The first couple portrayed as apes

[Pogo]

When crap like this is done to the Obama girls will it be racist or the same crap which has happened to other presidential kids when they do human shit?

To everyone who is ripping the Bush twins apart: - Democratic Underground


How about other first ladies?

You want to keep the wives and kids out of it? Then demand that of ALL parties and stop with assuming its race all the time. I was not just speaking about the photo in the OP. My point was Bush was portrayed as a Monkey, Obama too, Laura and Michelle, just because it happens does not automatically point to race. Its this automatic thing where everything is about race with the Obama's and when it finally may be about race ( as in the OP) it won't be taken seriously.

You actually think there can be only one purpose in portraying somebody as a monkey?

Again, and you just said this yourself, the paper admitted to it. And so did Steve McRacist, who uses the same photo for his avatar. Pass the dramamine, the spin is a bit overmuch.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Really? You go scouring the internets to find obscure stuff nobody's ever seen before to make a strawman, just so you can excuse racism? Really?

And don't feed me that bullshit that that's not what you're doing. You fall back on this crutch of "b-but but every President gets criticized" as a pretext for excusing a racist depiction that has already been admitted to as racist by its creator. Not even the newspaper itself tries to pretend this is not racism, yet you do.

Poster please. You're a damn hypocrite, and it's transparent.

Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was. You said Michelle Obama should not be attacked because she is his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over, and you just cant admit it because you want to assume everything is about race.

Uh.... kinda stating the obvious to the oblivious here but... the fact that you can go fetch images off Google (eight years later) doesn't in any way refute that a poster doesn't recall those attacks.

Boy, that was easy...

I said:



-- and that IS rationalizing racism; basically what you're saying is that all Presidential criticism is fair game, therefore racist criticism is OK. It's essentially the mirror image of the oft-heard complaint that any criticism of O'bama is denounced as "racist". Which is a fair complaint -- even if it's a generalized strawman, when it happens it's a fair complaint.

You appear to want it both ways: on one hand, criticism of the POTUS isn't racist just because it's political criticism; that squelches criticism. Fair enough. We can't have dissent silenced.

But on the other hand when it is racist, hey it's just political criticism. So you're in the same intolerant hole as the previous example

Laura Bush was portrayed in awful manners too ( a demon, a monkey, nude, a dominatrix, portrayed as calling her husband a monkey, a Nazi, and just about any other thing you can imagine, just because it happened to Michelle as well does not make it racist per se. I don't know if you get my drift or not. I was not supporting the photo.

Which you totally ignored. Hey, but that's cool. Ignore and pick and choose the way the Bushes were treated just like every other president and his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over by the left for 'MURDERING SOMEONE"., she is an alcoholic, etc. etc. In fact I recall articles where it was said she purposely hit him because she was mad because he broke up with her. The left smeared her endlessly. She was not the politician either, but it was claimed over and over. In fact they still do and compare her dresses to Michelle and say how frumpy she was. If the next presidents wife is white and they compare Michelle to that presidents wife, will that be racist too?

But somehow you all of a sudden claim that spouses are off limits. That is why I posted the photos-- ALL spouses are treated this way by both parties. It is nothing NEW, yet you want to say the photos of Laura Bush are unknown. That is bull and you know it.

They ARE unknown. They were until you went to find them. Nobody here posted them, and posters here ARE who you're talking to. Hell, I was running a blog at that time and I don't remember these. Not to mention, none of what you have here with Laura Bush can be called "racist".

You're making the same error as the last guy, setting up strawmen and then pinning them on whoever's handy. That dog don't hunt.

Quite simple, just because you can't recall them does not meant they did not exist. The better explanation is you just did not care. You saw it as funny or ignored it. Just as most political humor, baiting, idiotic taunting, or what have you is done to the opposite party.

 

[CaféAuLait]

When crap like this is done to the Obama girls will it be racist or the same crap which has happened to other presidential kids when they do human shit?

To everyone who is ripping the Bush twins apart: - Democratic Underground


How about other first ladies?

You want to keep the wives and kids out of it? Then demand that of ALL parties and stop with assuming its race all the time. I was not just speaking about the photo in the OP. My point was Bush was portrayed as a Monkey, Obama too, Laura and Michelle, just because it happens does not automatically point to race. Its this automatic thing where everything is about race with the Obama's and when it finally may be about race ( as in the OP) it won't be taken seriously.

