You gotta hand it to those teabaggers… they certainly know how to raise the level of political discourse:
Criticism has arisen over a float in the annual Naches Sportsman’s Days parade that some are calling offensive and in bad taste.
Sponsored by a local group that’s part of the tea party movement, the float resembled an oversized red wagon. Riding on it was a man wearing a President Obama mask, cracking a whip over a youth pulling the wagon.
Several people on the float carried signs critical of federal spending, Wall Street bailouts, tax increases and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, who is locked in a re-election battle with Republican Dino Rossi.
Well, at least this float was in better taste than the group’s original idea, which featured Obama praying to Mecca while raping a white woman.
James Parks, president of the Yakima County NAACP chapter, called the float “sad” but said he didn’t consider the intent to be racist.
“A lot of people will see it in different ways. I don’t see it as being racist.
really? i think he’s got some reading to do.
Gotta love the old folks on Mediacare and SSI complaining about government healthcare.
Medicare, mediacare, whatever…
(Sarcasm)It’s not racist, cause if you reversed it, it wouldn’t cause any controversy
Nobody could possibly find anything wrong with that.(/Sarcasm)
Wearing an Obama mask is different than wearing blackface.
4 BJ
And who proposed anything like that?
So the difference REALLY is that Goldy’s example is real and yours is not.
First speaker: “…so then I thought, “Hmmm, why not have him RAPING the white woman?”
Second speaker: “BRILLIANT! We’re running with that. We’ll wheel it in right after the Koran burning!”
Wow. That is one of the most racially charged Tea Bag display I’ve seen. Wow.
That would cause a riot in Ballard, let alone the Rainier Valley. Things really are different on the east side.
And yes, I love all the old people on Medicare and Social Security in the wagon…
Wearing an Obama mask is different than wearing blackface.
In what sort of revisionist history mindscape is this true?
Look at a google map of Naches. I wonder how green it would be without all that big government irrigation subsidized by taxpayers.
9. spyder
I think what Emily was trying to point out is the difference between the post’s title and its content.
But on your topic: IN general, with no referece to this post, I would guess that blackface is more offensive to a much larger swath of people than an Obama mask. I think even in teh case of which white-boy whipping image would be more offensive, blackface would be more offensicve because it would essentially be portraying blacks in general rather than Obama in particular as whip-wielding oppressors of whites and thieves of their taxes. I didn’t see it in this story, but in the original piece I read about this the white boy was to be wearing a sign saying “future taxpayer.”
Yet, that’s really what the Obama image means also. The message is “They’re going to take your money and give it to lazy, shiftless blacks!”
“Future tax Payer” link… http://www.kxly.com/news/24996502/detail.html
Conservatives under Reagan and Bush thrust public debt into the stratosphere, and now they’re complaining about Obama borrowing a bit more to pull us up from the economic abyss that conservatives plunged us into? Conservatives must love depressions.
Conservatives love, above all, human suffering.
I say some really mean things about conservatives. The problem I see with it is, they’ve got it coming.
@13
and what do you consider “a bit more”???
is a trillion dollars “a bit more”?
nice try goebbels…
While you’re pondering that image, Roger, here’s something even better. Via Wonkette, it’s Reagan in blackface.
Oh wait. Silly me. That’s you in blackface.
Here’s Reagan. Or something.
The mask actually looks a good bit darker than anything I have seen in a real picture of Obama. That would be an interesting comparison — the darkness of Obama masks versus the actual Obama.
Mask makers are perhaps not as sensitive to this issue, since most masks are of white people, and white people tend to have a much greater variation in skin color over time (such as tanning exposure). And it isn’t viewed as insulting to portray a white person with a suntan.
But I cannot imagine Obama ever being as dark as the mask, even if he went to the tanning booth every day. The deep black color of the mask seems to be deliberate …
so if I put on a Bruce Lee mask for halloween, that now makes me racist?
strange how goldy keeps focusing on republicans and tea party….is that because there is nothing good to write about when it comes to the democrats?
hmm….hows that economic recovery treatin’ ya?
