• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Obama Waffles – Racist or Fair Satire?

A box of Obama Waffles is seen in Washington, Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008. A vendor at a conservative political forum was selling boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap. The product was meant as political satire, said Mark Whitlock and Bob DeMoss, two writers from Franklin, Tenn., who created the mix and sold it for $10 a box at the Values Voter Summit sponsored by the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)Attendees at a Family Research Council convention were buying up “Obama Waffles” like hotcakes before organizers decided they contained images that could be deemed racist and suspended sales.

Activists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap.

Values Voter Summit organizers cut off sales of Obama Waffles boxes on Saturday, saying they had not realized the boxes displayed ”offensive material.” The summit and the exhibit hall where the boxes were sold had been open since Thursday afternoon.

The box was meant as political satire, said Mark Whitlock and Bob DeMoss, two writers from Franklin, Tenn., who created the mix. They sold it for $10 a box from a rented booth at the summit sponsored by the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.

David Nammo, executive director of the lobbying group FRC Action, said summit organizers were told the boxes were a parody of Obama’s policy positions but had not examined them closely.

Republican Party stalwarts Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were among speakers at the forum, which officials said drew 2,100 activists from 44 states.

While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama’s politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.

Obama in Muslim Headdress Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian.

On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for ”Open Border Fiesta Waffles” that says it can serve ”4 or more illegal aliens.” The recipe includes a tip: ”While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?”

This sort of thing is quite juvenile.  But racist?  Aside from the bit about illegal aliens, there’s not much ammunition for the charge.

Michelle Obama as Aunt Jemima Cartoon images, especially satirical ones, always exaggerate people’s physical characteristics.  That’s what makes them cartoons.  But the cartoon images of both Obamas depict them as attractive people.

The main distortion in Barack Obama’s drawing is to over-exaggerate his slightly oversized ears.  That’s not a racist stereotype; it’s making fun of him as an individual.   His nose is quite slim.  His lips are rather dark but not particularly large.  This is hardly Barack as Sambo.  No giant afro — even though there are old photos of him sporting one — no giant lips, no huge nose.

The Michelle Obama cartoon is even more flattering.  She’s wearing a rather odd expression on her face but she’s well coifed — in straightened hair — has a very thin nose, and thin, light-colored lips.   Indeed, she has no African American characteristics, stereotypical or otherwise, except brownish skin.

Barack Obama is running for president.  He’s black.  (That’s his self-proclaimed identity despite being half white and being raised almost entirely by his white mother and grandparents.)  Because of the former, he’s going to be the target of satire.  Because of the latter, the satirists are going to be vulnerable to charges of racism.

But let’s not be silly about it.  The images on the Obama Waffles box are quite benign.  Compare them, for example, to some of these:

Black Republicans get satired, too:

Okay, some of those are racist.   There’s a line that can’t be cross that, like the late Potter Stewart, I can’t quite define but I know it when I see it.  The Obama Waffles are safely on the other side.

I should note that they’re not particularly funny.  Good satire is based on a strong kernel of truth and Obama doesn’t have a reputation as a flip-flopper.  Why should he, after all:  He’s only taken public positions on most controversial issues in the last two years.    Stacy McCain is right:  This is just a recycled joke from 2004.

I’m sure that if Hillary had won the Democratic nomination, Whitlock and DeMoss would have marketed “Hillary Waffles” — and then would have been accused of promoting sexist stereotypes, no doubt.

More troubling, though, is that he’s almost certainly right about this:

Is it possible to caricature a black man without being accused of “racial stereotype”? (Note to editorial cartoonists: If Obama is elected, you’ll have to endure four years of this crap.)

Either that or we’ll figure out more clearly where the lines are.

Box art courtesy Samantha Chang at The Improper.

Related Posts:

About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway, an associate professor of security studies at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. He has a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter.

Comments

  1. waffle do obama http://tinyurl.com/557bt8

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. just me says:

    I vote very bad satire-especially because I am not so sure the “waffle” charge works for Obama-at least not in the sense that the flip flops worked as an attack on Kerry. I think the satire that pokes fun at the Obama worship works much better in this election cycle.

    I don’t really see it as racist-if the cartoon image of Obama is considered racist then political cartoonists better put away their drawing pencils until the Obama presidency is over if Obama wins, because they won’t be able to draw a cartoon without the charge being made against them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. G.A.Phillips says:

    Well Billy what do you think do these cartoonists bet me out as the stupidest creatures to ever walk the earth?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. davod says:

    I don’t want you to think I am being niggardly, but don’t you think using the term “Sambo” is just a little bit racist.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Redhand says:

    This sort of thing is quite juvenile. But racist?

    This is a pretty good blog, though more right of center than I am these days.

    But “ni*gga pleeaze,” how could you possibly miss the scurrilous analogy to Aunt Jamima and pancakes. Are you really so ignorant of that racial stereotype. I think Oliver Willis is spot on here:

    While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama’s politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the image of the classic pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.

