Frankly, My Dear

Wow! What a tours de force. I'm still weeping. Thanks, Kate.

Vit - thanks for getting the thread started off.... well, started off.

Send it to Jesse Jackson & co.

holy mackerel dere sapphire...i'se reGUSTED!

Why send it to Jackson, Dream, or did I miss the part where
he became a master of the cartoon arts, as Tex Avery was?

Uncle O, he gona do it all.

whew. wow. right on. smashing..

Uncle Tom, errrr, Mr. President, are you sure what you are telling us is The Truth?

You know, Obama has never been in a position where he's had to justify any of his rhetoric. That's all he's done - rhetoric. No policies, no programs. Now, the Democrats are pushing through their socialism...and Obama has to justify it. Can someone who lives in a fictional world do this?

It's starting to show..the Republicans finally, have something concrete to grab on, to criticize, to rebut. During the election campaign, Obama was doing His Thing...all those tall stories. They were so ambiguous, so amorphous that you couldn't get hold of anthing in them to rebut. It was like talking with a fog.

But now, Obama, and the Democrats, are pushing through very specific policies. They can be seen and heard and discussed - and Americans don't like them.

Obama has never in his entire life offered up any specific policies for debate and reactive criticism. His two years in the Senate were empty, his input only the amorphous 'I'm present'. He has no interest in policies or programs; he's never written, never published on either. All he's written are two books - about himself. Fictional accounts of his heroic rise.

But more and more open criticism is appearing. Rush Limbaugh was great. Others are talking. And those Tea Parties - a basic American image of individual rejection of authoritarian government and an insistence on freedom.

How is Obama, the pathological narcissist, going to react? He's never in his life had to justify anything; he lives in a fictional world. He can't handle criticism. How's he going to react?

Bombastic accusations of bias, threats of crisis..none of this will really work. Reality can hit him with a stroke of lightening...

Great cartoon, kate. Thanks.

Man, you guys don't get it. Look at 1:01 into the cartoon, the Simon Legree building: "Loans, Mortgages, and Crooked Deals. Widows evicted, Old ladies tripped, Dogs kicked, Kittens drowned; Welcome Sucker".

Mr. Legree, you should note, is the enemy here, and the story here is about how an old soldier recalls the battle with Mr. Legree to a young pup. That story is cross-cultural, in the same sense that the "golden rule" story is. Welcome to the species.

Consider, for example, at 3:21: "Of course, Uncle Sam was gettin' his share". The cash-drawer at 3:53 (brilliant). The mallet at 5:51. At 6:32: "Don' bother me now, boy, I'm really goin'". The steam roller at 6:42. I mean, seriously, it don' get much better than this.

It's an interesting situation in our species when the children see the moral of the story faster than the adults do, when people preoccupied with the politics du jour presume Mr. Avery's intent to align with their temporal proclivities.

In summary, then: the bad guy in this story is Legree, not Tom.

Anyone else noting that ET's gone off her meds recently? Like a lot of right-wing whackos, she's going nuts that Obama's actually doing what he said he was going to do. And he's got a pretty good mandate to do it too. 90% approved of his speech last week according to CNN.

A bit of objective reality (yike!): Obama wrote a book on policy - The Audacity of Dreams. Contrary to the popular myth, perpetuated by many here including ET, he didn't write two autobiographies. He wrote one. The book I've cited contains his extensive, non-fictional thoughts on policy for all to see - contrary to ET's claims.

You can agree or disagree with them. But to proclaim they aren't there is a falsehood.

And the beat goes on. You know, it's enough to drive
a man to classical music. Oh my gosh, is it that time
already! Heck, I've got a radio show to do.

correction: Audacity of Hope.

real - I suggest that you remove insults from your posts. Stick to the facts.

Obama's second book, which is called 'The Audacity of Hope' (try to get your facts straight) is not a political analysis. It's pure 'fuzzy rhetoric' that is geared to describe him as a political person. It does not explain or analyze political or economic issues.

It has one agenda - to describe Obama. It's about him. The agenda is to describe, to sell Obama. It's a campaign book. And it cloaks him in 'feel good', warm and fuzzy emotions and empty vapid rhetoric. Including such statements as 'reining in spending to bring down the deficit'. Heh.

Therefore, it's as autobiographical as his first book. It most certainly does not discuss or analyze economic or political theory; it just lists his positions...which are all over the place. Other terms for this type of writing are called 'candidate campaign brochures'.