You actually think there can be only one purpose in portraying somebody as a monkey?

Again, and you just said this yourself, the paper admitted to it. And so did Steve McRacist, who uses the same photo for his avatar. Pass the dramamine, the spin is a bit overmuch.

I said the paper admitted it because that is what YOU told me. Sheese! That is what happens when people discuss things. As I said before I was unaware of such. Is it that hard to accept such?

Of course there is more than one reason to portray someone as a monkey, usually when I saw it applied to Bush and Clinton it was to imply they were idiots.

 

[jillian]

You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century. He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party. Nice try though. And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks. "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson

You know that quote is uncorroborated, right? Nah, you probably don't...

What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red. Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears? Nope, same people, same conservative values. Only the name of the party has changed. Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.

His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't. Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.

Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.

And the twisting and turning continues. Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure". But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote. More diversion.

you are confusing your time periods. kkk'ers absolutely belonged to the democratic party before the civil rights laws.

then they all became republicans after the civil rights laws were passed. and the republican party has been running the "southern strategy" of speaking in code to racists since the 70's....

so let's talk some more about "inner cities"

 

[S.J.]

You know that quote is uncorroborated, right? Nah, you probably don't...

What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red. Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears? Nope, same people, same conservative values. Only the name of the party has changed. Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.

His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't. Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.

Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.

And the twisting and turning continues. Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure". But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote. More diversion.

you are confusing your time periods. kkk'ers absolutely belonged to the democratic party before the civil rights laws.

then they all became republicans after the civil rights laws were passed. and the republican party has been running the "southern strategy" of speaking in code to racists since the 70's....

so let's talk some more about "inner cities"

Yeah, you lefties keep claiming that but you have yet to show any proof, whatsoever. You do it because you can't escape the fact that you support the party of racism. It's your history, you own it.

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was. You said Michelle Obama should not be attacked because she is his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over, and you just cant admit it because you want to assume everything is about race.

Uh.... kinda stating the obvious to the oblivious here but... the fact that you can go fetch images off Google (eight years later) doesn't in any way refute that a poster doesn't recall those attacks.

Boy, that was easy...

I said:



-- and that IS rationalizing racism; basically what you're saying is that all Presidential criticism is fair game, therefore racist criticism is OK. It's essentially the mirror image of the oft-heard complaint that any criticism of O'bama is denounced as "racist". Which is a fair complaint -- even if it's a generalized strawman, when it happens it's a fair complaint.

You appear to want it both ways: on one hand, criticism of the POTUS isn't racist just because it's political criticism; that squelches criticism. Fair enough. We can't have dissent silenced.

But on the other hand when it is racist, hey it's just political criticism. So you're in the same intolerant hole as the previous example




Which you totally ignored. Hey, but that's cool. Ignore and pick and choose the way the Bushes were treated just like every other president and his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over by the left for 'MURDERING SOMEONE"., she is an alcoholic, etc. etc. In fact I recall articles where it was said she purposely hit him because she was mad because he broke up with her. The left smeared her endlessly. She was not the politician either, but it was claimed over and over. In fact they still do and compare her dresses to Michelle and say how frumpy she was. If the next presidents wife is white and they compare Michelle to that presidents wife, will that be racist too?

But somehow you all of a sudden claim that spouses are off limits. That is why I posted the photos-- ALL spouses are treated this way by both parties. It is nothing NEW, yet you want to say the photos of Laura Bush are unknown. That is bull and you know it.

They ARE unknown. They were until you went to find them. Nobody here posted them, and posters here ARE who you're talking to. Hell, I was running a blog at that time and I don't remember these. Not to mention, none of what you have here with Laura Bush can be called "racist".

You're making the same error as the last guy, setting up strawmen and then pinning them on whoever's handy. That dog don't hunt.

Quite simple, just because you can't recall them does not meant they did not exist. The better explanation is you just did not care. You saw it as funny or ignored it. Just as most political humor, baiting, idiotic taunting, or what have you is done to the opposite party.

How many times do we have to go over this before it sinks in?
The point was not whether or not they "exist". The point was whether anyone here recalls them, or better yet, whether anyone here posted them. What part of this blatant fallacy is sailing over your head here?

 

[Pogo]

When crap like this is done to the Obama girls will it be racist or the same crap which has happened to other presidential kids when they do human shit?

To everyone who is ripping the Bush twins apart: - Democratic Underground


How about other first ladies?