    See also Slave in a Box: The Strange Career of Aunt Jemima by M.M. Manring

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  6. Michael says:

    While I agree on almost all counts, it was juvenile, it wasn’t racism, and it was well within the line of acceptability during a presidential campaign, I thought “Change you can taste” was actually quite funny.

    The whole Turban/Mecca bit though is bordering on fear mongering. Not that I think they meant it like that, they were probably struggling to come up with enough satire to cover the box, but for the people that actually believe the meme it basically boils down to “Muslims are bad”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Steve Plunk says:

    Just another example of the Left’s “free speech for me but not for thee”. Let’s also throw in double standard, hypocrisy, and political opportunism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Michael says:

    Just another example of the Left’s “free speech for me but not for thee”. Let’s also throw in double standard, hypocrisy, and political opportunism.

    Are you reading an article I’m not? Because this one says it was people on the right that thought it could be racist, and a bunch of people complaining about how hard it is to be a cartoonist. Where are you seeing anybody on the left saying anything about anything?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. tgb1000 says:

    Did The Left stop the sale of these boxes? No, they pointed out that they were racist, and the people selling them stopped because they didn’t like the bad publicity. In what way did The Left infringe on free speech? The Right Wing Victim card gets wrongly played yet again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Patrick T McGuire says:

    Geez, it’s getting to the point where anything you say or do these days is considered racist. I am now wondering if someone is going to call me racist because I wear black socks on a daily basis.

    Y’all need to get a sense of humor and quit analyzing everything to death, it gets boring.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. noweapon says:

    Ok already. The idea of a box of waffle mix was funny. I agree that the inferences may be a little over the line; but so are the statements make by the talking-heads about Palin.
    I just hope the Values Voter Summit doesn’t get the quilt by association crap. After all the summit started on Thursday and this group didn’t set up their booth until Saturday. Obama has waffled quite a bit on a lot of issues.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Michael says:

    Okay, I take it back, “Obama’s bling bling waffle ring” is getting dangerously close to the decency line. James neglected to include that particular portion of the box.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. brainy435 says:

    It’s not exactly new, either.
    http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/04/httpwwwbarkingm.html

    Was it racist 4 years ago, or do we really want to say that black men can’t handle this kind of attack as well as white men so we should protect them? Cause if you think that’s true, and I certainly do not, how can you trust someone so delicate with the Presidency?

    Also, if the same attack is used on Kerry and Obama, why does the Obama one clearly bring up Aunt Jemima? Is it because you only look at race and not the issue? Methinks so. And, further, when trying to debate racial issues, using the n word may not help your argument.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. jcw. says:

    Good Lord!!!! The Aunt Jemimah reference is a huge stretch. People are looking for racist references and innuendos in everything. The freshman, junior Senator from Illinois asked to be left alone to eat his waffle in a video clip AND he has ‘waffled’ on Campaign Finance, FISA, D.C.’s gun laws, and I am sure many other issues.

    The ugly head of RACISM is alive and well on the shoulders of the Dem nominee. It is his attendance in and tithing to a racist church for almost twenty years that should be seen for what it is. Why is that RACISM not an issue?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Michael says:

    Now this is an interesting new phenomenon. Some guys on the right made a piece of satire that is, as worst, mildly offensive. The left almost completely ignores it, presumably because it is, at worse, mildly offensive. Then some guys on the right get outraged based on claims that the left is in fact outraged, censoring, hypocritical, etc.

    So it’s manufactured outrage to imagined outrage. And now I’m ranting about that, so I think the recursion this is going to produce might just implode the blogosphere.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. James Joyner says:

    how could you possibly miss the scurrilous analogy to Aunt Jamima and pancakes. Are you really so ignorant of that racial stereotype

    Except, you know, “Aunt Jamima” still appears on boxes of pancake mix, frozen waffles, and syrup. Yes, they’ve updated her image for modern times but old one wasn’t racist in its day; that’s how housekeepers dressed.

    And it’s not as if they’ve put Obama in a plaid scarf. The only similarity between this satire and the Jamima stereotype is that both characters are black and both are on boxes of breakfast food. That’s pretty weak.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. just me says:

    I think the problem is that we are a society that no longer grasps satire.

    I also think if any black person in the public eye has reason to scream about racism it would be Rice and Thomas-I have seen political cartoons far more blatantly racist than the waffle box, which was a rehash of a waffle box for Kerry. I think it actually worked better for kerry, but then I think the satire that seems to work best on Obama is all the Messiah, celebrity stuff. I think the GOP and McCain would do well to show Obama with his seal as often as possible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Kathy says:

    I think clearly the problem is a white person deciding what is and is not racist. I am shocked that you wouldn’t see that.