Oh no. Not again. It’s Time‘s O.J. Simpson one more time.
Wait a sec, Obama rarely wears a tie!
re 16: The biggest thing that Obama did to increase the national debt was to include the money that Bush was keeping off budget — i.e., the undeclared war in Iraq.
Then again, you already knew that.
The ‘baggers aren’t against SS and Medicare: They are against what they perceive (have been TAUGHT to perceive by manipulators like yourself)the undeserving and lazy brown skinned people getting it.
They’d rather do without it themselves than allow that imagined wrong to occur.
Candidate Zeiger would consider you as less than a Webelo.
@22
Yes, I did already know that? and so what? Bush stunk when it came to the national debt…..so that makes what obama is doing OK?
oh, and you mean that same undeclared war that both D’s and R’s approved…you mean that one?
ohhhhhh, now I am a “manipulator” who tricks other people…wow, that sure sounds like a promotion! Do I get a pay raise with that title too?
I dont give 3 fucks about Zeiger – you must have me confused with someone else…but then again, you do seem awfully confused overall.
16. Tony Rockahara
Well, Bush handed over a net $1.3 trillion structural deficit to Obama in the FY 2009 budget. And now it looks like the FY 2010 budget deficit will be…$1.3 trillion. So while the deficit has not been reduced during the past year, due almnost entirely to the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and ASfghanistan, it has not been increased either. Except that right now we are not hemorhhaging the 600K jobs a month that Bush left us losing, and the GDP has been growing every quarter since since Q3 2009.
So with that kind of economic improvement and no worsening of the deficit, I’d say this team has done pretty well so far.
Teabaggers only pretend to be against deficit spending. They’re REPUBLICANS!
Meanwhile, this just in from San Francisco, 19 April 1906 (via Rob Long):
From the New York Times, 18 August 1969:
Meanwhile, in other news, Semitic-centric YLB beats down Jonah Goldberg for perhaps the 400th time. Where’s the outrage from B’nai B’rith?
@16
What was that about Obama’s deficit? Hmmm FY 2009 passed and enacted under Bush. FY 2010, AKA the first full year of Obamanomics. Bad news for conservative memes, the deficit is DROPPING! (Look it up Puddy, or whatever you’re calling yourself today. It’s on Bloomberg, hardly a bastion of “liberal” bias.)
Conservative meme, dead. Start shifting the focus to the drop caused by rising tax revenue and deficits aren’t important. That’s all the Rs have to fall back on. Taxes are killing the economy and deficits don’t matter. (“What the What?” say the American public. “But you said the deficit was killing the economy since Obama’s innauguration. We think you Rs don’t know shit about economics.”)
Deficit? What deficit?
Republicans and their teabagger sock puppets like to bleat that Obama policies have run our deficit sky-high. Let’s look at that for a minute.
– The Affordable Care Act pays for itself (and lowers the deficit over the next 20 years by more than a trillion dollars)
– The same goes for Wall Street reform, which doesn’t add to the deficit at all.
– Rescuing the automotive industry, let’s agree, wasn’t cheap, but manufacturers are paying back the money, and the Obama policy has been an unqualified success that made American automobile industry profitable again.
So where’s that pesky deficit coming from? Well, as I said the 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. I link here to a chart from the decidedly NON-Democratic Cato Institute that shows the Bush fiscal years in green. We can see that Obama is right in claiming that he inherited a mess. However, this administration does actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit because in 2009 they pushed through both the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (passed with bipartisan support) and the Recovery Act, so that FY2009 spending increased somewhat (CBO says $134 billion in 2009).
But the bulk of our baseline deficit is from Bush and Bush-era policies that we have yet to change (filibuster anyone?). The New York Times crunched the numbers. The causes, in descending order, are the downturn in the economy (37 percent of the change), the policies passed by George W. Bush (33 percent), the extension of policies passed by George W. Bush (20 percent), the stimulus bill (7 percent), and the rest of Barack Obama’s agenda (3 percent). Here it is in graph form.
Meanwhile, this just in from TNR’s TRB:
A-MEN!! That and, you know, those certain types of people who won’t let Rev. Wright get down with Obama.