You want to keep the wives and kids out of it? Then demand that of ALL parties and stop with assuming its race all the time. I was not just speaking about the photo in the OP. My point was Bush was portrayed as a Monkey, Obama too, Laura and Michelle, just because it happens does not automatically point to race. Its this automatic thing where everything is about race with the Obama's and when it finally may be about race ( as in the OP) it won't be taken seriously.

You actually think there can be only one purpose in portraying somebody as a monkey?

Again, and you just said this yourself, the paper admitted to it. And so did Steve McRacist, who uses the same photo for his avatar. Pass the dramamine, the spin is a bit overmuch.

I said the paper admitted it because that is what YOU told me. Sheese! That is what happens when people discuss things. As I said before I was unaware of such. Is it that hard to accept such?

Of course there is more than one reason to portray someone as a monkey, usually when I saw it applied to Bush and Clinton it was to imply they were idiots.

Very good. Now take the next step: what's a different reason a monkey portrayal would be used specifically on black people? Especially when that monkey illustration does not adopt any particular 'idiot' pose? More especially when the paper has already admitted to its motive?

This ain't rocket surgery...

Btw that story on the Bush daughters is true. The idea that the POTUS (and his wife) are monkeys is not. I don't know about the Playboy cover though.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Uh.... kinda stating the obvious to the oblivious here but... the fact that you can go fetch images off Google (eight years later) doesn't in any way refute that a poster doesn't recall those attacks.

Boy, that was easy...



They ARE unknown. They were until you went to find them. Nobody here posted them, and posters here ARE who you're talking to. Hell, I was running a blog at that time and I don't remember these. Not to mention, none of what you have here with Laura Bush can be called "racist".

You're making the same error as the last guy, setting up strawmen and then pinning them on whoever's handy. That dog don't hunt.

Quite simple, just because you can't recall them does not meant they did not exist. The better explanation is you just did not care. You saw it as funny or ignored it. Just as most political humor, baiting, idiotic taunting, or what have you is done to the opposite party.

How many times do we have to go over this before it sinks in?
The point was not whether or not they "exist". The point was whether anyone here recalls them, or better yet, whether anyone here posted them. What part of this blatant fallacy is sailing over your head here?

Btw that story on the Bush daughters is true. The idea that the POTUS (and his wife) are monkeys is not.

No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.

If I said "As I recall no one ever attacked the Obama's" on a discussion forum I would be told I was wrong and proof would be offered.

Again, this stuff happens all the time, this forum was not the only place which was being discussed. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.

Yes, I know the Bush girls got drunk, I thought I was clear when I said they did "something human". If the Obama girls do "something human" and they are pictured together and called "Dumb Dumber", will racism become a point of discussion? That was my point.

I recall when speaking about the stimulus bill a long time ago, ( at the same time there was a monkey who escaped and mauled a woman pretty bad) and a cartoon was released. The cartoon depicted that monkey being shot by two cops and it said something like 'someone else will have to write the stimulus bill". I saw it as calling congress idiots, but others decided it was directed towards the president. The same cartoon probably would have been made if Bush were president damning congress.

 

[Pogo]

Quite simple, just because you can't recall them does not meant they did not exist. The better explanation is you just did not care. You saw it as funny or ignored it. Just as most political humor, baiting, idiotic taunting, or what have you is done to the opposite party.

How many times do we have to go over this before it sinks in?
The point was not whether or not they "exist". The point was whether anyone here recalls them, or better yet, whether anyone here posted them. What part of this blatant fallacy is sailing over your head here?

Btw that story on the Bush daughters is true. The idea that the POTUS (and his wife) are monkeys is not.

No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.

If I said "As I recall no one ever attacked the Obama's" on a discussion forum I would be told I was wrong and proof would be offered.

Again, this stuff happens all the time, this forum was not the only place which was being discussed. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.

Yes, I know the Bush girls got drunk, I thought I was clear when I said they did "something human". If the Obama girls do "something human" and they are pictured together and called "Dumb Dumber", will racism become a point of discussion? That was my point.

I recall when speaking about the stimulus bill a long time ago, ( at the same time there was a monkey who escaped and mauled a woman pretty bad) and a cartoon was released. The cartoon depicted that monkey being shot by two cops and it said something like 'someone else will have to write the stimulus bill". I saw it as calling congress idiots, but others decided it was directed towards the president. The same cartoon probably would have been made if Bush were president damning congress.

