I Wonder

uscitizen said:
Moral standards are only for the little people.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Rich white women whose fathers left them multi-million dollar fortunes, are allowed to walk around with their tits hanging out while they fuck married men and steal them from their crippled wives.
 
But a poor white/black woman , divorced or widow of an Iraq vet with 3 kids on medicaid and getting free school lunches is trash ..... Wel have been well programmed by the upper class.
 
Darla said:
Of course a little pansy assed liar like you would compare those two images, because right wingers, especially the men, always have to have something to sob about. The two are nothing alike.

And, am I to take this as an admittance that you made up the conversation you had with me “ a couple of years ago”? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I never said I had a conversation with you, I said that you didn't express the same outrage over the racist and derrogatory image of Condi Rice, you and your liberal buddies laughed it off and didn't understand why we couldn't see the satire. You pretty much admit you don't see the comparisson in this very post, so I don't need to provide evidence, you just did.
 
Are you speaking of the red demonic eyes riceroni pic ?

The was not rascist. It was just true.
they just forgot to do the redeye reduction on her.
 
Darla said:
Interesting:

In a July 13 online poll, the conservative website WorldNetDaily.com asked readers to "ound off on the New Yorker's cover with turban-wearing [Sen. Barack] Obama, gun toting wife [Michelle Obama]" by choosing one of 12 options, including the factually baseless options: "Funny, because there's some truth in it" and "The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family." While the New Yorker said in a press release that its cover "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign," for a majority of respondents to WND's poll, the cover apparently provided support for their false perceptions of Obama's religion and patriotism: As of 10:07 a.m. ET on July 14, the most popular option in the poll -- selected by 60 percent of WND respondents -- was "The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family." The second-most popular option was "Funny, because there's some truth in it," which was selected by 11 percent of respondents.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807140002?f=h_top
Click to expand...


Just goes to prove that the point of the artwork is completely true!
 
DigitalDave said:
When do you ever have a point?
Click to expand...

Most of the time I do. Some are just not wise enough to understand them.
But sometimes I am just razzin.

Darla and others on here recognized the point on this thread. Others did not. The ones who did not pretty mush followed lines I expected them to.
 
Dixie said:
I never said I had a conversation with you, I said that you didn't express the same outrage over the racist and derrogatory image of Condi Rice, you and your liberal buddies laughed it off and didn't understand why we couldn't see the satire. You pretty much admit you don't see the comparisson in this very post, so I don't need to provide evidence, you just did.
Click to expand...

There’s nothing racist about it, but if you feel that Condi rice has been unfairly treated, why don’t you start a thread whining about it, and get Damo to join you – he is the resident expert in making faux-equivalence arguments.
 
Just goes to prove that the point of the artwork is completely true!
Click to expand...

It doesn't prove the point of the artwork is true, but it does prove that it touches a nerve on a sensitive issue. Obama (rymes w/ Osama) Hussein Obama, who's father was a Muslim, who has had past associations with terrorists, has a little bit of an image problem among the average American. This cover hits a little too close to home to be seen as "satire" by the left, that is why they are so outraged. The problem is, unlike Darla, they can't really blame it on the right, since no one believes the New Yorker is associated with the right in any way, shape, or form. I'm waiting for her or Desh to come up with the theory that Karl Rove was somehow behind all this! It's coming!
 
Darla said:
There’s nothing racist about it, but if you feel that Condi rice has been unfairly treated, why don’t you start a thread whining about it, and get Damo to join you – he is the resident expert in making faux-equivalence arguments.
Click to expand...

Well it is indeed racist, the artist depicted her with over-sized lips, the stereotypical lips of a black person. It is also degrading to women to depict her as a woman who merely 'parrots' what the man wants to hear. The reason you don't find it racist and sexist is because the subject is someone you dislike. This is the difference between me an you, I find the Obama cover offensive and think the liberal who drew it should be fired.
 
Dixie said:
Well it is indeed racist, the artist depicted her with over-sized lips, the stereotypical lips of a black person. It is also degrading to women to depict her as a woman who merely 'parrots' what the man wants to hear. The reason you don't find it racist and sexist is because the subject is someone you dislike. This is the difference between me an you, I find the Obama cover offensive and think the liberal who drew it should be fired.
Click to expand...

Condi War Criminal Rice, is widely known and reported to be a yes woman for Bush. One of the least effective National Security advisor we have ever had. And she is all of that. So to depict her as a parrot is neither racist or sexist.

and you don't find the Obama cover offensive, but I'll get to that post now.
 
