To say that the cartoon was racist is to say that all those people who called Bush a chimp were racist. If the target isn’t black, then you aren’t calling a black person a monkey.

You’re arguing from a flawed presumption — that the target of the cartoon was Obama. And no matter how many times it’s proven that it wasn’t, you’re still insisting that it was and therefore racist. Even though Obama wasn’t even a part of the cartoon, EVEN BY DOUBLE-SECRET INSINUATION.

My god, I don’t think I’ve met anyone so clue-pervious.

J.

Here’s the thing, Jay — it’s not your decision to make. After decades of post-Southern Strategy Republicans playing the race card, over and over and over, you might begin to understand why some people (i.e., blacks) are more sensitive about this stuff than you are. You’ve never been the target of any of it!

But as I’ve been mentioning over and over, please explain why the Republican party does so badly with minorities these days (and women, who are actually a slight majority). And your response? “Plantation mentality.”

Yeah, good luck with winning more black votes by basically saying that they’re still acting like slaves.

The cartoon was racist as hell, playing on the long-standing denigration of blacks as being “like monkeys.” It appeared in a well-known conservative organ owned by a well-known conservative billionaire.

But ya know, don’t take my word for it. Just ask some of your African-American friends. You do know what those are, don’t you Jay?

I stand my my assertion (you remember, what I actually said, not what you wished I’d said), Jaim: it was a well-drawn but mediocre cartoon that requires a deliberate misunderstanding to link it to a racist depiction of Obama. The only people who can find a racist tone to it are those who have a stake in finding signs of racism everywhere in the first place.

Such as professional race-baiters like Al Sharpton.

In the meantime, we have our host making clearly race-based attacks on Michael Steele (while I’m looking up “porch monkey,” you go check out “minstrel show” in relation to African-Americans) — but that’s OK, because Oliver is black himself and Steele is a conservative, and that trumps racial identity in the hierarchy. You see, racial attacks are bad, unless the target is a conservative.

It’s not easy, but I am slowly piecing together the liberal hierarchy of offenses and the graduated scale of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. The problem is I keep trying to apply some kind of logic to it, and that never works.

J.

Anyone here can say it wasn’t racist, but I’d imagine many blacks, sickened by the dog-whistle racism of the Republican party (Atwater, Limbaugh, Helms, Coulter, etc.) won’t dismiss something like this so easily.

But rest easy, Jay — this is about the 1,000th time this has happened in the past ten years, so it really is just another drop in the bucket of Republican racism, and why they’ll never get a majority of votes from anyone other than older white males.

But that’s just the surface. The intent of the revisionist has to be taken into account. In this case, it’s an attempt to obscure the fact that the original cartoon was clearly NOT aimed at President Obama, but the authors of the porkfest of a “stimulus” bill — which would be Nancy Pelosi and her cronies in the House.

I would say that, in context, it’s not racist, but another example of attempting to introduce race into an issue where it does not apply. The revisionist who created the altered cartoon is attempting to use racism to make their point, but the point itself is fatally flawed. So it is not an example of racism, but race-baiting — which is in and of itself a form of racism, but not widely recognized as such (I doubt you would agree that it is).

Strowbridge: congratulations! That’s the 193rd time you’ve mentioned “Southern Strategy!” Seven more, and you get a free toaster! (Contatct Media Matters to collect.)

J.

Southern. Strategy.

You don’t get to use racism as a political tool for 40 years and still get to complain when someone calls you racist.

This is not a hard concept to understand.

“…the double standard…”

Again: Southern Strategy. It is not a double standard when the situations are different.

“…the strawman (Michale Steele)…”

Huh?

“…and of course, moving the goalposts when you lose the argument…”

If you don’t think Obama is the face of the Stimulus bill, you are delusional.

‘But, but, but Pelosi wrote the bill!’

Pelosi isn’t the one traveling the country trying to sell it.

Oliver makes up some shit, and then attacks over said made up shit?

Gee, who else do we know who does that?

No one you’d want to be compared to, I suppose, Oliver?

But again, this is just another one of your very few tricks – the hasty generalization (obscure NY Post cartoonist stands for all conservatives), the double standard (but neither the much more familiar Ted Rall nor Ward Churchill stands for all liberals), the strawman (Michale Steele), and of course, moving the goalposts when you lose the argument (but, but, but the cartoon was right next to a picture of Dear Leader!).

You can’t convince me you’re a person of color, Oliver.

You are transparent, and full of crap.

Yes, yes it does. But not in the way you would like.

Face it, you are a fucking racist clown, which is why you vote for a party that feeds on racism.

You are so racist, you can’t even see racism when it is staring you in the face.

Fuck you, Strowbridge. Fuck you with a rusty chainsaw. Repeatedly.

I’d elaborate, but I think that speaks for itself.

And you’re absolutely right, Oliver! I’m certain that when the cartoonist, the infamous what’s-his-name, came up with the cartoon, he arranged for it to be placed not on the same page, but on the facing page the account of Obama signing the bill? What amazing pull old Joe Whoozis has!

And again… the cartoon referred to whoever WROTE the bill. Obama didn’t. He let Nancy Pelosi and her cronies did. And looking at it, I think the guy has a point — a deranged chimp at a typewriter probably WOULD have come up with a less damaging bill.

J.

Perhaps because, genius, President Obama was on the page opposite the cartoon signing the bill?

The page before? The page before the chimp cartoon was a cartoon making fun of Patterson’s reasons for instituting a porn tax in NY. The one before that compared Ruth Madoff to a bank robber. What the hell are you talking about?

Ohhhhh…. wait… you’re talking about the PRINT edition! Sweet Jeebus… what is this? 1974?

I’ve never seen the print edition of the NY Post. I’m willing to bet that most people who have seen this cartoon had no idea it was printed next to a story about the president signing the stimurecovery bill.

There were 63 comments prior to yours Mr. Willis and none of them mentioned the fact it was printed opposite a story about the president signing the bill. The AP story you linked doesn’t quote Sharpton making this connection either. So, basically, unless you’re the type to take offense to any and everything which can be construed as racial, this cartoon is a reference to the face-eating chimp. Not President Obama. Unless you think that the president eats faces and is chimp-like. Personally, I’d have hoped you’d have moved beyond associating the President of the United States with a chimp when Bush left office.

Why does Al Sharpton hate President Obama so much that he immediatly associates a reference to an unsual and current event with the President being a violent chimpanzee who needs to be shot?

But you guys keep going to the well, Duracell. And that water is foul to you.

Rancid, disgusting, stale piss-water- by your own admission. Yet you keep drinking. Nay, guzzling. An almost unquenchable thirst.

Like if you drank enough you would win the contest between good and evil.

It’s kind of bizarre to witness. Amusing though.

NOT funny…I know, but that seems to be the kind of humor that NY Post likes to promote.

This is really outrageous!! What is this, the 18th century…Who are these people?!

I don’t think it is. It is hyperbole, but not sarcasm. You don’t actually belong to the Klan, but you are so amazingly racist, that you no longer recognize real racism. If you did, you would have to admit to yourself that you are a racist, and you refuse to do that.

It’s called judging events based on the past. If the past is different, then we judge present events differently.

Making fun of an Irish man for having a big nose isn’t racist, because there’s no history of anti-Irish racism using big noses.

On the other hand, making fun of a Jewish man for having a big nose…

Got it?

“Any other exceptions to the Constitution I should be aware of?”

Who said anything about the Constitution?

Then you are blind, probably intentionally blind.

I wouldn’t call it “impressed”, Denny. Shocked, dismayed, horrified, bewildered, sickened, and/or nauseated might come closer.