Here were my top five favorite cartoons for the week, beginning with a pretty funny tip of the hat to Mother’s Day via Mike Luckovich at GoComics.com…
by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
by Robert Ariail at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This just in….about four years after the fact.
Due to it’s age perhaps we should refer to it as ‘olds’ intstead of ‘news’, even tho it is ‘new’ to most of us.
The ‘bribe’ to silence Wright
Edward Klein interviewed Wright, who told him Obama’s team tried to buy his silence.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/the_bribe_to_silence_wright_io9jneobl3fUF0cb7LpcNM#ixzz1ulnafOLC
I don’t understand the first cartoon?
The older woman on the left is obviously moochelle yo mama o’bama.
[Who could miss her trademark assets.]
But who are the two younger ladies supposed to be?
And why are they disssin the VPOTUS?
Who’s head is in the box?…Osama bin Laden or Mitt Romney?
Re: “I’m Evolving/I’m Not”
Fabulous. It could very well have been “most voters” as the caption for the “I’m Not” guy. The Obama campaign just handed another couple of percentage points to the Republican nominee. Thank you Obama.
Obama was already headed to defeat due to his pathetic handling of the economy/picking a fight with Catholics/bowing to Saudi kings, etc. Nothing is certain though so this gift of making sure the evangelicals and mainstream American values voters go to the polls will certainly strengthen Romney’s chances, and I believe add to the margin of victory. 2012 is looking more and more like an extension of 2010.
Jerry -
I’m positive you are absolutely right. Romney (I think that is your candidate, right? I haven’t heard anybody actually speak in favor of the guy…) will win by 20 points, and the senate and house will be sweeping GOP successes!
Hi Jerry,
This “evolution” of Obama’s on gay marriage, better described as yet another flip flop, is little more than a dog and pony show. Nothing has changed, no executive order will be signed. The matter will stay with the states. Obama needs to loosen funds from gay donors, which according to the Washington Post, are 1 in 6 donors, He needs their money and knows what tune he must whistle to get it. Other than an orgasmic white house stenography pool, AKA our nation’s media, there will be little else.
Actually the less opposition the better. Obama would love nothing more than a “War on Gays”. This whole thing should be treated like the ploy it is and not played into.
The older woman on the left is obviously moochelle yo mama o’bama.
Unlike tax lawyer and Congresswoman “Swissy Missy” Bachmann, she didn’t have to disavow a citizenship in one of the world’s great tax havens– Switzerland.
You were talking about Mrs. Obama’s “assets,” right? At least her assets aren’t in Switzerland.
mr. bo-jangle is on a trapeze that swings both ways!
How appropriate.
b o’s leap of faith is quickly devolving into a fools errand.
‘Humpty Dumpty’ is headed for a fall and the crash site won’t be far from the tree of evil.
What are the odds that all the queens whores can put him together again?
Hi Ken, 1:02PM
Poor Rev. Wright. Look what he gets for his years of friendship, loyalty, and ministry to Obama and his family.
First our fearless leader claims he had no clue what Wright was preaching, even though he sat in Wright’s pews for 20 years. I would think any other clergyperson would consider this a tremendous insult. But hey, give the good Rev. credit for putting loyalty and friendship first, certainly more than could be said for Obama.
Adding injury to insult, Obama went on to compare Wright to that senile uncle that embarasses all of us. So now his former minister, mentor, and friend is a confused and babbling old duffer. This is getting personal but the good Rev. continued to show Christian charity none the less.
Now we read Obama offered Wright money to put sock in it. But wait, why would you pay for someone’s silence when you have no clue what they said?
Just don’t pull uncle Jerry’s leg…. or his finger.
Wright claims he was offerred a bribe, not for what he had said, but for what he might say.
In my reading it seems uncle Jerry knows how the Chicago game is played and he is still playing it as this story demomstrates. It seems to me Jerimiah is publicly demanding a re-nogiation of the terms of the agreement. Evidently 150K is no longer fair market value for Wright’s silence.
It’s dangerous business unless Wright knows where the bodies are buried and he can communicate the location from beyond the grave.
Wright solicited a ‘bribe’ without outright asking for it. He just asked an open ended question and left it up to mr. bo-jangles to fill in the amount.
They used to call it ‘puttin the roof on the church’.
Some o’bama surrogate made the proffer. Kind of like those two wealthy democRAT donors who provided the hush money for John Edwards camp follower.
You have to give Edwards credit for creativity. He managed to mis-appropriate some of that cash for the construction of his new home.
Ex-GOP,
I generously “liked” your comment in the fervent hope that the truth can come not only out of the mouths of babes, but of sarcastic scolds! :)
Hans/Jerry – it was simply a funny statement made by Jerry…it was as if the Packers ran an opening kickoff of the opening game back to the 40 yard line, and a guy says “wow, this is a great team! They’re going to easily win the division and the super bowl this year!”
May 13th and Jerry has the whole contest figured out – love it!