Dixie said:
It doesn't prove the point of the artwork is true, but it does prove that it touches a nerve on a sensitive issue. Obama (rymes w/ Osama) Hussein Obama, who's father was a Muslim, who has had past associations with terrorists, has a little bit of an image problem among the average American. This cover hits a little too close to home to be seen as "satire" by the left, that is why they are so outraged. The problem is, unlike Darla, they can't really blame it on the right, since no one believes the New Yorker is associated with the right in any way, shape, or form. I'm waiting for her or Desh to come up with the theory that Karl Rove was somehow behind all this! It's coming!
Click to expand...

The fact that people believe Osama to be a muslim terrorist with a militant wife who hates America, is hilarious. Because frankly, those people are just plain stupid. They want SOOOO bad to believe that Obama is the person they've painted him to be, just the same way the left painted Bush. EVIL! Pure Evil!
 
Dixie said:
It doesn't prove the point of the artwork is true, but it does prove that it touches a nerve on a sensitive issue. Obama (rymes w/ Osama) Hussein Obama, who's father was a Muslim, who has had past associations with terrorists, has a little bit of an image problem among the average American. This cover hits a little too close to home to be seen as "satire" by the left, that is why they are so outraged. The problem is, unlike Darla, they can't really blame it on the right, since no one believes the New Yorker is associated with the right in any way, shape, or form. I'm waiting for her or Desh to come up with the theory that Karl Rove was somehow behind all this! It's coming!
Click to expand...

This post right there shows that just like the Southern bigot that you are (look away look away look away), you have bought into every vicious and false rumor and stereotype about the Obamas that are circulating within the right wing.

I don’t get the feeling that many here actually know what satire is supposed to be, but it needs to start with some sort of truth. The New Yorker might think that they are satirizing boobs like you, and in that, there is truth. So t hat would indeed, qualify as satire. However, the actual drawing comes across as smearing the Obamas, and since normal Americans understand that there is no truth in the right wing claim that the Obama’s are anti-american, or black militants, or that Michelle is some sort of armed weatherman, then it can only be a smear, not satire.

Whatever their intention is not relevant. The result is what matters. And the result is that bigoted boobs like yourself, as the poll being taken on worldnetdaily shows, see this as an actual depiction of what the Obamas stand for.
 
Oh, no doubt - Dixie is your standard southern bigot; a total redneck, who eats the "Osama Hussein" stuff up with a spoon...
 
Darla said:
This post right there shows that just like the Southern bigot that you are (look away look away look away), you have bought into every vicious and false rumor and stereotype about the Obamas that are circulating within the right wing.

I don’t get the feeling that many here actually know what satire is supposed to be, but it needs to start with some sort of truth. The New Yorker might think that they are satirizing boobs like you, and in that, there is truth. So t hat would indeed, qualify as satire. However, the actual drawing comes across as smearing the Obamas, and since normal Americans understand that there is no truth in the right wing claim that the Obama’s are anti-american, or black militants, or that Michelle is some sort of armed weatherman, then it can only be a smear, not satire.

Whatever their intention is not relevant. The result is what matters. And the result is that bigoted boobs like yourself, as the poll being taken on worldnetdaily shows, see this as an actual depiction of what the Obamas stand for.
Click to expand...

I've not stated anything that isn't true. FACT: Obama rhymes with Osama... even Ted Kennedy knows this! FACT: His middle name is Hussein... it's on his birth certificate! FACT: He had past association with Bill Ayers, an admitted terrorist! FACT: His father was a Muslim! There is no "false rumor" in any of these FACTS, they are the irrefutable FACTS! Now, you can continue to insist the FACTS are "false rumors" if you like, but that just makes you an even bigger liar than you already are.

As I said, it is because of these FACTS that the left is so outraged over this cover, it hits a little too close to home, it brings these FACTS out in a little more pronounced way, and it is uncomfortable for you. It was presented by LIBERALS as Satire, but you don't see the Satire, just like I didn't see the Satire in the Condi cartoon.
 
Onceler said:
Oh, no doubt - Dixie is your standard southern bigot; a total redneck, who eats the "Osama Hussein" stuff up with a spoon...
Click to expand...


The only thing I am "bigoted" about is Liberalism. I think it is nothing but pure Socialism in drag, and those who support it are Godless, Socialist scum. You can search the database here and you won't find me making racist bigoted remarks, or supporting such remarks from others. I believe firmly in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that we should judge men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, and I live by this example every day of my life.

Because I am from Alabama, my moniker is "Dixie" and my avatar contains a "rebel flag" you, in your bigotry, can only perceive me as being a certain stereotypical way. Which is precisely why I do that, just to illustrate your own bigotry and prejudice. But, as with most bigots, you can't see that, you just continue on in your bigoted ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top