And about that deficit, wingers, that’s your tarbaby now.
Leave it to old bad dad to predicate a vapid argument on data from the dead past. His graph-form link is only 15 months past its pull date, doubtless of interest to antiquarians but of little value in the here and now.
Note that even then, in the drooling infancy of Obama’s presidency, one graph-form truth teller nailed the graph, the data, and daddy’s dishonest point:
To repeat, that was from the 5th month of an Obama presidency that had already gone on too long. Now, way up here is the dying days of 2010, the inconvenient truth enunciated by the truth teller of 2009 is even stronger.
In 2009 you Obamunists demanded stimulus to keep unemployment below 8%. You got Democrat stimulus and a trillion dollars of Democrat deficit. Now in 2010 you’ve got trillions of dollars of Democrat debt and official unemployment of almost 10%, real unemployment of almost 20%.
And you’ve Democrat Daddy, still trying to fool you after all these years.
here in the dying days
you’ve got Democrat Daddy
What is this fool Daddy Love on? Why are 279 DUMMOCRAPTS not running on this OdumbaCare bill this fall Daddy Love? Why are you such a moron Daddy Love?
Somehow the truth smack Daddy Love against his “head”.
“When asked by a reporter about bending the health care cost curve, President Obama said this about ObamaCare: “That’s going to increase our costs. We knew that.”” Daddy Love didn’t know this preznit Odumba. Daddy Love kinda stupid like this ALL THE TIME preznit Odumba.
“In February, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projected that overall national health spending would increase an average of 6.1% a year over the next decade. ” Daddy Love missed this. Puddy gave it to him. Daddy Love ignored it.
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-.....uld-go-up/ – Daddy Love didn’t know preznit Odumba. Maybe he’s not paying attention. Par for the course.
http://www.youtube.com/v/qxl9e.....8;hl=en_US – Daddy Love on remembered this preznit Odumba
Butt butt butt Daddy Love ignored this fact when Puddy placed it here. You can ask ylb to check the “database”!
re 23: Yes — that’s the one.
“The Democrats did it too” is a worthy argument for a third grader or a Republican.
re 32: The fact that you do not react to or speak against this obvious racism is a real conundrum.
‘baggers can make sport of your race in blackface in a public parade and you say nothing. If someone says that makes you an Uncle Tom, then you start whining about racism.
What’s wrong with you?
A mask of Obama is not inherently racist. An artificially dark mask of Obama (as this one clearly is), is absolutely racist.
@32
Puddy hasn’t learned anything from Brietbart and selective editing. Here’s what follows the truncated quote you like Pudwacker…”We didn’t think we would cover 30 million people for free. But the long term trend in terms of how much the average family will be paying for health insurance is going to be improved as a consequence of (the health care bill.)”
Macro vs. Micro, oh Puddy, failer of econ 101. If you invest heavily in material that will increase costs over the first few years of a program and then flatten and then realize savings over a long-term, that’s generally a good thing.”
Simple analogy you might be able to follow. KIRO news could rent a satellite truck from a private company for $1000/day. OR Kiro could buy a Digital Wolf Coach Satellite Uplink Truck for 1/2 million with all the bells and whistles. Considering KIRO uses a truck every day, the Puddy (and Republican) theory is that they should not buy a truck and continue to rent. Yup, spending a half million in the first year is a HUGE increase in KIROs budget. But after a little over a year at the daily rate, KIRO owns the truck for what they would have spent and now the daily cost is ZERO.
Silly Puddy, economics are for grown-ups. As are reading an entire press conference answer instead of the GOP/Brietbart edited snippet.
I thought about bashing puddy for being a moron…
But I then I remembered that I got booted off of this board for complaining about the sorry state of seattle public schools…admittedly that was several years ago…
anyway, I think you can judge a blog by the quality of it’s commenters – doesn’t say much good for this site… the lefties are mostly loony, and the righties are a veritable nightmare of human stupidity…
that’s why I hardly visit anymore… I was just suprised to see you linked from C%L
I think I’m gonna go back to balloon juice now… thanks for playing..