Here is the correct racist pic of the president, first lady, and the secretary of state by Mark Dean. Protest!
and we all know what happens when one assumes dont' we? Just my opinion but the whole racism card is overplayed by the media and the left because they need a victim to stay in power. I see more racism from the minorities toward Caucasians and each other then the other way around.
I see how it is now. Why don't you answer anything I've addressed to you? Answer my questions so you and I can continue this discussion.
Lets listen to it from another point of view. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hKmOmyYmxrs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hKmOmyYmxrs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> I'm sorry , but you can't defend this. <div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24619057#24619057" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><style type="text/css">.msnbcLinks {font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;} .msnbcLinks a {text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px;} .msnbcLinks a:link, .msnbcLinks a:visited {color: #5799db !important;} .msnbcLinks a:hover, .msnbcLinks a:active {color:#CC0000 !important;} </style><p class="msnbcLinks">Visit msnbc.com for <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072">News about the Economy</a></p></div>
I would like all who see nothing wrong with what the Post did actually try that today. The writer said if anything it wasn't about Obama, but it "Could have been" about Nancy Pelosi. COULD HAVE BEEN
Al Sharpton's only job is to work at staying relevant. He's falling short on this issue. That's a huge stretch of the imagination. Go figure it being found on MSNBC. If you want credibility as a poster, I'd avoid MSNBC like the plague.
Yes, it could have been Pelosi. That defeats the inane racist argument and shows it more in line with attacking the "source" of the bill, which rightfully stated by the artist is more about Pelosi (you know - the speaker of the house - the house where the bill was authored) than it is Obama That's why he said it could have been about her IF someone had to apply such an irrelevant label to the chimpanzee. You need to keep this in context. You don't need to omit facts to suit your agenda. Leave that for Sharpton.
Congress passed it and Obama had to be the last one to sign it to make it relevant.This is/was Obamas Bill and he will get credit for it....Every one seem to get that besides you.
I bet you 10 to 1 that one day, you will be sold on the fact that this was not the case I give it 16 months, tops.
I actually don't believe there was any racist intent behind the cartoon, but to call it the idea inane, is ridiculous, unless you are totally ignorant of the history of race relations in this country, and race relations today. Check out some of the videos regarding the election threads where McCain supporters have stuffed monkeys they are using to portray as Obama. To act like a cartoon about politics where a chimp is shot dead, could in no way be construed as racist is ignorant on your part. I don't think the cartoon was racist, but I can certainly understand where the idea comes from, given that just a few months ago people were labeling stuffed monkeys as Obama.
It’s no huge stretch at all, 1. Blacks take offense to being called a monkey are 2. Obama was called a monkey by Republicans (the Post are right wingers) McCain supporters doing the campaign. 3. 3. Either way it’s offensive, because it’s glorying assassination because of a disagreement in policy. 4. Somebody in this forum stated that the page right before it showed Obama signing the bill and the next page a monkey being shot with the quote “ they will have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” I think this is a case hitting then hiding your hand. I’m not saying that these people are racist, but you are what people the public perceives you to be in jobs like theses. It’s OK you can be in denial all you want it’s your opinion. and as far as my credibility as a poster goes do I have to bring the Imperial one another source to appease you? There is a difference between MSNBC and Fox besides being left and right you know....One is bias but accurate and the other one just a complete joke. I suggest you don’t get your facts from hard core conservatives on this matter who thinks Obama is a Terrorist and a trader to this country because. I still don’t see how the shooting of the monkey the other day and Obamas stimulus Bill are parallel… Prior to the cartoon in the paper there Obama was signing his bill into law…If they were that stupid then they should be questioned. No stretch there.
I'm the last one that needs a history lesson on racial tension (no, I'm not being elitist, I just have personal experiences with it). You don't think it was racist, and that's fine. I completely agree with you. However, some people in this thread stated the paper went out of its way to purposely insult an ethnic group. I'm in the process of pinning them down and holding them accountable for their words, but it appears they have "conveniently" stopped responding to my questioning. /sigh In any event, I find it interesting that both you and the person who said this looked at the same picture. Things that make you go hmmm.
Absolutely not, I'm just not used to MSNBC being used as a source in a serious discussion. What will you use next? The View? Who said anything about Fox? Being right? Being left? Where have I posted facts from anyone else but my own take on this thing? So because some people have used monkeys to represent Obama, or minorities, everyone is using them for the same purpose? King Kong needs to be banned if that's the case. I still think the reason the chimpanzee was used is because it was a current event and reminded the author of the infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters. I still think it's a statement on the process of coming to the stimulus package, and the condition of the final package. Once again, that's why the author said it COULD HAVE BEEN Pelosi, as she was more clearly a driving influence of the manual work of preparing/writing the bill. And yes, I know the president signs it into LAW, god sakes.
In almost all cases, there is 1 truth. The artist is the only one that truthfully knows his intent (as is the case with most forms of art). The fact that only some people see this as racist is a statement of fact that some people are slanted to see things a certain way. Others are slanted to see it a different way. Which is more accurate? None of us know. The artist knows. An opinion that it is racist is as equally valid as an opinion that it isn't. In cases like this, it should be left alone and the concept of "free speech" should be protected. This isn't fire in a movie theater. I'm still waiting to find out how this was an attempt by the paper to go out of its way to offend an ethnic group. I'll probably be waiting a long time.
just because it wasn't necessarily a racist cartoon, doesn't make the connotation to some any different. if a racist opinion is as valid as a non-racist one, then by that logic, someone perceiving this as racism is just as valid as those who perceive it in another way. it is interesting that the guy who drew the cartoon said it "could have been" about Pelosi. that means it could have been about someone else too. perception is reality. the paper should've known (and probably did know) what kind of uproar this cartoon could've caused. only those ardent anti-pc (and i hate that term btw) people can be completely blind and ignorant to see how this cartoon could've been seen that way. regardless, we will never know what was in the cartoonists heart. i'll go ahead and believe him that there was no racist intent, but it's not like he would admit that there was.
You do realize that requires a hell of a lot of speculation and assumption? If we start calling everything speculative truth because "some dude over there" sees it a certain way, we're going to have a hell of a time ever knowing what's really going on, oh wait, I seem to recall that's a method used by socialists to climb to power Proletarian revolution anyone? I mean, certainly we're all victims here! Let the assault on our thought process commence! It's interesting, if not ironic, to me that at least one person citing this as racism used the term "open mind" to refer to the fact that it was indeed racist. To me, that's a closed mind. One that isn't OPEN to the fact that it WASN'T racist. The doublespeak is in full effect!