I doubt that would have worked, since the reader has to be able to make the connection. George Bush isn't associated with the idea of monkeys; the only way that worked was to superimpose a monkey with a goofy expression onto him. Just the fact of "a monkey" doesn't convey "George Bush", any more than any other animal would.

Contrast that to the picture in the OP, where the expressions are not goofy at all, but simply monkeys. Obviously the message is not "goofy". There's only one thing left.

Now if the O'bama girls got drunk and were tagged "dumb and dumber" -- well there's no racial connotation to dumb. But if they were pictured as monkeys sitting at a bar, then there might be another message.

No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.

Actually I'm quoting you there:

Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was.

Note also that what you refute is not the opposite of the premise. You'd have to prove not that the attack existed, but that the poster recalled it.

Whoever's in this thread isn't responsible for whatever goofy images you can find on the internets. We're just not.

 

[Vigilante]

Perhaps Pogo is one of those perpetually offended?

 

[CaféAuLait]

How many times do we have to go over this before it sinks in?
The point was not whether or not they "exist". The point was whether anyone here recalls them, or better yet, whether anyone here posted them. What part of this blatant fallacy is sailing over your head here?

Btw that story on the Bush daughters is true. The idea that the POTUS (and his wife) are monkeys is not.

No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.

If I said "As I recall no one ever attacked the Obama's" on a discussion forum I would be told I was wrong and proof would be offered.

Again, this stuff happens all the time, this forum was not the only place which was being discussed. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.

Yes, I know the Bush girls got drunk, I thought I was clear when I said they did "something human". If the Obama girls do "something human" and they are pictured together and called "Dumb Dumber", will racism become a point of discussion? That was my point.

I recall when speaking about the stimulus bill a long time ago, ( at the same time there was a monkey who escaped and mauled a woman pretty bad) and a cartoon was released. The cartoon depicted that monkey being shot by two cops and it said something like 'someone else will have to write the stimulus bill". I saw it as calling congress idiots, but others decided it was directed towards the president. The same cartoon probably would have been made if Bush were president damning congress.

I doubt that would have worked, since the reader has to be able to make the connection. George Bush isn't associated with the idea of monkeys; the only way that worked was to superimpose a monkey with a goofy expression onto him. Just the fact of "a monkey" doesn't convey "George Bush", any more than any other animal would.

Contrast that to the picture in the OP, where the expressions are not goofy at all, but simply monkeys. Obviously the message is not "goofy". There's only one thing left.

Now if the O'bama girls got drunk and were tagged "dumb and dumber" -- well there's no racial connotation to dumb. But if they were pictured as monkeys sitting at a bar, then there might be another message.

No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.

Actually I'm quoting you there:

Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was.

Note also that what you refute is not the opposite of the premise. You'd have to prove not that the attack existed, but that the poster recalled it.

Whoever's in this thread isn't responsible for whatever goofy images you can find on the internets. We're just not.

No, I don't have to prove that he recalled it, he was speaking in general. Please stop with the usual hair splitting. Its unbecoming to you, really it is. He said he recalled Bush being made into a monkey but he did not recall such ever taking place with Laura. Again, this is a discussion board. Or would you prefer that people not be reminded of how ruthless the left was with prior presidents and their family? Yes, I believe that is the crux of this issue.

As far as your claim, "whoever is in this thread is not responsible for attacks on presidents and their family's" its NOT the issue. LOL This forum and its posters did not make that photo of the Obama's, but a but a newspaper supposed "satire". Capish? This post was about how the media portrayed president and his family. Not posters here. Not hard to see.

The Bush girls were once again as example of how the family of presidents are spoken of. And I bet my bottom dollar if someone wrote the same about them "dumb and dumber' it would be spun into something racist by some on the left, something like "Oh they are trying to say black people are dumb!!"

Now I've gone and read the article, I don't see anywhere the paper admitted it was racist, ( as you claimed) but they said it was 'bad taste' and tried to explain themselves since they said they were portraying how Putin would portray the Obama's . I think it's BS. But I did note Huffington Post called the paper who wrote and published the story 'progressive'.

The progressive newspaper De Morgen is being accused of racism for the image along with an article it published just prior to Obama's visit to the Netherlands Monday morning.

I was rather confused by that. So I guess they are not as 'progressive' as Huffpo thinks?