Ex-GOP,
Well, you can’t blame Jerry. Obama’s administration has been a failure followed by an embarrassment over and over. You’d think it has to reach critical mass at some point. Polls seem to say we’re at that crest now. And I don’t see the Dem Convention giving near the boost the GOP Convention will.
Meanwhile, I’m sure ken will get a kick out of the new cover of Newsweek calling Obama the first gay president. We all knew Clinton wasn’t the “first black president”, but this obliviously plays into persistent rumors about the current POTUS.
Rumors that I doubt, let me add. It’s just a melding of the two stereotypes, the nexus being Obama’s obvious narcissism.
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/pokmon-pokmemes-press-b-before-its-too-late.gif
;)
Hans – that is a bizzarre statement. Don’t blame Jerry for not understanding the election is still 6 months away?
Romney’s got a shot, sure – so does Obama. We’ll have a better feeling for it in a few months.
If, come October and November, the main message the GOP is talking about is gay marriage…then Obama’s looking good. GOP wins if the economy is bad. GOP isn’t going to win on social issues this election, because that would mean the economy is good – and then Obama takes the prize.
Ken the birther,
Those two in the first cartoon are obama’s daughters. They are giving their mother a present but Biden spilled the beans about what the gift is. So they are upset about the secret being out.
MP sure won’t let go of the Swiss issue will she? Is it illegal for her to have a citizenship (that she’s letting go) or a Swiss account? Hey…isn’t it her choice to do that? Shaddap.
Ex-GOP,
Well, that’s rich. We’ve been hearing for over a year how Obama’s re-election is in the bag. And all the talk about social issues is from the left side. The right (correct) side only defends itself. And a heck of a lot better than the left defends the sorry state of the economy.
“Is it illegal for her to have a citizenship (that she’s letting go) or a Swiss account? Hey…isn’t it her choice to do that? Shaddap.”
It’s illegal if she didn’t disclose it, and that’s something to be determined. Tax evasion is still a crime in the United States, even if your name is Bachmann.
It will also be determined whether, as a member of the intelligence committee, she disclosed her citizenship plans to responsible authority.
And, if you think she became a citizen of a foreign power because her children wanted her to do it, or because “the Swiss have great chocolate,” then I have a bridge to sell you.
I hope you have a good day as well!
mp,
Lot’s of “ifs” there. Also, if you do a little research, you will find she has technically had dual citizenship since marrying the son of Swiss immigrants in 1978. Big freaking deal. Only recently did the Swiss gov’t even discover this fact and grant citizenship when her family updated documents with the Swiss gov’t. She has a US birth certificate and passport.
You have way too much spare time mp.
BTW, do you know if Obama was really ignorant of the fact his Kenyan Aunt Zeutuni was illegally in the US as he claimed? Also did you knoq Obama held dual Kenyan/American citizenship until the age of 23y/o, when it was ended by Kenyan law.
Hans – then you must really choose some sorry news sources – I’ve seen nothing of the sorts from anybody or anyone credible.
And if you believe the right side hasn’t talked social issues, then you must not have watched a single GOP debate.
LOL,
Looks like our fearless leader has been proclaimed America’s First Gay President, complete with halo and far away gaze, no doubt he’s contemplating parting the Gulf of Mexico, by none other than Newsweek Magazine. We only need a Celestial choir to complete the picture.This rag has really hit a new low, and that’s saying something.
Well I guess he couldn’t claim the title of First Black President as that honor was bestowed on Bill Clinton, who isn’t black but that’s beside the point, Obama isn’t gay. I guess its possible in this day and age to be the first of something you’re not.
Yes, the right has done nothing but talk about social issues! Like this:
Santorum: Iran poses a serious threat to the world.
Debate Moderator: Whatever. So you want to ban condoms right?
Santorum: What?! No, of course not.
Moderator: OK, so Ricky wants to ban condoms because Santa Claus told him they were evil.
Santorum: Can we get back to talking about Iran?
Moderator: Sure. Ricky, why do you want to throw gays into the ovens?
Santorum: ?!?! Can we PLEASE talk about Iran???
New York Times cover the next day: RICK SANTORUM OBSESSED WITH SOCIAL ISSUES
Now they’re doing this to Romney. The other day a reporter decided that Mitt had to comment on Obama’s latest devolution on gay marriage. Romney brushed off the question like Ted Kennedy would brush stale bread crumbs off his stomach, asking for a SUBSTANTIVE question instead. The economy is kind of bad, you know? I await the NY Times cover story – ROMNEY OBSESSED WITH GAYS
By the way, note that Obama was pro-gay marriage before he went to Rev. Wright’s church, then became against gay marriage while at Rev. Wright’s church. Now that he no longer goes to church at all, he is in favor of gay marriage again and says it’s because of its Christian faith. Why does Rev. Wright hate?
Evolving on “same-sex marriage”? Same BS as (I am paraphrasing) “people of good will can disagree on abortion.” “when does life begin is above my pay grade”, ”there are conscience protections in the new healthcare bill but just in case I am signing a executive order”, “I never heard Jeremiah Wright say G–D— America”, and “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and it is a sacred thing with God in the mix”.