Actually Real, in the past ET has been very accurate in most all of her well-argued opinions But on the psychosis that is Barack Obama, she has not only been accurate, but far ahead of the rest of us - the rest of anybody as i have not seen a similar understanding of the "narcissitic salesman" before ET made the diagnosis.

IMO opinion and i suspect of many many others this is ET's best of a very great body of work.

If you have something better to do than use an ad hominem like "Off her meds" to counter her argument, then perhaps you should consider keeping your opinions, or more accurately your dogma, to yourself as most of here are trying to braoden and deepen our understanding of the issues here.

That said, please do cite some of these policies you say he has written of in detail for us all to read. And while you are at it try and explain why, if he is so deep policy-wise, he let Pelosi and Reid write the porkulus bill (over 8000 earmarks - according to krauthammer)?

(On the issue of BO's popularity, polling by an avocacy group like CNN must be taken with a grain of salt. And to ET's point(s) above - it is his actions not speeches that she is making comment on. Last week's speech was as vacuous as any he made on the campaign - if considerably more Uber New Deal than pre-November.)

The story is obvious Vit and great, but I think you missed the other?

(Well it's now midnight, ladies and gentlemen, I say in a subdued voice like a British golf commentator, and ET & Gord have taken the troll's bait, completely throwing the game out the window. We'll get right back to you on this riveting story, as soon as something interesting develops, that is to say, if it does.)

"No country ever taxed itself into prosperity."
Winston S Churchill

Real: I'm titling my autobiography "Dreams of Audacity". It's all good.

i got a lump in my throat....'the pieanna..'

real - i'm calling my book the 'Maudacity of Shlope' i'll send u a signed copy.

My next project will be called 'Autocity of Hope' - all about the auto sector bailouts

the audacity of hype ?

I guess this is one of those banned cartoons. The only thing that could be insulting to "Black America" is the artists depiction of a Black person. But then the white persons aren't drawn in a very complimentary fashion either; that is except for the gal Uncle Tom saves.
So then why is it a banned cartoon? Why are we not seeing reruns of these and many of the well made WWll cartoons? Certainly, the quality is far better than the modern garbage served up for adult and children's consumption on TV.
PC is puzzling as well as destructive.

Vitruvius: "... when people preoccupied with the politics du jour presume Mr. Avery's intent to align with their temporal proclivities."

I get real confused with all this temporal stuff. Do you mean how Mr. Avery used Stowe's characters, Tom and Simon Legree (a plantation owner), for the du jour stuff that was going on in 1947?

ET

No amount of wordplay or theorizing on your part will change the fact that Audacity of Hope is not an autobiography, as you have stated several times in the past. I trust you are acquainted with the meaning of the term 'autobiography': the book doesn't qualify.

You state that there is no 'policy analysis' in the book. Earlier the bar, as set by you, was that he's "never written, never published..." on "policies and programs".

One can argue about how deep the analysis goes in the book. But to state that he's never written, never published, on policy is a lie, as this book shows. It is also a flat-out lie to say that the book is a "fictional account of his heroic rise". It isn't anything of the kind.

Who do you purposely, repeatedly misstate? Who knows? Makes you feel like you're winning an argument, advancing your bizarre theory, I guess. But if the only way you feel you can advance it is by misstating,well...that's kind of...sad, isn't it?

This is a slap in the face to tobacco ban fanatics - Uncle Tom was blowing smoke into the face of that innocent child on his knee!! This cartoon was banned for that reason, I would suppose AND for the fact that Uncle Tom did not die coughing his lungs out.

I back up what Gord Turk said about ET - she was way ahead of anyone else on our newest global disaster, personified...down south of the border.

Real- I've critcized Et before, but when she talks about your hussein obama she is right on the mark. You on the other hand have never been close to the mark.

Be careful what you wish for, it just may end up ripping you a new a**hole one day. Your buddy obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He will throw you under the bus so fast you won't know what happened. In fact someone like you, will never see it coming because you don't think. You only believe in fairy tales that don't exist. I almost feel sorry for you because when he turns out to be a monster, and he will/is, you will be so disappointed and let down. Poor baby.

a storm. the wheels on that bus are getting bigger everyday. there are going to be alot of americans under it.