    I don’t know one black person who doesn’t find it offensive. And calling Bush a chimp is not racist. If you were to call Obama that, it is racist. IF you fail to see that, then you are a perfect example of a today’s republican. Not a Reagan republican, or a Goldwater Republican, but W Republican. Not a fiscal conservative, but a social conservative only.

    Thank goodness there are independents who don’t want the government in my home to decide if I carry a gun, and thank goodness there are those of us who don’t want the government in our bedrooms either.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  19. Billy says:

    Racist or not James, if you’re looking for an unforced error, here’s your example.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Dan says:

    Anybody who can live with the satire aimed at Bush and Rice without complaint should probably shut up. If you raised hell about that, then by all means speak your piece. But, Obama is a flip flopper, I do not believe he has one view that is the same as it was during the primaries.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. [...] Obama Waffles – Racist or Funny? [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. rodney dill says:

    I think I would have avoided this as being racially charged and very easily to miscontrue.

    While John Kerry Waffles to me would be perfectly acceptable, this one seems to be in poor taste.

    I’ve seen at least one sitcom portray chicken and waffle (a reference I’m not familiar with) places begin part of ‘black’ culture. Are we going to condone Obama watermelon? chicken and ribs? collared greens? Its easier just to avoid any reference that can be misconstrued to this point.

    Waffle does also the connotation for ‘flip-flopper’ but this one does concern me. Now does anyone want to buy some Obama Flip-Flops?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Man, you’re stupid!

    I’ve tried to reproduce a rational thought process that would lead to your conclusions, even starting from gross ignorance of racial history. It simply can’t be done.

    To take your nonsense in reverse order:

    The Rice images obviously aren’t racist caricatures – two of them are actual photographs, and the middle image doesn’t play on racial stereotypes (it’s just a very weirdly drawn cartoon). Arguably, two of them touch on racial politics, but they are both aimed at Rice’s behavior, not her appearance; if they are offensive, it is in a very different way from the Obama pictures.

    None of the pictures of Bush are racist, you gibbering clown. They are all derogatory toward Bush, who has earned it like no one else in American history, and some of them make fun of his goofy, childish appearance and mannerisms, but none has anything to do with race. (How did you see depicting a white person as Hitler as a racial insult? Hitler was white and favored whites! He was kind of known for that.) There is exactly one image – the depiction as a monkey – that would be racist if it were aimed at a member of a race that had famously, and for centuries, been denigrated as “brutish” and explicitly compared to apes. But that would be blacks, not whites. Since that history doesn’t apply here, it doesn’t carry the same connotation here. It’s a “meaning by reference” thing – you wouldn’t understand.

    Finally, the Obama pictures: here, I do have to cut you some slack for being a gaspingly ignorant, racially insensitive, oblivious moron. I can see how total lack of comprehension would affect your thinking about the issue. But still, it’s not too much to ask that anybody who is going to defend pictures of big-lipped, wide-eyed, grinning black people on pancake-mix boxes would, you know, have some sense of where that image comes from. You’re right, in a “I have no idea what I’m even talking about” way, that the big ears shown in the image are not racist. Sadly, however, the big lips, round bulging eyes, and huge grin – not to mention the generic turban that has nothing to do with Islam – are racist or ethnic caricatures that, somehow, appear to have eluded you. Again, it’s the hundreds of years of history of such caricatures that gives this image its context and referential meaning. And, as I said, it’s understandable that someone as ignorant as you would not know that, but it’s not understandable how anyone could be as ignorant as you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  24. just me says:

    Kevin would please tell me how the picture of Rice on the left isn’t racist if the Waffle box is?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. tell me how the picture of Rice on the left isn’t racist if the Waffle box is?

    I said it wasn’t a racist caricature. It can’t be – it’s an actual photograph (somewhat doctored, but not to change her facial appearance).

    I also said it could be argued it is racist in the way it depicts foreign cultures, but not in anything like the way the Obama pictures do.

    For one thing, the headdress Rice is wearing is an actual head covering worn by some Muslims – it was pasted in from a picture of someone (I presume a Muslim) actually wearing it. The goofy turban Obama is wearing is not authentic – it’s like a picture of a Native American jumping around, slapping their mouth and singing “woo-woo-woo”. And, the photo of Rice satirizes her actual behavior and political positions – using her influence to prop up repressive regimes that oppress women, which is a perfectly legitimate issue to bring up (whether or not you approve of the picture). Nobody ever claimed Rice is a Muslim, and the picture does not further such a claim. The Obama/Muslim thing, however, has nothing to do with his positions or policies – it serves only to dredge up a common lie, which itself exists only to appeal to religious and ethnic prejudice. It furthers a deliberate falsehood as a way of invoking bigotry.