 

[CaféAuLait]

Here is the cartoon which was called racist by Sharpton and others:

This cartoon image provided by the New York Post appeared in the Post's Page Six on Wednesday. The cartoon, which refers to Travis the chimp, who was shot to death by police in Stamford, Conn. on Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner, drew criticism.

Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News

I saw that photo and immediately though they were spoofing congress, given the president does not write bills. Somehow it was turned into saying the president was a " rabid chimp" and it was racist.

The Post said this for an explanation:

In a statement, Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan said: "The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News

 

[Pogo]

Here is the cartoon which was called racist by Sharpton and others:

This cartoon image provided by the New York Post appeared in the Post's Page Six on Wednesday. The cartoon, which refers to Travis the chimp, who was shot to death by police in Stamford, Conn. on Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner, drew criticism.

Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News

I saw that photo and immediately though they were spoofing congress

Yeah I'll bet you did. Because we have a time-honored tradition of representing Congress with a chimp. Just like donkeys and elephants for the parties.

A you a yoga teacher? Because this is a helluva stretch.

, given the president does not write bills. Somehow it was turned into saying the president was a " rabid chimp" and it was racist.

The Post said this for an explanation:

In a statement, Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan said: "The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News

Again, in order for this explanation to even begin to work, the viewer would have had to know about this obscure chimp story. I remember the cartoon very well but this post tonight is the first time I've ever heard a chimp-shooting story connected to it.

Even granting that, let's suppose everybody knew about the chimp shooting -- how much of a leap is it to somehow connect a Congressional bill to a local chimp shooting? Just doesn't pass the smell test.

Or should I say, how much of a stretch...

Namaste.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Here is the cartoon which was called racist by Sharpton and others:

This cartoon image provided by the New York Post appeared in the Post's Page Six on Wednesday. The cartoon, which refers to Travis the chimp, who was shot to death by police in Stamford, Conn. on Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner, drew criticism.

Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News

I saw that photo and immediately though they were spoofing congress

Yeah I'll bet you did. Because we have a time-honored tradition of representing Congress with a chimp. Just like donkeys and elephants for the parties.

A you a yoga teacher? Because this is a helluva stretch.

, given the president does not write bills. Somehow it was turned into saying the president was a " rabid chimp" and it was racist.

The Post said this for an explanation:

In a statement, Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan said: "The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News

Again, in order for this explanation to even begin to work, the viewer would have had to know about this obscure chimp story. I remember the cartoon very well but this post tonight is the first time I've ever heard a chimp-shooting story connected to it.

Even granting that, let's suppose everybody knew about the chimp shooting -- how much of a leap is it to somehow connect a Congressional bill to a local chimp shooting? Just doesn't pass the smell test.

Or should I say, how much of a stretch...

Namaste.

It was a nationwide story when that woman lost her face, fingers, hands... it was huge, the same way it was HUGE when she became a face transplant recipient. And when she appeared on Oprah. The same when she decided to sue the state of Connecticut. Heck, I even recall when they reported the woman who owned the ape died of a heart attack. Perhaps you are not up on the latest news as many others are?

Congress is mixed, what were they to show, some chimera type animal mixed between a donkey and elephant? It's a time honored tradition to picture idiots as monkeys or chimps. Simple fact. I never saw Obama in that photo ( although you want to infer otherwise because it seems to always be about race, exactly what my point was), I saw congress because it is congress who writes bills. Obama did not write the stimulus bill did he? Nancy Pelosi is the one who pushed the heck out of it, didn't she?

 

[Pogo]

No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.

If I said "As I recall no one ever attacked the Obama's" on a discussion forum I would be told I was wrong and proof would be offered.

Again, this stuff happens all the time, this forum was not the only place which was being discussed. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.

Yes, I know the Bush girls got drunk, I thought I was clear when I said they did "something human". If the Obama girls do "something human" and they are pictured together and called "Dumb Dumber", will racism become a point of discussion? That was my point.

I recall when speaking about the stimulus bill a long time ago, ( at the same time there was a monkey who escaped and mauled a woman pretty bad) and a cartoon was released. The cartoon depicted that monkey being shot by two cops and it said something like 'someone else will have to write the stimulus bill". I saw it as calling congress idiots, but others decided it was directed towards the president. The same cartoon probably would have been made if Bush were president damning congress.

