It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Democrats Using Racist Stereotypes Against Condoleezza Rice?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Wow after reading four pages of this:

What I am hearing from alot of people is this: Yes she is black, but she is rich hence she's not really black. Or she is black, but conservative, so shes not really black. People in the states seem to have a fundemental issue with conservative minorites. Its as if "how dare they not embrace the Democratic party"

And TWITCHY

Willy Brown has stated himself that the report you quoted was bogus at a press conference in SF a while back. Don't have a link, but my word is far surperior than the "sources" you posted. Christ dude how about a bonefide member of the press once and a while. Alot of thos are no better than a poorly written blog




posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by moxyone
well, that would rule you out, mulder.



And why would that rule me out moxyone?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
First of all I read Ms. Rice biography book a long time ago. Second I suggest your read this link about Ms.Rices views on foreign policies and make your own conclusion is she have the right state of mind to handle the office she is in.


My reply before was in reference to your


I think a man would have been a better choice


Instead of man, maybe "person" would have been a better choice? See where I'm getting at?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Bottom line on this subject is that the Democrats will critisize and discriminate against minorities that don't come with the NAACP's stamp of approval.


And Republicans will feign mock indignation over cartoons while screwing over minorities with their policies.


If your going to get worked up over these cartoons, like the Supreme Mah-Ha-Rushie (feigned) did. Let me remind you, THEY ARE CARTOONS.

As for the first cartoon, all it points out is that Rice is a parrot for Bush, a pet. Have you watched her speak on TV?

The second one again points at the pet idea, "Brown Sugar" sounds like a pet name. Like you may call your significant other a pet name.

The third one I don't exactly follow, is it suppose to be about the WMD canisters that were never found? Either way, cartoonist always hack at both sides, and exaggerate characteristics. Like Bush as a dumb hick, and Clinton as a fat WASP womanizer from the south.

PS. What a shock that this topic crys like a parrot for Limbaugh.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lecky
[

I think a man would have been a better choice


Instead of man, maybe "person" would have been a better choice? See where I'm getting at?


I appologized for that you are right I should have said person. I see what you mean now, I will fix it.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
LOL...it figures good old Rush Limbaugh was ranting on his show about this today, (i was flipping stations, and couldnt help listening for 30 seconds) so now, we have the ORIGINAL thread here on ATS.

Bush picked condozeeela (correct spelling) because she's MORE evil, more right winged than he is, and he knows she will back him up with every new war endeavour he could possibly drum up. He's no fool. He had his problems with Powell, he wants only his cult members at his side.

He didnt pick her because she's black. Pleazzzzze....Right. keep telling yourselves that.
He picked her because God told her to. The same God that tells him to start the wars.


He's a hero because he's choosing blacks. Dont worry about the crimes comitted or about to comit, just praise him for desire to hire blacks. right.

Before anyone gets in a snit, I dont have any problem whatsoever with blacks. A good black person is as good as a good white person.

Evil is disguised in all colors, shapes and sizes.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Wow after reading four pages of this:

What I am hearing from alot of people is this: Yes she is black, but she is rich hence she's not really black. Or she is black, but conservative, so shes not really black. People in the states seem to have a fundemental issue with conservative minorites. Its as if "how dare they not embrace the Democratic party"



After reading all four pages that's all you got? How about the posts where Condi is acknowledged as incompetent without referring to her gender/race?

How about the posts proving that those caricatures/cartoons are indeed NOT racist?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
"The above political cartoon was drawn by Pat Oliphant a syndicated political cartoonist

Notice the big lips, buck teeth and the hair. Also notice that instead of applauding the first black women to hold the position of Secretary of State Oliphant relegates her to a parrot. Is this cartoon racist? In my opinion it is."