Franklin Graham has it right when he says “President Obama is shaking his fist at God.”
Keeping praying for the nation Christian prolifers the expose will continue and what has been done in secret will come to light.
Joel Hunter, Obama’s Spiritual Advisor, ‘Disappointed’ Over Gay Marriage Stance
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/evangelical-pastor-gay-marriage_n_1506156.html
Hunter says he told the president he disagreed with his interpretation of what the Bible says about marriage.
Hunter says the president reassured him he would protect the religious freedom of churches who oppose gay marriage.
[Why would the question of religious freedom/freedom of speech for inidividual christians or congregations who ‘opose‘ changing the definition of same sex marriage to accomodate devolutionist theology even come up in this conversation?]
Hi PLL,
He is only doing what is politically expedient. His “evolving” is just another politically motivated flip flop. He needs to pry money out of his 1 in 6 donors who are gay and if he had to shake hands with the devil in hell to get this money, he’d do it.
Remember that sociopaths are masters at this type of thing. Making you think they are doing what you want, they are on your side, they are backing down and giving you what you want, when in fact they’re playing you for an idiot,…. and trying to get something from you.
Apparently Robin Roberts got “chills” from her ”historic” interview with Obama and the left wing media was orgasmic. None of these White House stenographers thought to ask the president what he will do to implement his “historic” and “courageous” stand and Obama has yet to say. You see what I mean about playing people for idiots.
This is nothing more than a dog and pony show. Nothing has changed or will. This will remain a state matter.
Hi Ken,
LOL, the president reassured Hunter he would protect the religious freedom of churches who oppose gay marriage. Another thing about sociopaths, never accept their “reassurances”. Didn’t the bishops make that mistake? Maybe that’s why Hunter wants reassurances. Mr. Hunter, Obama knows exactly what you want to hear and will say it.
Remember that EX congressman Bart Stupak also believed Obama’s reassurances.
.
Mary (9:32 a.m.),
Didn’t you see my comment at 5:02 p.m. yesterday? What am I, chopped liver? ;)
Hi HansJohnson,
Oh my, just when I think I’m quick on the trigger I’m a day late and a dollar short :). You’re definitely not chopped liver Hans, I always enjoy your posts!
Mary,
Same here. :)
My friends call me Hans. And you’re definitely one. Remember that comedian who would say, “You can call me Ray…but you dassn’t have to call me Johnson!” ? :)
Hey Ken, I got to meet the President last week while he was in Seattle. Quite a thrill.
mr. bo-jangle is on a trapeze that swings both ways!
The older woman on the left is obviously moochelle yo mama o’bama.
Huh. So, racism is not against the commenting policy here. Duly noted.
HAL,
I hope the ‘thrill’ didn’t set you back too much.
My life is full of unexpected joys.
I met some of the surviving Tuskegee airmen a few years ago.
It was an privelege and an honor to shake their hands and express my gratitude to them for their selfless service to our nation.
They are men of proven character and demonstrated courage.
AA,
I apologize to Irish lads and Irish lasses everywhere.
But it is an undisputed fact that o’bama’s mama was a wee bit Irish.
Only the ‘luck of the Irish’ could explain b o’s current place of residence.
And only a long, hot smoldering french kiss of the blarneystone could explain his gift of the gab.
And only a son of the Emerald Isles could dance a ‘reel’ like mr. bo-jangles.
As for the missus: Where’s the racisim in ‘moochelle’?
‘moochin” is not peculiar to any particular nationality, ethnicity, gender or religion.
Surely the ‘war on women’ has reduced this missus to ‘moochin’.
[Please take note that unlike mr. bo-jangles I have not taken the opportunity to use his children as political props.]
But the missus is fair game as long as she chooses to participate in the political campaign.
Political ‘combat’ is not a quilting party.
AnnaAnastasia,
“Mr. Bojangles “ was written by country artist Jerry Jeff Walker in 1968 and was inspired by a New Orleans street performer who Walker met in jail. He said it did not refer to black performer William”Bojangles”Robinson. “Mr Bojangles”, who was white used the name to conceal his true identify from police. I have heard the song, it was very popular in the early 70’s, and it is race neutral and a very touching and well written tribute to the man and his very sad life.
Also, having gone to an integrated school, “yo-mama” was a term frequently used by black students, often to insult other black students. Is it still “racist”?
The first “gay” president. Newsweek/Time seem desperate to sell magazines lately. After the Julia cartoon thing, is Obama the first lesbian President? What a weird world we live in.
I don’t agree with Obama on marriage (nor do I agree with Romney) – but I do enjoy the comments mocking his “evolving” views. If you guys think Obama is a flip flopper, then you must not have looked at Romney yet. It is hard to find viewpoints that he hasn’t flip flopped over during the years. He’s John Kerry times two.
AnnaAnastasia: I’m curious. Ken has occasionally declared his admiration for particular blacks. He clearly enjoys mocking Obama, in eyebrow-raising language. But how do you reconcile his admiration for some blacks with his contempt for one particular black? I dare say he loathes many whites and appreciates others.