I doubt that would have worked, since the reader has to be able to make the connection. George Bush isn't associated with the idea of monkeys; the only way that worked was to superimpose a monkey with a goofy expression onto him. Just the fact of "a monkey" doesn't convey "George Bush", any more than any other animal would.

Contrast that to the picture in the OP, where the expressions are not goofy at all, but simply monkeys. Obviously the message is not "goofy". There's only one thing left.

Now if the O'bama girls got drunk and were tagged "dumb and dumber" -- well there's no racial connotation to dumb. But if they were pictured as monkeys sitting at a bar, then there might be another message.

No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.

Actually I'm quoting you there:

Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was.

Note also that what you refute is not the opposite of the premise. You'd have to prove not that the attack existed, but that the poster recalled it.

Whoever's in this thread isn't responsible for whatever goofy images you can find on the internets. We're just not.

No, I don't have to prove that he recalled it, he was speaking in general. Please stop with the usual hair splitting. Its unbecoming to you, really it is.

You really need me to spell this out a word at a time?
Here it comes again, broken down:
Part 1:
Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked

"That poster" (the subject) "did not recall" (the verb). It says what someone recalled. Not what may exist that they don't know about --- what they recall in actual experience. What exists that they don't know or recall is irrelevant.

The second part:
, I showed she was. (attacked)

"She" (subject, Laura Bush), "was attacked" (verb)

So again: "poster did not recall attacks" is not answered by "Laura Bush was attacked".

Now had you brought in a post where said poster DID recall such attacks, or even posted them, then you'd have a refutation.

Don't know what's so hard about this.

He said he recalled Bush being made into a monkey but he did not recall such ever taking place with Laura. Again, this is a discussion board. Or would you prefer that people not be reminded of how ruthless the left was with prior presidents and their family? Yes, I believe that is the crux of this issue.

And there you just did it again. First you're talking about "the poster" not recalling something, then you switch to "the left". Those are in no way the same thing. Nor can you make such a blanket monolithic statement about "the left", "the right", "the middle" or anyone else. That is pure bullshit fallacy and will be called out as such every time it pops its ugly little head.

Get it yet?

As far as your claim, "whoever is in this thread is not responsible for attacks on presidents and their family's" its NOT the issue. LOL This forum and its posters did not make that photo of the Obama's, but a but a newspaper supposed "satire". Capish? This post was about how the media portrayed president and his family. Not posters here. Not hard to see.

The Bush girls were once again as example of how the family of presidents are spoken of. And I bet my bottom dollar if someone wrote the same about them "dumb and dumber' it would be spun into something racist by some on the left, something like "Oh they are trying to say black people are dumb!!"

Woulda coulda shoulda is another fallacy, specifically hypothesis contrary to fact. You don't get to speculate on "what would happen if". Doesn't make an argument.

Now I've gone and read the article, I don't see anywhere the paper admitted it was racist, ( as you claimed) but they said it was 'bad taste' and tried to explain themselves since they said they were portraying how Putin would portray the Obama's . I think it's BS. But I did note Huffington Post called the paper who wrote and published the story 'progressive'.

The progressive newspaper De Morgen is being accused of racism for the image along with an article it published just prior to Obama's visit to the Netherlands Monday morning.

I was rather confused by that. So I guess they are not as 'progressive' as Huffpo thinks?

I have no idea. I don't read Dutch very well but near as I can tell it says "Vladimir Putin is President of Russia. He sent this response to our request as an image instead of text due to time constraints" and that's a bar over both photos. Doesn't make much sense. There's also the caption "starts selling weed" under O'bama's straight picture, which also doesn't make sense, nor was it ever explained why that phrase is in English.

According to the HuffPo analysis, the premise is that Putin sent these pictures. That makes even less sense. Are they trying to say that Putin is a racist? Does Vladimir Putin have a history of racism? Not that I know of. Does Putin think black people sell pot? This is where the explanation that "it's a joke" collapses. The joke is elusive to the point of non-existence. Here again, falling back on "it's a joke" in order to get away with racism is as lame as falling back on "it's just political criticism".

Now as far as De Morgen acknowledging it, it's right in the quote in the OP, however clumsily phrased:

"When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said.

And as we just went through, there is no context to make it into a joke.

That's followed with:

"We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."

Which also doesn't make much sense in English; best guess to make sense out of this might be, "we wrongly assumed that racism is no longer noticed, therefore we can use it to joke".