    In short, the worst you could do is that you might argue the implicit attack on Rice (that she allies herself with repressive religions) is false, but not that it is an illegitimate issue. You can’t argue that the picture of her is a racist caricature – it isn’t a caricature. And you can’t argue that it appeals to racial or religious prejudice – it’s a direct invocation of her role in promoting the Iraq war. The Obama caricature is exaggerated and unrealistic in ways that play on numerous well-established racial stereotypes. The picture with the turban is intended to recall lies that explicitly appeal to prejudice. The two are nothing alike. They have different intentions, and rely upon different points of reference (legitimately political, in Rice’s case, and explicitly ethnic, religious, and racial, in Obama’s).

    And this is really not hard to see.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  26. just me says:

    Okay so you are operating off a definition of caricature that only includes cartoon type drawings and not photographs. I disagree with you, but we can work off that definition.

    So how about this one comparing her to Prissy from GWTW?

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/mhking/blog/condicartoon_1.jpg

    This isn’t the only one, and I can go find them on Thomas as well-in case you don’t recall they were out there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. James says:

    James,
    I appreciated the thoughtful questions, but really, as a white guy, what makes you qualified to determine whether something is racist or not? Do you have any special training in the subject, or is yours just another uninformed and unqualified verdict designed to absolve yourself of any responsibility to examine the issue and to seek more knowledgeable and/or expert opinions on the subject? And, you know, a conference consisting of nothing but upper middle class white male Republicans really won’t do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. WR says:

    Excuse me, but are the same people who insist that any inquiry into Sarah Palin’s political beliefs and history is sexism now complaining that mean liberals are calling them racists for depicting Obama as Aunt Jemima?

    Could one of you please explain the rules of modern discourse? Because apparently anything you say about Obama is fun hilarity, and suggesting that being able to see Russia from Alaska doesn’t make you a foreign policy whiz is a grave insult. I’m just a little confused over exactly how sensitive I’m supposed to be…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  29. Okay so you are operating off a definition of caricature that only includes cartoon type drawings and not photographs.

    No, I’m operating off the definition of “caricature” that defines “caricature”: an unrealistic exaggeration of features for humorous or critical purposes. Ordinary, realistic photographs aren’t caricatures by definition, because they’re not distortions.

    As for the “Gone With the Wind” parody, that is racist – it plays off a well-known characterization of blacks that is widely understood to be racist, and which was part of a larger artistic production whose overall theme (the glories of the Confederacy) was grossly racist. Worse, the image bears no relation to the subject under discussion (Rice’s prevarications regarding Iraqi WMDs), and so is not redeemed by relevance. And, as I recall, when that cartoon came out, it was widely condemned for all those reasons. But your first selections of images of her were not like this.

    So, you found one racist depiction of Condoleeza Rice, on your second attempt, out of a total of four images you put up. And there are probably many more. But you don’t seem to be good at understanding what makes them racist. As I’ve emphasized in each case, the content of the image, its connotations or meaning, and the implication carried by the image all contribute to how we should evaluate it.

    It’s perfectly easy to criticize public figures on substantive grounds, and to use telling images to do so that don’t depend on or evoke racial prejudice. The problem with the waffle box is that it failed to do the former, and extensively transgressed in regard to the latter – while spreading falsehoods at the same time. The problem with this blog post is that you can’t seem to see the difference.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. anjin-san says:

    The images on the Obama Waffles box are quite benign.

    You don’t spend much time hanging with the brothers, do you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. MaryAnn says:

    very funny pictures! people are way too sensitive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Robert says:

    OH c’mon, these picture are satire .. and mild at that. If you had told me they were from the latest issue of the popular children’s satire magazine MAD, I would not have doubted you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Robert says:

    I mean the pictures of the Obama Waffles. Actually that is exactly the thing that MAD specialized in .. I can imagine a Superspecial that had a cut-out build your own waffle box. The GWTW cartoon is one, though, that MAD would NOT have done.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Bosqcatl says:

    Obama depicted as a modern day Aunt Jamima is purely racist.

    Whites justifying it own the same mentality of those whites who supported slavery then Jim Crow. The mentality that allowed such savage policies is still within the fabric of many Americans.

    Read any blog and for every pissed off black racist, there at least 300 white racists who interject race for no apparent reason. It usually goes like this “I’m sick and tired of these lazy blacks always complaining that everything is about race” Typically the angry black racist is responding to the previous 40 white racists who have posted, eloborated, or agreed with the first white spewing racism. African Americans endure this crap all the time. It’s not until Jackson or Sharpton raise their heads where blacks get excited or mobilized. Most often they just feel helpless. Like many blacks reading this blog right now!

    Farrakhan and his minions are laughing and waiting. When Obama loses this thing he will say “See! look what they did to you during this campaign…you dumb blacks actually thought this white man would see you as an equal, as human?” He will then lift up this cereal box…and the masses will hang their heads in shame, as he beats them mercilessly for allowing themslelves to be treated as a savage! With a tear drop rolling down his face…he will then say..”I have always loved you and supported you, even when you rejected me;…I told you what would happen, and I kept quiet during this process, now come on home where you know we’ve your best interest at heart.”