Is ANY expression of contempt for a black “racism?” If so, then what are we to make of progressives who call black republicans “house negroes” or “uncle toms?”
Sincerely wondering.
I feel sorry for Hal. He must have a boring life if that counts as a thrill.
I wonder if he felt an involuntary impulse to genuflect.
On that score, Obama leads by example.
Now Rasquel 9:58PM
Don’t you realize that liberals using terms such as “trailer trash”(James Carville), “hymie and hymietown(Jesse Jackson), and “bitter clingers”(Obama) is not a display of bigotry? Neither is a liberal talk show host calling Condoleeza Rice “Aunt Jemima”.
My goodness, don’t you realize all black people think exactly the same and those that dare step off the liberal plantation need to have their leashes snapped? How dare black people think, well, like black people aren’t supposed to think! White liberals do know best.
liberals are “concerned” that black and other minorities are “affected” by voter ID laws because well, “they” don’t work, drive cars, have bank accounts, use credit cards, shop, cash checks, or use the nation’s airports. You know, all minorities for the most part collect welfare.
Now please, don’t question such enlightened individuals as our liberal community on the issue of tolerance when they call black people who just don’t know any better “house negroes” and “uncle toms”.
Let’s not even entertain the following two notions:
1) the terms “Mr. Bojangles” and “you mama” weren’t mean to be racially disparaging
2) the fact that someone, somewhere has spoken nicely about a black person once or twice (which I doubt in this case, but w/ev) means that #1 can’t be true.
Nope. Not even discussing it.
Hi AA 10:07am
Aren’t facts just so annoying? They can generate so much confusion when a mind is made up.
EGV 8:57PM
The New York Times, Obama’s mouth piece, has published a poll that says most Americans see Obama’s latest flipflop as politically motivated and not based on any personal conviction. Of course Team Obama called the poll biased, check out Drudge. If anything, the NYT would be biased in favor of Obama.
Looks like Americans aren’t falling for this dog and pony show after all, despite the gallant efforts of the WH stenographers.
Hi Mary 10:17 –
Isn’t staying on topic annoying? Changing the subject can generate so much confusion when we were talking about something else entirely. (But it’s a good way to avoid discussing the actual words being used in this thread and tolerated on this site.)
AA,
Kindly be a little more specific. Your post is as confusing as facts can sometimes be.
Mary at 2:19pm – basically, reread your 8:09 post.
AA,
That post was addressed to Rasquel. Again, would you please specifically state the point you are trying to make instead of referring me to this post or that.
I think, AnnaAnastasia, that you’ve changed your tune a bit. Racially disparaging? Ken? Probably. Racist? I haven’t seen it. Yet “racism” is the first word you used. The change to “racially disparaging” makes more honest sense.
If I call someone I dislike on other grounds, “fatso” I’d certainly be disparaging in terms of BMI, but this wouldn’t imply that I think folks with a bad BMI are inferior. I’m just using the person’s weight as an excuse to insult them — and I’m insulting them because there’s something ELSE I don’t like about them.
Sordid stuff, sure. But using “racism” so casually does injustice to the actual thing.
Why play the race card — the nuclear option — when the English language has a perfectly good word to describe it: rude.
?
AA,
That 8:09 am post to Rasquel was facetiousness on my part. I was ridiculing the patronizing and racist mentality of liberals, which they are for the most part oblivious to. Like when I hear some enlightened liberal on MSNBC say the Tea Party demonstrators should have put a black person in front of the camera. Give me a freaking break. And this clown probably thinks he’s a bastion of enlightenment.
I also pointed out that liberals, while preaching tolerance, are not above a little intolerance of their own. It certainly did not express my personal viewpoint of black people.
Let’s not even entertain the following two notions:
1) the terms “Mr. Bojangles” and “you mama” weren’t mean to be racially disparaging
AA,
You are not the first artificial flower to feign indigncance over my referring to ‘b o’ as ‘mr. bo-jangles’.
You want to believe that my hostility towards towards barack hussein o’bama is rooted in a fear and/or a hatred of non-caucasian humans.
My dislike of b o has nothing whatsoever to do with his ethnicity, his nationality, his gender, sexual orientation or his ir-religion.
‘b o’ is a self serving barbarian and he would be no less/no more so in any ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or religion.
If only ‘mr. bo-jangles’ were a female, then he wouldn’t make me regret being male.
Of course I would still have to deal with the undeniable fact that we both share the same humanity.
Father GOD,
I know that YOU place the same value on BHO’s life as you do on mine.
Forgive me that I do not yet share YOUR love for him.
He did not get to choose the hand that was dealt him, but he has exercised his will in the choices he has made.
Forgive him LORD for what he has done, even if he knew full well what he was doing.
Reveal to YOURSELF to him and remove the veil from his understanding.
Let all YOUR lovingkindness pass before him.
Not for my sake, or for the sake of a nation, or an entire world, but do it for his sake and for YOURS.