I remain completely baffled as to why "Starts selling weed" is in English and what the significance of that is. Are they saying Putin speaks English when he's joking?

 

[Pogo]

Here is the cartoon which was called racist by Sharpton and others:

This cartoon image provided by the New York Post appeared in the Post's Page Six on Wednesday. The cartoon, which refers to Travis the chimp, who was shot to death by police in Stamford, Conn. on Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner, drew criticism.

Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News

I saw that photo and immediately though they were spoofing congress

Yeah I'll bet you did. Because we have a time-honored tradition of representing Congress with a chimp. Just like donkeys and elephants for the parties.

A you a yoga teacher? Because this is a helluva stretch.

, given the president does not write bills. Somehow it was turned into saying the president was a " rabid chimp" and it was racist.

The Post said this for an explanation:



Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News

Again, in order for this explanation to even begin to work, the viewer would have had to know about this obscure chimp story. I remember the cartoon very well but this post tonight is the first time I've ever heard a chimp-shooting story connected to it.

Even granting that, let's suppose everybody knew about the chimp shooting -- how much of a leap is it to somehow connect a Congressional bill to a local chimp shooting? Just doesn't pass the smell test.

Or should I say, how much of a stretch...

Namaste.

It was a nationwide story when that woman lost her face, fingers, hands... it was huge, the same way it was HUGE when she became a face transplant recipient. And when she appeared on Oprah. The same when she decided to sue the state of Connecticut. Heck, I even recall when they reported the woman who owned the ape died of a heart attack. Perhaps you are not up on the latest news as many others are?

Congress is mixed, what were they to show, some chimera type animal mixed between a donkey and elephant? It's a time honored tradition to picture idiots as monkeys or chimps. Simple fact. I never saw Obama in that photo ( although you want to infer otherwise because it seems to always be about race, exactly what my point was), I saw congress because it is congress who writes bills. Obama did not write the stimulus bill did he? Nancy Pelosi is the one who pushed the heck out of it, didn't she?

Sure, you're absolutely right, Congress writes bills. The stretch part is, not only picturing Congress as a chimp (has that ever been done before?) but especially, trying desperately to make a connection between a chimp shooting and a Congressional bill. What the hell do they have to do with each other? This is just like De Morgen's alleged "satire" -- claiming a joke as a pretext for racism when there's no joke to be made. The New York Post is lying through its proverbial teeth with this rationalization.

No, I don't ever watch Oprah or shows like that. I don't even have television. And frankly, the idea of a chimp going berserk and attacking somebody is not what I'd consider news. Which is very much why I don't have television.

 

[Flopper]

The STRESS is getting to him, heart rate faster, blood pressure going up, soon headaches and vomiting, better take an aspirin, and call the doctor in the morning! ....FRUITCAKE CITY!

There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat. Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally. Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South". Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election. In national elections, the deep south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.

So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats.

However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed. As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party. Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections. The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections. They gained more strength in state elections. The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.

You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century. He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party. Nice try though. And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks. "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson

Byrd is typical of the changes in the Democratic party in the second half of the 20th century, from a staunch segregationist to a supporter of the civil rights bill he fought against. In later years the NAACP rated Bryd 100% in alignment with all proposed legislation.

This is the point, I was trying make. The Democratic Party in the South in the first half of the 20th century strongly supported racist policies. However, the flood of black voters into the party which began in the 60's radically changed the makeup of the party. Segregationist such as Bryd had to either change their political philosophy or change their party loyalty. Some felt more comfortable in the Republican party which was only 2% Black. Other remained in the Democratic Party but split loyalties between the parties, voting for Republican in national elections, whose platform was less favorable to blacks and spiting their vote in state and local elections.

In the South controlled by Republicans and with a long history racism, Black representation in the Republican Party at less than 2%, guarantees policies that disfavor blacks.

 

[Vigilante]

President Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget released yesterday persists in entangling taxpayer dollars in the abortion industry.

Obama’s budget includes $327 million for Title X family planning programs, a more than $30 million increase over last year’s request. Title X is one of a number of sources of government funding to Planned Parenthood, which performs roughly one out of every four abortions in the United States and was recently accused of tacitly supporting infanticide.

In 2011 alone, Planned Parenthood received over $542 million in total taxpayer funding while performing a record 333,964 abortions. According to analysis by the Susan B. Anthony List, Planned Parenthood has performed almost 1 million abortions in the past three reporting years alone.

