michigan University that Rice is on record as saying is the following from the previous link. I don't believe at any point that she said she didn't agree with quotas.


Quote:
In her statement, Rice, who is African-American, stressed she agreed with Bush's call for diversity and confirmed that the president had asked her views about the matter before filing the friend-of-the-court briefs. But her statement went further than the briefs filed by the Bush administration on one key point -- whether race could ever be considered a factor in considering admissions.

"I agree with the president's position, which emphasizes the need for diversity and recognizes the continued legacy of racial prejudice, and the need to fight it," Rice said.

"I believe that while race-neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body," Rice said.

In the two briefs filed Thursday with the Supreme Court, the administration, did not specifically address the question of whether race could ever be used as a factor in considering admissions, emphasizing "race-neutral" options.

Asked at a briefing whether Bush believed race could be "any factor," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday that the president decided to file briefs that were "narrowly tailored."


This is what the President believes concerning diversity in universities. [From the 2 previous link]

Quote:
Bush opposed racial preferences at state universities, opting instead for a program he calls "affirmative access," under which the top 10 percent of all high school students are eligible for admission.


I would be interested to know what the changes were that Bush sent the next day that were narrowly talored.

But my main point in all this was to point out to you that Rice does believe in considering race as a factor when selecting students and she still believes that there is a need to fight racial prejudices when it comes to selecting students for univesities and you at first implied that she did not.

At outset when I responded to your assertion, I said it was the one thing she has disagreed with President about. It is the one thing I admire and agree with her about, that and her acomplishments in her long career. What I disagree with her about is the way she twist and turns things around when answering questions at the 9/11 hearings.

Lastly, I deeply resent you saying that I am biased against Rice. You have no right to sit in judgement of me and make assumptions without any kind of evidence to back it up.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 09:04 am
I don't recall singleing you out Revel. If you don't like what I say, please don't engage me in the discussion and then we'll both be happy.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 10:03 am
Foxfyre, I can understand your reticence to discuss a tv show on a politics forum, but would appreciate if you could further alaborate on your allegation earlier that something intentionally demeaning and insulting equals racist.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 12:55 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't recall singleing you out Revel. If you don't like what I say, please don't engage me in the discussion and then we'll both be happy.


Foxfrye wrote:
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:19 pm Post: 1027266 -
Quote:
and I think Revel is totally biased re Condi Rice


Just for my own sake I am going to go over again the issue at hand that we were discussing. Respond or not.

You said at the beginning the following:

Foxfrye wrote on Sat Nov, 2004 1:31 pm Post 102391:

Quote:
Having heard Condi speak on several occasions, I think it is safe to say that she believes that the battles for racial equality and opportunity have largely been won and that it is now up to the person to take advantage of it. Of course that is the position of all black conservatives as well as the position of most conservatives of all stripes
.

I responded by posting to you exactly how she feels from her own mouth(as opposed to what you said she feels) that is recorded. (from the previous link)

Quote:
"I agree with the president's position, which emphasizes the need for diversity and recognizes the continued legacy of racial prejudice, and the need to fight it," Rice said.

"I believe that while race-neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body," Rice said.


This totally contradicts your position that Rice feels that by and large the battles for racial equality and opportunity have largely been won because she said that she recognizes the continued legacy of racial prejudice, and the need to fight it.

You responded next by saying that she does not support quotas, I said that she never addressed the issue of quotas but she did say that racial prejudice still needs to fought and that race should (not could) be a factor when trying achieve diversity in universities. Bush flat out said that systems that use race to include or exclude students is divisive. That is totally opposite of each other.



After this was pointed out you totally side stepped and said:

Foxfrye Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:59 pm Post subject:



Quote:
And how do the links you posted in any way contradict what I said about the matter Revel? Other than I do not accept that Condi Rice is anybody's lapdog. I do not see that she and the President agree on policy and process in most things as a bad thing, nor would those in the Clinton administration expect cabinet members to be anything other than a team. Do you honestly think Bill Clinton surrounded himself with people who disagreed with his policy and goals?


I responded by saying that I said at the beginning that it was the one thing that i knew about that she disagreed with the President about and I think it is good thing too. The thing of it is that wasn't what you said previously.

What I disagree with Rice about I have changed my mind, I am happy discuss it. And that is her ways of avoiding questions at the 9/11 hearings and other statements she said on talk shows regarding Iraq. I have reasons to think what I think and I am not biased.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 02:14 pm
Excellent Revel. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 02:43 pm
nimh wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I suppose the other one is said to be racist cos of the "brown sugar" reference?

I do not know American mores enough to comment on that - but the rest of the content is very cutting and effective.

I shall leave it to Murricans to say if Brown Sugar is racist in such circumstances - I think it a demeaning way to refer to someone - I would certainly see it as somewhat sexist - but pretty funny despite that.


Dunno if its relevant but as I recall, Doonesbury actually did a series of cartoons there in which he had GWB call different Cabinet members / politicians by uncomplimentary nicknames - its not like Condoleezza was singled out.


Actually, on another thread, someone has just commented that Bush DOES, actually, call her Brown Sugar. (Not in relation to this thread - just as a by the by comment.) If so, Doonesbury was simply being accurate. I would be very surprised if he were being racist - I can imagine him lampooning it - or laughing at heavy attempts NOT to be racist - but not actually BEING racist!
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 01:58:39