    And the winner is Farrakhan and Modern Day Klan type organizations! Americans are truly dense!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  35. Greg says:

    No, actually the Obama waffles is racist and the satire you show about republicans is not because it doesn’t have to do with race. How simple is that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. rodney dill says:

    The pictures both ways are meant to be incendiary, whether you think they are sexist, racist, or something else. Starting down path of the ‘waffle’ pics are setting a pattern that is, at least, leaning toward racism. This nonsense will not end in any good for anyone.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  37. sam says:

    Well, this is a way Obama could get into McCain’s cabinet — right between Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben.

    (I can’t recall if Redd Foxx or Slappy White originated the line.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. [...] More — including satirical images of Republican leaders — at Outside the Beltway [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. DL says:

    What would the hue and cry from the race guardians be if they changed Aunt Jemima into a white woman with five kids -one with Down’s Syndrome?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. sam says:

    What would the hue and cry from the race guardians be if they changed Aunt Jemima into a white woman with five kids -one with Down’s Syndrome?

    Hey, there’s an idea. But instead of waffles, we could have Palin Cupcakes — So light and full of air, there ain’t no there there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  41. sam says:

    What would the hue and cry from the race guardians be if they changed Aunt Jemima into a white woman with five kids -one with Down’s Syndrome?

    Hey, that’s an idea. Instead of waffles, we could have Palin Cupcakes — So light and full of air, there ain’t no there there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. sam says:

    What would the hue and cry from the race guardians be if they changed Aunt Jemima into a white woman with five kids -one with Down’s Syndrome?

    Hey, that’s an idea. Instead of waffles, we could have Palin Cupcakes — So light and full of air, there ain’t no there there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. Racist. I agree. They were right to remove them. Kevin Keith’s post rocks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. sam says:

    Sorry — damn comment database

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. Michael says:

    You don’t spend much time hanging with the brothers, do you?

    Way to use a stereotype to insinuate that someone else is racist.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. anjin-san says:

    Way to use a stereotype to insinuate that someone else is racist.

    Actually, it’s a line from an Eddie Murphy movie…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. G.A.Phillips says:

    No, I’m operating off the definition of “caricature” that defines “caricature”: an unrealistic exaggeration of features for humorous or critical purposes. Ordinary, realistic photographs aren’t caricatures by definition, because they’re not distortions

    Caricature! A picture or description using gross exaggeration or distortion ,as for humorous effect or in ridicule.2 the act or art of caricaturing.3 a poor imitation. to represent so as to make ridiculous;travesty.

    The Rice images obviously aren’t racist caricatures – two of them are actual photographs, and the middle image doesn’t play on racial stereotypes (it’s just a very weirdly drawn cartoon). Arguably, two of them touch on racial politics, but they are both aimed at Rice’s behavior, not her appearance; if they are offensive, it is in a very different way from the Obama pictures.

    Dude all the Rice caricatures are racist be they done by black or white or by a liberal cartoons of self absorbed moral or ideological superiority, just because they dint fit into your pitifully narrow world view dint mean much to the common sense reality of the many faces of racism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. G.A.Phillips says:

    Actually, it’s a line from an Eddie Murphy movie…

    it’s a good line and a good movie, and I for one spend lots a time hanging out with the brothers, my nick name is “crazy white boy” but it’s all good.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. Michael says:

    Actually, it’s a line from an Eddie Murphy movie…

    I stand corrected, they’d never allow a stereotype in an Eddie Murphy movie.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. rodney dill says:

    I stand corrected, they’d never allow a stereotype in an Eddie Murphy movie.

    No unless it was REALLY funny.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. anjin-san says:

    “We’re not gonna fall for the banana in the tailpipe”

    Well, McCain is slightly ahead at the moment, so maybe we are…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  52. Jason says:

    For Kevin T. Keith:

    You are either stupid or blind, you can’t possibly expect anyone to take you serious. The one on the right talks about her subservience to “whitey”. Dude I’m sorry but you are a !@#$% Obamatard. Don’t waste anyone’s time anymore with your nonsense. Jeez

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  53. Father Branigan says:

    Black people cannot be parodied. Sorry, that’s the rules.

    Islam cannot be parodied or even mildly offended, that’s just the rules (and very few people would even try, because they are afraid of being called insensitive and/or having their head chopped off).

    However, if you want to have a “Darwin”-ized Jesus Fish on your car, that’s fine. This is very popular with college students (those clever rebels!) Imagine if people drove around with symbols on their cars that belittled Islam. The driver would be called a racist, rather than an “intellectual”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. Michael says:

    How exactly does a fish with legs belittle Christianity?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  55. Father Branigan says:

    It bastardizes a religious symbol. Have you seen the one with the Darwin fish eating the regular fish? Can you imagine an Islamic crescent in place of the fish?

    Have you watched modern television lately? It’s no secret that Christianity is clearly a fair target, and noone calls it intolerance or hate.