I dont think the cartoon is racist.Condi DOES have big lips,buck teeth and funky hair,and thats not racist,thats fact.look at her.Do we have to applaud her just because she is the first black person to be SoS,thats racist.people criticise her beacuse of her actions,race has never played a part,as much as my republican friends would like it to.This seems like a cheap soap box to stand on and berate people who dont like the Bush regime.in other words SPIN



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
"PS. What a shock that this topic crys like a parrot for Limbaugh"

Was this on limbaughs ENTERTAINMENT show today,if i had known that i wouldnt have even responded.I thought the author of the thread maybe had a legitimate concern that condi was being unfairly judged based on race.didnt realize this was a "echo chamber" thread.sick



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Here's another excerpt from this very interesting (pre-Bush presidency) article I happened upon:



Hiding behind nice-sounding labels and linguistic equivocations, some of these ugly Nazi ideaswith a few twists-- are rearing their heads yet again in the Conservative Right across the United States. To help these hateful ideas catch hold, the Conservative Right uses virtuous labels in political "bait and switch" tactics. In one hand, they offer the Public an idea labeled Good and Kind. When the Public reaches for that idea, it turns out sometimes too late for the Public to reject--to be something Ugly, Brutal, and Cruel.


One such label is "Compassionate Conservatism." In one hand, the Public at large is handed an idea of racial and ethnic "inclusiveness" and help for "those who really need it." It is an idea that even gets championed by token African American and Hispanic marionettes who dance to the tune of Conservative Right Big Money. (22)


In reality, "Compassionate Conservatism" is George W. and Big Money's Conservative Right ideological program of brutal and cruel war against the poor, children, women, and non-white minorities. It is not so well hidden under various rhetorical and linguistic masks intended to cover the harsh brutality of its effects on its targets. In reality, it is a program of hateful brutality intended to diminish the lives or "phase out" of existence those most in need. It is a program intended to eliminate federal or state help to the poor and others most in need of food, health care, decent housing, clean air and water, and civil and criminal due process. It is a program of brutality against the most defenseless in our society.(23)


"Compassionate Conservatism," its progenitors say, is "Tough Love." But what these well-fed, well-kept and pseudo-intellectuals from Texas are calling "Tough Love" has left a large percentage of the poorest children in Texas hungry. Most of those children, of course, are African American and Hispanic. What they call "love" has left far too many Texas children with little or no medical care while also living in severely impoverished conditions. What these ideologues call "love" leaves children not only without enough to eat, without sufficient healthcare, it also leaves them without even minimal protections for their welfare and safety under the law, and without adequate education. What these well-fed and well-kept theorists call "love" builds more prisons than schools every year to house juveniles, alongside those whose miserable lives have led either by design or by accident to the ravages of crime. What these sophisticates call "love" is a program of vicious cruelty that arrogantly engages in the official machinery of death. It engages that official machinery even for those not old enough to vote when they commit crimes for which they are imprisoned. It is a program that denies even the semblance of justice to the most poor, mentally deficient and diseased. Moreover, what these "compassionate conservatives" call "love" is a program that has the effect of forcing pregnancy on economically disadvantaged pre-teen girls while it denies them sufficient legal and medical means to protect or care for themselves.



www.feminista.com...



EDIT: Tag-team point deductions from biased mods.

[edit on 17-11-2004 by 27jd]



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samhain
"PS. What a shock that this topic crys like a parrot for Limbaugh"

Was this on limbaughs ENTERTAINMENT show today,if i had known that i wouldnt have even responded.I thought the author of the thread maybe had a legitimate concern that condi was being unfairly judged based on race.didnt realize this was a "echo chamber" thread.sick
It most certainly comes straight from Rushbos's mouth.

How else would you caricature her? A caricature is an exageration of features.
duh



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Lecky
[

I think a man would have been a better choice


Instead of man, maybe "person" would have been a better choice? See where I'm getting at?


I appologized for that you are right I should have said person. I see what you mean now, I will fix it.