In the fullness of all that the NAME JESUS represents I offer up this petition.
rasqual @4:35 – OK – the terms were racist. I was doing other things and writing quickly, so I dashed off a comment without going over it with a fine-toothed comb. But yeah, the terms are racist. So – why is that tolerated here, by the blog and most of the commenters? Why is racism OK to make whatever point was being made? Why has no one called this out, and asked that the point be made without racism being used?
Mary @5:41 – And yet the post addressed to Rasquel doesn’t address the racism that has occurred in this thread. What does it mean when you seek to police the racism you claim that “liberals” (who I guess aren’t synonymous with pro-life?) demonstrate, but not the racism that has occurred right here?
AA,
I pointed out in my 7:47PM post, perhaps you missed it, the history of “Mr.Bojangles”, who incidentally was an indigent white street entertainer. It has no racist connotation. I suspect the “Mr. bo-jangles” is a play by Ken on Obama’s initials. Also “yo mama” was a term I often heard black students I attended school with use to insult each other. It also didn’t have a racial connotation, just that I heard only black students use it to insult another person’s mother. “Fighting words” best sums it up.
I don’t “police” liberal racism, I enjoy watching these folks look and sound like idiots.
Dear Lord,
Thank you for the unsubscribe link for certain threads on this site.
Me
But Ex-GOP, if you unsubscribe, you miss all the fun!
AnnaAnastasia: Please define “racist”, then point out how Ken’s remarks are racist.
Attempt to use a non-ad hoc definition of “racist.”
Best of luck with that.
You may not understand: I’m not defending Ken. If I succeed, it’s incidental to my purpose. Rather I intend, if you’ll indulge me, to accomplish a thorough take-down of your careless use of epithetery in service of gratuitous impugnation.
Offensive? Rude? Sure. Racist? Defend the slander.
Seriously, define “racist.” I suggest you use a definition from a common, top-of-google-results, reputable source, in order to escape what will otherwise be the inevitable charge that you’re cherry-picking obscure definitions to defend your faux umbrage.
Mary @7:27 – if you choose to believe that the reference was to the song Mr. Bojangles (and yes, I was well acquainted with the song and the history of it), that’s your choice. But that is not the case. And if you choose to believe that a white first lady would be given the nickname “yo mama”, that’s your choice. But that is not the case. And again, I ask…doesn’t *anyone* here recognize this as racism? Not even one person?
AA, you constantly asserting something doesn’t make it true.
AA,
If you want don’t want to believe the reference is to the song “Mr. Bojangles”, that’s your choice.
Let’s see, white First Lady Laura Bush was compared to “Hitler’s dog” by “comedian” Bill Maher, notorious for referring to Sarah Palin as a t* and a c*. Her mother in law Barbara Bush was referred to as a silver d—– bag by “comedian” George Carlin.
Yo mama, which ryhmes with Obama, seems pretty tame by comparison, wouldn’t you agree?
Yes, let’s please not dilute a nasty term while complaining about facetious terms.
Racism means believing a race is superior to another. Impure and simple.
Mary: If you want don’t want to believe the reference is to the song “Mr. Bojangles”, that’s your choice.
And yet, it also matches with reality.
Let’s see, white First Lady Laura Bush was compared to “Hitler’s dog”…
And this is what I meant by not staying on topic. “Other people have said nasty or racist things in the past” doesn’t mean ken the birther’s comments aren’t racist.
rasqual: Please define “racist”, then point out how Ken’s remarks are racist. Attempt to use a non-ad hoc definition of “racist.”
I’m not in the mood to do your homework today. That these terms are racist is so obvious that it’s honestly a no-brainer, which is what I meant by saying it’s not up for discussion. The point would be easily made, but by doing that, we entertain the notion that it’s even possible that there wasn’t racism there. There’s no analysis necessary.
You may not understand: I’m not defending Ken.
Yes, actually you are. If it’s more important for you to play semantics on this obvious issue than to call out racism, then you are defending the comment by attempting to play “gotcha” with it. (BTW, his full name isn’t just “Ken,” it’s “ken the birther,” which incidentally offers a clue to his support of a racist political movement.)
Again – if you all want to tolerate this sort of thing on this site, fine. There are anti-abortion sites that don’t tolerate racism. For anti-abortion advocates who don’t want racism to be a part of the movement, that’s a good thing.
But above and beyond the tolerance of racism here – whatever point was attempted in the comment is made so much weaker by needing to resort to racism. Seriously, was there even a criticism or analysis of the President or First Lady within that comment? I can’t tell, because the racism obscures it. I’d hope that racism wouldn’t be welcome here simply because it’s wasting everyone’s collective time spent trying to actually say something of merit.
AnnaAnastasia:
Excuse me, AA, but it’s not “my homework” to prove your claim. You’re slinging slanders around irresponsibly. If you can substantiate them, do so. If not, consider yourself subscribed a lying troll.
What’s fascinating to me about this is that I agree with you that Ken is debasing the discourse. And yet because you resort to slander — I’d guess out of a motive to impugn as strongly as possible, damn-the-legitimacy-of-it — you impugn yourself instead. It’s called “a bridge too far,” in case you need a metaphor to understand this a bit better.