    Regardless of your politics, surely you can see the hypocrisy from the “peace and tolerance” crowd. The fact is that they are only “tolerant” of groups whom they are afraid of.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. anjin-san says:

    It bastardizes a religious symbol

    What does putting it on your car do? My thought is that Jesus belongs in our hearts and minds, not on our bumpers…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. Father Branigan says:

    Displaying the fish is an original thought. Displaying it as changed (e.g. the legs) or along with something else (e.g. it being consumed by something else) is what makes it a mockery, and thus differentiates it as being intolerant.

    I think you know the difference.

    And yes, his lessons and ideals belong in our hearts and minds, but no reasonable person would suggest that this precludes displaying a religious symbol on your own personal property to express your belief. Everyone should be tolerant of that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  58. Father Branigan says:

    By the way, I don’t care if people display intolerance. That was really my point in the first place.

    I am not religious and I have personally been bastardizing Catholicism by using the screen name “Father Branigan” despite not being a priest.

    My point is that the Columbia University types who are screaming “Racism” every chance they get are not applying their standards evenly.

    Why don’t they call Muslims “Idiots” because they believe that God created the earth? This would never happen, because Christians are easy targets that everyone can belittle without any retribution.

    Why didn’t they call it racism or religious intolerance when Saddam Hussein and his Sunni counterparts systematically devastated the Shiite population? It’s because they only care to challenge the easy targets.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  59. Father Branigan says:

    Notice how the Women’s Studies departments are not marching over to the Arab Studies department in utter contempt, demanding a conversation on how women are treated in Arab countries.

    But they are more than willing to stand up and shout against the evil tyrant known as Sarah Palin of Alaska, USA.

    Bravo, peace and tolerance crowd. Bravo. And way to take a stand.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  60. [...] James, when a bunch of black people tell you something about black people is racist, it’s most likely racist. [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  61. nick lang says:

    I do understand the “satire”, that of Obama waffling, which is totally untrue. But, I think the depiction of him wearing a turban is a really bad move.
    I understand the slimeballs making fun of Obama’s policies, but he isn’t muslim. Even if he was, it’s a low blow to bring that into their satire; they probably know nothing about islam.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  62. G.A.Phillips says:

    What does putting it on your car do? My thought is that Jesus belongs in our hearts and minds, not on our bumpers…

    Come on anjin read what you just said and then read what Jesus said, please, and learn what your talking about.

    here is a hint, it has nothing to do with your indoctrinated world view of a made up doctrine of a constitutional separation of Church and state and everything to do with that he told his believers to take his good news to every creature in every corner of the world.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. sam says:

    then read what Jesus said

    As a strict constructionist of the New Testament, I can’t find the words “bumper” or “bumper sticker” anywhere in the text.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  64. Bithead says:

    Is it possible to caricature a black man without being accused of “racial stereotype”?

    Why, sure. If the black man in question is a conservative. Ask Clarence Thomas. Shelby Steele. Or if you’d like to include women, Condi Rice.

    Recently, we’ve been witness to he foaming left telling us that Sarah Palin is not a real woman. This despite her giving birth to five kids. What’s really going on there, of course is as I said recently at my own place… she’s gotten to where she is now on her own, showing clearly that the femist adherence to leftis/marxist ideology is so much stable carpeting. She therefore cannot be considered ‘real’.

    These same foamers, similarly do not picture such people of color who happen to be conservative as ‘real blacks’ as we see in the examples I cite.

    These two situations both run dangerously close to, and I think, are of a peice with Engles misguided perception of a ‘False consciousness’, where only those who hold to a particular ideology can be thought of as being ‘real people’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  65. G.A.Phillips says:

    As a strict constructionist of the New Testament, I can’t find the words “bumper” or “bumper sticker” anywhere in the text.

    Maybe you should spend a little time as a community organizer then, maybe you will have the right skills to understand words and their meanings and their intent, and maybe even one day be president.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  66. rodney dill says:

    Jib-Jab already did a pretty fair parody of the candidates, including Obama, without getting into any of the ‘racism’ murky waters.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  67. Michael says:

    It bastardizes a religious symbol.

    The original darwin fish was more a defensive protest against the Christian community’s attack on evolution science.

    Have you seen the one with the Darwin fish eating the regular fish?

    Yes, and I don’t like it either. Not only is it offensive, but it gives the misleading impression that evolution is replacing, or even meant to replace, Christianity.

    Why don’t they call Muslims “Idiots” because they believe that God created the earth?

    For the same reason they don’t call Christians idiots for believing that God created the earth. However, if somebody decides to reject direct physical evidence because it conflicts with the way they imagine that God created the earth, then they are idiots, and I’ve seen people say that to Muslims too.

    Christians are easy targets that everyone can belittle without any retribution.