As the word "man" is actually neutral and gives no indication to gender in this usage, you would do just as well to say "man". Unless, that is, the use of the word "man" offends you. In that case, y'all might be suffering from one of those numerous phobias the liberals have inflicted upon some of you.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal

news.yahoo.com.../uclickcomics/cx_po_uc/latest

The above political cartoon was drawn by Pat Oliphant a syndicated political cartoonist

Notice the big lips, buck teeth and the hair. Also notice that instead of applauding the first black women to hold the position of Secretary of State Oliphant relegates her to a parrot. Is this cartoon racist? In my opinion it is.


know anything about satire and caricatures? All features are exagerated- as they were with Kerry, the long jaw...as they are with Bush, the Alfred E. Newman looks, big ears.....as they were with anyone else ever caricatured for print.
What the hell is your problem with this? Rush Limbaugh got to you today?
The least you could do was say this thread would be a continuation of that show, instead of passing it off as your own ideas.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I think the first two cartoons aren't racist & the third is pretty offensive.

I also think that the inability to see two sides to every story (blindly towing your party line) is a failing. Life is complicated. I don't believe that Rice is 100% incompetant, terrible, etc. as people on this board are portraying her. I don't really trust or like Hillary Clinton but I can admit that she has done good things & is a capable politician. I think the way Janet Reno handled the Waco affair was beyond the pale of despicable & self-serving but I can also bring myself to admit that she was effective in other ways. My memory is poor, have Democrats/liberals ever slammed these two women the way Rice is getting slammed? Or is it all about whose side she's on?

And yeah, I think a lot of it has to do with race. I have consistently seen Democrat/liberal politicans & pundits in the media classify any African-American who is Republican as an "Uncle Tom." I think the fact that she's a woman & African American is two strikes against her. I really enjoy reading posts where her privleged background is trotted out in such a way as to say: "well, she's not a *typical* black.

Here's a thought: maybe African-Americans don't need white Democrats/liberals to help *define* who is a *typical* black or not. And I think they don't need to be criticized by white Dems/Libs if they decide not to follow the *right* party.

And despite the shortcomings of our current president--I have always been impressed by the racial & gender diversity of his cabinet & staff. To suggest that Bush picked all those people not based on their ability but because he wanted a sea of "Uncle Toms" and so forth to yes him to death (or to court the black/hispanic/woman vote) -- I think it's kinda distasteful. It all boils down to -- they're not on the *right* side. Which is *your* side. Right?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I think the cartoons are hilarious. And cartonist has been around for ages making mockery of political figures any way.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
know anything about satire and caricatures? All features are exagerated- as they were with Kerry, the long jaw...as they are with Bush, the Alfred E. Newman looks, big ears.....as they were with anyone else ever caricatured for print.
What the hell is your problem with this? Rush Limbaugh got to you today?
The least you could do was say this thread would be a continuation of that show, instead of passing it off as your own ideas.


dgtempe,

Limbaugh brought it up true, but I brought it up here with my own comments underneath each cartoon. All of the liberals and Democrats in this thread have come to the conclusion they cannot defeat the message so they are attacking the messenger.

How typical



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
At least tell the people where you got your ideas from. Its ATS etiquette.




posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   
HELL NO!


Rice is a war mongor. Shes one of the main reason we're in this pointless war. It has nothing to do with race and I wish people would stop pulling the race card out every time we (liberals) disagree with someone that happens to be a different ethnicity!



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by theshadowknows
HELL NO!


Rice is a war mongor. Shes one of the main reason we're in this pointless war. It has nothing to do with race and I wish people would stop pulling the race card out every time we (liberals) disagree with someone that happens to be a different ethnicity!
This is what they do
best.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

As the word "man" is actually neutral and gives no indication to gender in this usage, you would do just as well to say "man". Unless, that is, the use of the word "man" offends you. In that case, y'all might be suffering from one of those numerous phobias the liberals have inflicted upon some of you.


I'm well aware that the word "man" can be used in a neutral sense, but this thread is all about gender and race (unfortunately), the word "person" would have been a better choice. I honestly thought Marq meant that Condi was a bad choice because of the fact she was a woman, therefore incapable...see how being "PC" is sometimes beneficial to get your point across?

No, I'm not suffering from any "liberal phobia" unless you consider being a woman as one
Ill stop being so "touchy" when the world stops being so sexist.

(And no I don't think Marq is sexist lol, she just made a minor boo boo)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join