You have a stake in being histrionic about racism, AA, because you wish to cast aspersion on the site. Understood. It’s called being a lying troll.
You’re unwilling to define racism or demonstrate racism, because the attempt would prove your bad faith.
In essence, AA, you’ve demonstrated your capacity to take the discourse even lower than Ken’s, while claiming some special pleading as if your slanders alone should be given full credence with no justification or warrant presented for them.
You can lay bare your creds as a good faith interlocutor, or you can lay bare your creds as a slanderous troll. Take your pick.
It’s ridiculous that while joining Ken at the bottom, you imagine yourself far above. But that’s what happens when you seize on any excuse to impugn. I take it as hilarious that Ken is bemused, and continues without apology. Is he rude? Impertinent? Yes. And every time you slander him, he chuckles because his rhetoric is exposing you as someone who can’t even competently demagogue.
Excuse me, AA, but it’s not “my homework” to prove your claim. You’re slinging slanders around irresponsibly. If you can substantiate them, do so. If not, consider yourself subscribed a lying troll.
One of the first defenses of people who sling racist comments is the demand that people “prove” the racism behind the comment. It’s a handy way of making anti-racists do the work for them and/or become exhausted, especially in cases when nothing the anti-racist says will be good enough anyway.
Sometimes, anti-racists (or other people fighting oppression) are nice enough to put the elementary pieces together for a person of good faith to help them understand how something could be oppressive. Not only am I not in the mood to do that today, but I seriously doubt that you or ken would find anything I say to be a good enough explanation at this point. Seriously, this is Anti-Racism 101, and it doesn’t seem like anyone so far is publicly interested in hearing a word of it.
What’s fascinating to me about this is that I agree with you that Ken is debasing the discourse.
Then why don’t you focus your energies on calling him out? Or even half your energy? Why is it easier to focus your energy on me?
You have a stake in being histrionic about racism, AA, because you wish to cast aspersion on the site. Understood. It’s called being a lying troll.
So, is there ANY way to call out racism on this site without being attacked as “histrionic?” Is it better to tiptoe around and say, “Oh, pretty please don’t say racist things.” Why police people’s tone?
And yeah, I would like to cast aspersion on a site that tolerates racism. Guilty as charged! I’m not sure where you got the idea that I have a personal stake in this site, because I don’t – I disagree with 99% of what’s published and commented on here. If anything, it would be in my personal interest that this site look as bad as possible, except for one thing: I deplore racism. It hurts people, including anti-abortion advocates who are also people of color and/or anti-racism. I’m not going to give racism a pass just because I disagree with this site’s purpose. And I would hope that others who DO want to elevate the discourse here would step up and call out comments like ken’s. How can anyone discuss abortion with so much crap in the way? Isn’t that why we’re here?
You’re unwilling to define racism or demonstrate racism, because the attempt would prove your bad faith.
No, it’s because the attempt would legitimize the idea that his comment could possibly NOT be racist. It’s pretty much self-evident. Not going down that road, because if something so self-evident isn’t ringing a bell, there’s little hope that an explanation would improve matters.
You can lay bare your creds as a good faith interlocutor, or you can lay bare your creds as a slanderous troll. Take your pick.
Egad. Talk about histrionic. Again, if you really have a problem with ken’s comments, why don’t you say something independently of responding to me?
I take it as hilarious that Ken is bemused… Is he rude? Impertinent? Yes.
Even if that was an accurate representation of ken’s comment, I don’t think that the people toward whom he’s being “rude” & “impertinent” would appreciate your thinking this is “hilarious,” at least without doing a darn thing about ken’s comment.
AA: “One of the first defenses of people who sling racist comments is the demand that people ‘prove’ the racism behind the comment.”
One of the first demands of anyone who’s slandered is that the slanderer substantiate the slander. Credit Ken with thick skin. Credit me with intolerance for disingenuous trolls.
Are you really on the intellectual level of believing that those who expect you to substantiate your slanders are proving your case merely by expecting you to defend your claims?
You’re a homophobe, AA. No need to prove it. You also blend puppies. And it’s “your homework” to demonstrate otherwise.
“So, is there ANY way to call out racism on this site without being attacked as ‘histrionic?'”
Grow up and welcome to the Internet. There’s 1000 times more genuine hate in the Huffington Post’s comments — from progressives — than you’ll find ridiculous rudeness in all of Ken’s remarks here.
Welcome to free speech — where you, also, are welcome to slander people. Apparently the mods allow you to do that with impunity as well. So along with your indignation at their tolerance, you might add some gratitude for it as well.
I’ll add this, AA: I think a lot of folks nowdays would have no idea how to explain why a particular remark is “racist,” because it no longer has any real meaning. It’s not a description of anyone’s real attitudes any more. It’s an epithet of opprobrium and little more. It’s a label useful to the speaker, not an attribute of the descriptor’s object. So of COURSE when asked to prove that the object of your remark is in some actual sense “racist,” you have no idea how to proceed to converse about it. And thus, of course, turning it around as “self-evident” and it’s somehow beneath dignity to defend your slanders by exposing their warrant.