    That’s the price you pay for being on top.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  68. Bithead says:

    For the same reason they don’t call Christians idiots for believing that God created the earth

    Oh. Really?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  69. Bithead says:

    said it wasn’t a racist caricature. It can’t be – it’s an actual photograph (somewhat doctored, but not to change her facial appearance).

    Altered? How? Perhaps to accentuate stereotypical features, perhaps?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  70. Bithead says:

    What does putting it on your car do? My thought is that Jesus belongs in our hearts and minds, not on our bumpers…

    Xref the word “Witness”, Anjin.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  71. Michael says:

    Oh. Really?

    Yes, Really.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  72. rodney dill says:

    I for one am looking forward to the introduction of — Moose Piss Pale-in Ale

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  73. Michael says:

    I for one am looking forward to the introduction of — Moose Piss Pale-in Ale

    Come on, Rodnet, that’s all you’ve got?

    How about a “Faked Alaska”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  74. Michael says:

    Sorry for the misspelling, Rodney.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  75. rodney dill says:

    Maybe McCanned Bologne.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  76. G.A.Phillips says:

    if somebody decides to reject direct physical evidence because it conflicts with the way they imagine that God created the earth,

    Imagine there is no liberals making up hist-a-ory… were slimy little see monkeys turn into donk-a-ies….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  77. G.A.Phillips says:

    sorry for not being able spell everyone, but if your as smart as you all think you are should be able to figure it out, then again maybe not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  78. Bithead says:

    No, Micheal, your statement was all-inclusive.
    I’m willing to entertain modifications of your argument, but face it; as stated, it’s been disproven.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  79. Steve Verdon says:

    I said it wasn’t a racist caricature.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you an asshat.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  80. Michael says:

    Maybe McCanned Bologne.

    Hmm, I like that direction, Sarah Palin and McCain: S.P.a.M.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  81. Michael says:

    No, Micheal, your statement was all-inclusive.

    In what possible way could you take my statement, that “Christians are not called idiots because they believe God created the earth”, to include calling Christians idiots based on any other belief?

    Maybe we’re just using different definitions again? By “creationist” I mean somebody who believes that God created the world in a way that differs from the narrative we see in physical evidence. This covers young-earth creationists and anti-evolution advocates, basically those that reject fundamentals of science because it doesn’t support their preferred narrative. Note that this doesn’t cover all Christians, or even most Christians.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  82. Bithead says:

    In what possible way could you take my statement, that “Christians are not called idiots because they believe God created the earth”, to include calling Christians idiots based on any other belief?

    Not the point. I linked a search showing several examples of Christians being called idiots because they believe God created the earth, thus poking a rather large hole in your statement.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  83. Michael says:

    Not the point. I linked a search showing several examples of Christians being called idiots because they believe God created the earth, thus poking a rather large hole in your statement.

    No, you linked a search showing creationists being called idiots. In fact, your search parameters didn’t contain the word “christian” at all.

    Not everybody that believes that God created the earth is a creationist.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  84. G.A.Phillips says:

    Not everybody that believes that God created the earth is a creationist.

    No only the people who believe he created it the way he said he did.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  85. Michael says:

    No only the people who believe he created it the way he said he did.

    Even those people can’t agree on how exactly he said he did it, or even what he meant by what he said.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  86. G.A.Phillips says:

    This might help with both of these argument if you have an open enough mind to read it, and sorry I don’t know how to give a link, missing or otherwise. Hope I dint Donkey it up to bad.

    http://store.nwcreation.net/dapl.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  87. Michael says:

    This might help with both of these argument if you have an open enough mind to read it,

    How will a criticism of the impacts of evolution theory on social behavior in any way contribute to the arguments about what God said and meant in Genesis?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  88. G.A.Phillips says:

    Even those people can’t agree on how exactly he said he did it, or even what he meant by what he said.

    Who keeps telling you this stuff?

    How will a criticism of the impacts of evolution theory on social behavior in any way contribute to the arguments about what God said and meant in Genesis?

    well you could try reading it, and putting 2+2 together, but here is some more help for you M.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  89. Michael says:

    Who keeps telling you this stuff?

    Why, Christians, of course.

    well you could try reading it, and putting 2+2 together, but here is some more help for you M.

    Again, why would I read a book who’s summary shows has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation at hand?

    Oh, and not all Christians agree with the AIG website. Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Many Christians (I would hazard to say “most”, but I don’t have statistics) have no problem reconciling their faith with the facts of science.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  90. anjin-san says:

    Xref the word “Witness”, Anjin

    The entire cosmos give witness to the greatness of God, I hardly think a cheap hunk of tin adds anything…

    Xref the word “vainglory” bit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  91. G.A.Phillips says:

    Why, Christians, of course.

    EERRRnt wrong answer.

    Again, why would I read a book who’s summary shows has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation at hand?

    Blah I give up don’t read it.

    Oh, and not all Christians agree with the AIG website.

    never said they did their are other good teachers out there.

    Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

    Then their not Christians.