Obama Budget Increases Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

And you ask, just how stupid is the black race to follow the Democrats???

 

[Pogo]

There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat. Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally. Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South". Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election. In national elections, the deep south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.

So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats.

However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed. As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party. Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections. The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections. They gained more strength in state elections. The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.

You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century. He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party. Nice try though. And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks. "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson

Byrd is typical of the changes in the Democratic party in the second half of the 20th century, from a staunch segregationist to a supporter of the civil rights bill he fought against. In later years the NAACP rated Bryd 100% in alignment with all proposed legislation.

Indeed, the 1950s-1960s brought a cultural sea change in race views, a sea change we would do well not to forget, and one that required a lot of people to take stock of where they were, particularly in the South. If you had been opposed to civil rights in the past you were now at a crossroads; you either adopted the new mentality and remained with the party that drove the issue, or you stood firm on your old mentality and went Republican, which after all was and is the more "conservative" party, and the people we speak of are at heart very conservative and always were.

This is the part the revisionistas either don't get or prefer to ignore -- the Democratic Party had evolved into a hybrid of two different contrasting and co-existing philosophies; in the North you were Democrat or Republican because that party you chose represented your values, while in the South you were a Democrat simply because everyone was, and the idea of being a Republican was unthinkable. The first Republican President, after all, was the guy who had crushed the South in the Civil War, and even though these were solid conservatives aligning with the liberal party, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". And change comes not easily in the South. Of course, the fact that these ideologically different Southerners brought the national party vote power was not lost on the latter and for years they tried to have it both ways.

So before the CRA, being a Democrat in the North or West meant something entirely different ideologically from being a Democrat in the South. And when the national party started making noises about civil rights beginning with Truman and especially in its convention of 1948, a schism sparked a kind of intraparty civil war. A sizeable faction broke off and created its own party, ran a Presidential candidate (Thurmond) unsuccessfully, and returned to being Democrats, at least in name, but their votes and their rhetoric were more and more at odds with the national party. The 1960s brought notable showdowns between Democratic local government and the Kennedy and later Johnson federal administrations, until LBJ basically said "fuck it" and pushed the Civil Rights Bill into law, southern support or no southern support (his actual words were, "we (the Democratic Party) have lost the South for a generation", a duration he underestimated).

That's when Thurmond bolted and did the until-then unthinkable in the South: he became a Republican. In turn he was followed by Lott, Shelby, Helms and many others along with their supporter voters in the electorate, effectively turning the South from a sea of blue to a sea of red. Same people, different party. Naturally the RP had also seen what LBJ correctly assessed and capitalized on it with Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and Reagan's opening his presidential run in Philadelphia Mississippi talking about "states' rights". The RP was courting the conservatives, and the racists, and got them.

My grandfather told a story of counting votes at his local precinct in southwest Mississippi in 1940:

"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie"...
"Roosevelt...
"Wilkie -- aw shoot, we gotta throw the vote out. Some damn fool voted twice!"

That's the way it was. Diversity has never been a feature of the South.

 

[S.J.]

There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat. Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally. Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South". Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election. In national elections, the deep south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.

So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats.

However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed. As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party. Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections. The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections. They gained more strength in state elections. The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.

You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century. He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party. Nice try though. And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks. "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson

Byrd is typical of the changes in the Democratic party in the second half of the 20th century, from a staunch segregationist to a supporter of the civil rights bill he fought against. In later years the NAACP rated Bryd 100% in alignment with all proposed legislation.

This is the point, I was trying make. The Democratic Party in the South in the first half of the 20th century strongly supported racist policies. However, the flood of black voters into the party which began in the 60's radically changed the makeup of the party. Segregationist such as Bryd had to either change their political philosophy or change their party loyalty. Some felt more comfortable in the Republican party which was only 2% Black. Other remained in the Democratic Party but split loyalties between the parties, voting for Republican in national elections, whose platform was less favorable to blacks and spiting their vote in state and local elections.

In the South controlled by Republicans and with a long history racism, Black representation in the Republican Party at less than 2%, guarantees policies that disfavor blacks.

Blacks started voting Democrat when the Democratic Party started paying them for their votes. It had nothing to do with Democrats changing their attitude toward blacks, they're still as racist as they've ever been, they just figured out how to keep them on the plantation. To you, and other liberals, the term "policies that favor blacks" means welfare.