Lame. Trolling.
Just the fact that Ken is a proud “Birther” tells us all we need to know. The guy is out to lunch.
What’s that have to do with AA’s incapacity to identify the marks of racism? What’s that have to do with gratuitous slander?
A 2007 poll, according to the Wikipedia, found that a third of Democrats were truthers — and another quarter of Democrats “weren’t sure.”
That tells me everything I need to know about Democrats, I guess. Right Hal?
I think a lot of folks nowdays would have no idea how to explain why a particular remark is “racist,” because it no longer has any real meaning.
And THANK YOU for proving my point. If racism doesn’t exist, then why waste my time explaining it to you? To amuse you? Is it for ken, who apparently is a guy who believes the President wasn’t even born in this country, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? (Yeah, he’s open to reason.) At least you’ve come bare that racism will be tolerated here, because apparently it doesn’t exist to you.
Grow up and welcome to the Internet.
Oh, I’m not offended by your histrionics. And they’re certainly not the worst on the internet. (You don’t get a prize or anything if they were, BTW.) It’s just sad, and very bad form if you’re trying to actually make a point to anyone except people like you.
AA, I must ask, doesn’t the fact that we are arguing about whether or not a given remark is racist prove that it is not self evidently racist? I mean honestly, the first time I read one of Ken’s Mr bo jangles comments, I immediately thought about the song.
AA 10:51am
What matches with reality?
I addressed your comment about y0-mama where you asked if a white First Lady would be given the name yo-mama. Well, I pointed out a blatantly sexist remark made about a former white First Lady. Is that more acceptable? Obviously white First Ladies have been subjected to some pretty vile names, ya think? I’ve also pointed out that yo mama was a remark I heard black students make to each other. Now, is that racist?
Hi JDC,
When I heard the song in my youth, I pictured a white man sitting in a jail cell crying about his dog. I never equated it with anything racial, I loved the song and it evokes so many memories to this day. I wonder how many people today even know there was a black performer called Bill “Bojangles” Robinson.
It like those who wailed that the song “Carry Me back to Old Virginny” was racist. The composer was black!
I only heard about Bill “Bojangles” Robinson because of this blog! So, yeah I agree it’s probably not the common interpretation.
JDC – very good point, but no. Even if the owner of the blog and the commenters weren’t familiar with the common racist use of “bojangles”, it would only take a little Google-fu and common sense to learn about it. It would explain why ken’s comment being linked to the song is laughable. But no one here has been willing to do that.
Mary
I addressed your comment about y0-mama where you asked if a white First Lady would be given the name yo-mama.
No, you did not.
Obviously white First Ladies have been subjected to some pretty vile names, ya think?
Yes, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
I’ve also pointed out that yo mama was a remark I heard black students make to each other. Now, is that racist?
Again, I would refer you to Anti-Racism 101 to answer that question. But it’s worth noting that you’ve also just answered the question about whether a white First Lady would have been called “yo mama.”
AA,
Yeah, a white First Lady is called a “silver d– bag” and another is compared to Hitler’s dog. Would Michelle be called a “silver d—bag”? Would she be compared to “Hitler’s dog”? The “silver d—bag” strikes me as an ageist comment. Would Michelle be subjected to an “ageist” comment? Is ageism more acceptable than racism?
Please address my question concerning the use of “yo mama” by black students. I have no idea what Anti-Racism 101 consists of.
Oh please, google and learn the “racist” connotation of bojangles. Bill”bojangles” Robinson was a talented performer who, given the mindset of our Hollywood elite, could only be portrayed as a servant, a tap dancing one. Look up Mr.Bojangles and you find the song about the white street entertainer. Unless you already have some knowledge of Robinson, which many people don’t, one is not likely to see any connection. I only heard of the man years ago on a TV special portraying the racism of Hollywood when it came to the portrayal of black people.
Maybe this white entertainer took on the name because he held Robinson in such high esteem as a performer and he was himself a dancer. Please AA, there is nothing racist about “bojangles” except in your fertile imagination.
Again AA, do you think Mr. Bo-jangles may be nothing more than a play on Obama’s initials, you know, like BO?
AA: When I was a kid, we said “yo mama” all the time — to our white friends. We were certainly aping stuff we heard on — what, Sanford and Son? But using the words was hardly “racist.” Your careless thinking on this is really remarkable.
I said: “I think a lot of folks nowdays would have no idea how to explain why a particular remark is “racist,” because it no longer has any real meaning.”
AA: “And THANK YOU for proving my point. If racism doesn’t exist,”
Who on earth said — or implied — that racism doesn’t exist? Can you read? I said that word has lost meaning. Overuse and abuse have left it to be just another insult. No one cares if they’re called a racist any more, because everyone knows it’s just something people say when they want to insult you. Folks walk around talking however they want nowadays. They’re content to work for a black boss, listen to hip hop, marry interracially, and not give a rip about what histrionic, demagoguing race card dealers dish out.