    (I would hazard to say “most”, but I don’t have statistics) have no problem reconciling their faith with the facts of science.

    Ya their called creationists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  92. Floyd says:

    Golly,Golly, This one struck a nerve![lol]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  93. Michael says:

    EERRRnt wrong answer.

    Not for you to decide.

    don’t read it.

    Hey, we can agree to something. That’s nice.

    never said they did their are other good teachers out there.

    Not all Christians believe in what AIG is trying to tell them to believe. If you have “other teachers” who teach something different, then I’m interested.

    Then their not Christians.

    Again, not for you to decide.

    Ya their called creationists.

    I have yet to meet a creationist who did not reject basic facts of science, and I suspect I never will.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  94. G.A.Phillips says:

    Not for you to decide.

    nope for God to decide just going on what he says about the subject.

    Again, not for you to decide.

    nope just going with what God says on the subject.

    I have yet to meet a creationist who did not reject basic facts of science, and I suspect I never will.

    Creationist came up with the basic facts of science you knuckle head, evolutionist have perverted it with flights of Fantasy, once again you have been taught a fools history and believe it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  95. Bithead says:

    Whatever happened to the reasoned deabater, Michael? Does it have anything to do with that bit of foam under your lip?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  96. Michael says:

    Whatever happened to the reasoned deabater, Michael?

    Where am I being unreasonable, Bithead?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  97. Bithead says:

    For one thing, it doesn’t strike me as reasonable to assume that those who beleive the earth and he heavens were created by God, are a mere subset of Christianity. Rather, the reverse. Yet you spend a goodly chucnk of this thred trying t seperate the two in order to bolster your position.

    This, of course, aside from the idea that what we have in physical evidence doesn’t in the least begin to fully explain our existance.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  98. Michael says:

    For one thing, it doesn’t strike me as reasonable to assume that those who beleive the earth and he heavens were created by God, are a mere subset of Christianity. Rather, the reverse. Yet you spend a goodly chucnk of this thred trying t seperate the two in order to bolster your position.

    It seems I just wasn’t making my position sufficiently clear.

    People who believe that God created everything make up the bulk of Christianity (I hesitate to say all, because there may be some number of christians who don’t). People that believe God did it all in 6×24 hours, somewhere around 6000 years ago, or without using the physical narrative we have evidence of, make up a subset of Christianity.

    This subset are regularly called idiots because of that belief, but Christians who don’t fall into this category are less often called idiots for their beliefs.

    This, of course, aside from the idea that what we have in physical evidence doesn’t in the least begin to fully explain our existance.

    It begins to explain it just fine, but I will agree that it does not fully explain it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  99. grendelkhan says:

    Father Branigan: Why don’t they call Muslims “Idiots” because they believe that God created the earth? This would never happen, because Christians are easy targets that everyone can belittle without any retribution.

    No, that’s not why. It’s because there’s something grotesque about mocking those with less power. Muslims are a minority here, and a particularly distrusted one. What kind of heartless jerkass would make them a target for ridicule, if not a bigot?

    As someone much more eloquent than me said:

    Comedy possesses a very strong anti-establishment tradition of mocking those perceived to be in power. There’s something unseemly to most people, for instance, in mocking the poor simply because they’re poor. In comedy, women are more likely to triumph over men, children over adults, employees over bosses, mice over cats, and so on. There’s a long tradition in many cultures for some sort of “lord of misrule” that allows for the release of social tensions. In contrast, the minstrel performer reverses this comedic tradition and mocks those not in power.

    Bithead: Why, sure. If the black man in question is a conservative. Ask Clarence Thomas. Shelby Steele. Or if you’d like to include women, Condi Rice.

    Recently, we’ve been witness to he foaming left telling us that Sarah Palin is not a real woman. This despite her giving birth to five kids. What’s really going on there, of course is as I said recently at my own place… she’s gotten to where she is now on her own, showing clearly that the femist adherence to leftis/marxist ideology is so much stable carpeting. She therefore cannot be considered ‘real’.

    While it is telling that you think giving birth to five kids is required for “real” womanhood, I’m a bit fuzzy on who exactly was complaining that Sarah Palin isn’t a “real woman”. She backs policies which are harmful to women, which is a good argument for women not to vote for her, but that’s far more to do with her actual politics than her gender.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  100. [...] Source [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  101. GaryinFla says:

    I’m glad that a friend showed me a campaign souvenir that he received that he said was being produced for both sides without abusing the other. He told me that their websites are mccaindotcom and obamadotcom. I decided to buy one of each because I felt that both are attractive souvenirs and wanted something political that wasn’t a waste of my hard earned money. They are definitely pretty unique (and cool at that). That is the kind of political merchandise that we should be supporting, no matter which side we are on. Hopefully, these will have some value in the future, unlike the garbage that some are trying to sell .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  102. GaryinFla says:

    sorry everyone, the addresses are obamasouvenirdotcom and mccainsouvenirdotcom

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0