So you still haven’t cited what’s racist about any of Ken’s remarks. Still can’t. Just lamely demagogue and keep trying to impugn the site as “tolerating racism.” What, you think such lunacy is going to go viral or something?
Ken condemns racism. Everyone here that I’ve seen does as well. Folks just seem bemused that you imagine your pretense of charging racism is going to, like, genuinely impugn Stanek, the mods, or anyone else here.
When folks AREN’T racist, AA, they’re not going to get anxious when you try to tar them with it. They’ll laugh. They’ll point out your floppy clown shoes. But they’re not going to really care.
When I was a kid, we said “yo mama” all the time
My kids say “yo mama” to me and we’re all white.
I work in a middle school. Weekly I hear something like this from black and white students:
Q ”What are you doing after school?”
A ”Yo Mama”
Mary:
Would Michelle be subjected to an “ageist” comment? Is ageism more acceptable than racism?
1) Probably not, given her age; 2) No, it isn’t more acceptable and you know it. And again, that’s a change of subject. What do I win?
Please address my question concerning the use of “yo mama” by black students. I have no idea what Anti-Racism 101 consists of.
Apparently not.
Please AA, there is nothing racist about “bojangles” except in your fertile imagination.
Again AA, do you think Mr. Bo-jangles may be nothing more than a play on Obama’s initials, you know, like BO?
OMG, you just spent an entire paragraph outlining the racist connotations of “Bojangles”, then you wonder why it’s considered racist. (Which also proves my point that I didn’t have to explain it to you – you already knew about the racist connotations, and you wanted me to do the work for you.) You also wonder why choosing that term to make a play on this President’s name is racist. I don’t even…
rasqual:
When I was a kid, we said “yo mama” all the time — to our white friends. We were certainly aping stuff we heard on — what, Sanford and Son? But using the words was hardly “racist.” Your careless thinking on this is really remarkable.
Again, OMG…”ken uses a term from Sanford and Son to refer to a First Lady who is African-American. But we appropriated the term as kids to use with our white friends, so both instances are the same, and neither instance could be racist at all.”
No one cares if they’re called a racist any more
Apparently you care if ken’s words are called racist. (There’s a difference between calling someone a “racist” and saying that someone has said something racist. I haven’t done the former. As you kindly said to me, “Can you read?”)
Folks walk around talking however they want nowadays. They’re content to work for a black boss, listen to hip hop, marry interracially, and not give a rip about what histrionic, demagoguing race card dealers dish out.
Holy crap…associating with black people? Next thing you know, they’ll be acting out scenes from Sanford and Son! </sarcasm>
So you still haven’t cited what’s racist about any of Ken’s remarks. Still can’t.
All I had to do was wait long enough, and you and Mary did it for me. That worked out nicely.
Ken condemns racism.
AAAHHH..HAHAHAHAHA! (Although it’s interesting that you’re defending him now, considering that you disapprove of his remarks.)
When folks AREN’T racist, AA, they’re not going to get anxious when you try to tar them with it. They’ll laugh.
You perceive me to be doing that here, yet you don’t seem to be laughing. In fact, *I* am, but out of frustration and disbelief.
AA: “OMG, you just spent an entire paragraph outlining the racist connotations of ‘Bojangles'”
What are you TALKING about?!
Seriously, AA, what on earth can you possibly be saying? Are you even capable of drawing the line between “racial” and “racist?”
Honestly, how confused can you possibly be? You claim all this is “self-evident,” but apparently what that means to you is that any time race is implicated in anything at all, “racism” is afoot.
Please cite something here that’s actually “racist,” and explain how it’s “racist” in terms of well-recognized definitions of racism (as I said, any top-of-google-results definition would do fine). This is not so that anyone here will understand what racism means. At this point in the conversation, I think most folk here will deem it an educational exercise that will benefit you substantially.
Seriously, AA, you are one confused pup.
AA: “Apparently you care if ken’s words are called racist.”
Don’t project your busybody hand-wringing on me.
I’m just trying to school a troll. :-)
Please cite something here that’s actually “racist,” and explain how it’s “racist” in terms of well-recognized definitions of racism (as I said, any top-of-google-results definition would do fine).
Please read the paragraph cited. Next.
Don’t project your busybody hand-wringing on me.
I’m just trying to school a troll.
Oh, *that’s* why you’ve spent so much time on this…
:::sigh:::
The racism discussed in “the paragraph” was that of Hollywood — not of anyone here.
AA, I heartily suggest a vacation from the conversation until you can catch your breath. The hyperventilation is unseemly.
The hyperventilation is unseemly.
“Don’t project your busybody hand-wringing on me.”
No, Anna — read that paragraph again. It’s self-evident. I didn’t call you a hyperventilator. I’m asserting that your remarks are hyperventilatist.
I can’t believe this site tolerates that.
I can’t believe this site tolerates that.
Please cite your definition of hyperventilation. Any top-of-google-results definition would do fine. And no matter what you say, I’ll assert that no one here engages in hyperventilation.
It seems that the horse is good and truly dead now.
Is there a cure for obstinance to be found here?