"Anyone else noting that ET's gone off her meds recently? Like a lot of right-wing whackos, she's going nuts that Obama's actually doing what he said he was going to do. And he's got a pretty good mandate to do it too. 90% approved of his speech last week according to CNN."

"Nielsen Media Research says about 52.4 million viewers tuned in across 10 broadcast and cable networks on Tuesday night"

So less than 16% of Americans watched the damn 2012 campaign speech to begin with. The rest of usn's were busy with important stuff like washing the dog. Don't believe anything you hear on the Commie News Network.

Houston, Texas

I didn't realize that Uncle Tom worked in the Grievance Industry. Why the number of things done to him by the whitey dude is cause for at least a million complaints. Had not a Higher Power called BS, Uncle Tom would now be an Acorn cause celeb.

"So less than 16% of Americans watched" ~ bull shit. Millions watched it on their computers. Millions more read it the next day. Plenty are talking about it now a week later. President Obama...it sticks in your Crow craw so hard you'll watch old-time 'nigga' cartoons to get some jollies. Pa-thet-ic.

Fine real, Obama published a book on policy.

It's bland and lacks credibility. It's also amazingly naive.

Look - a list of "What my opinions are" is not an analysis of economic or political issues. It's simply a list of Obama's views at the moment. He doesn't analyze them in their foundational, causal and effectual reality, and has no understanding of such a base. He can switch them at any politically expedient moment.

Just as Uncle Tom switched his tales of How I Slew the Dragon and rapidly inserted different programs in his actions..."my sweat destroyed the bomb fuse; I was wearing my bulletproof vest' etc.

By the way, speaking of Uncle Tom stereotypes,that Simon Legree had quite the hooked nose. Stereotype of what?

What Obama is having to deal with now, for the first time in his self-authored fictional world, is reality. He protected himself in Chicago from reality by aligning himself within a network of agents who 'made things happen' because of their corruption. And the Rev. Wright's ideology is yet another text.

Now, he's nestled within the network and text of the Democratic Party. But, can he continue to be Uncle Tom and live in a self-authored fictional world, while the policies that he sells and signs are met with rejection, problems, and even disastrous results?

Curious how Obama infatuated the partisans are.

Especially how this great fluffy socialist is going to doom and gloom the US.

Yet, our great socialist Harper and the Faux-Cons are clamping down on FOIP, setting the stage for the next sponsorship scandal, ramping up billions of spending in Atlantic Canadian make work projects, expanding bureaucracies, giving billions to car companies that have hundred's of thousands of unsold units clogging wharves and containers, and developing a fully made in Canada carbon tax.

Oh, and the Conservatives raised taxes on Canadians for 2009, heading into the teeth of a global recession.

Man, selective outrage and thought, all to avoid cognitive dissonance and rational comparison of values with our own government's actions versus words.

Some things will never change.

vitruvious?

you may come to prefer, "as the shadows lengthen on the greensward".

real...What's really sad is you lost your Arab accent,please bring it back,I miss the laughs.

I done think dats a young barack on the knee of jeremaih wright.

deys even thinking about mortgage bailouts from da rich white folks.

I kinda like the girlie. She's got it goin' on. :)

I'm calling my autobiography "The Audacity Of Butt: Talking out of your @ss like you real-y mean it".

A Pox On The Mopes for a Paucity of Dopes.
The Awakening.

This video was offensive beyond belief!!!!!!!

How dare SDA show a video where “white” bankers are shown as two faced snakes and “white” little girls are all rich princesses? This video must be BANNED!

Yes, Langmann,

As you say, Obama did, contrary to ET's claims ,publish an entire book on policy.

And let's take note, the next time Et expounds on one of her bizarre theories dressed up in pseudo-academic jargon, of her proven willingness to deliberately lie to 'bolster' said theories.

Then again, that's nor surprise given that she finds common cause with Kate "I'm a racist and proud of it!" MacMillan. As waldo has stated, Obama's got these dopes so shaken that they've got to reach back 50 years to take comfort in a racist cartoon. And if you call them on this obvious fact they'll whine and weep that you're trying to 'shut them up' by simply observing they're racists. Boo-hoo!

They do us quite a favour by revealing the source of their 'conservatism'. What loathsome creeps.

You just got yourself banned, real.

And the congregation responded with a rousing AMEN!

Mission accomplished. He who loses his temper first loses the argument.

As a lifelong conservative, I must say that I do not understand the continual race-baiting which goes on at sites like this. The web moderators can ban all the people they like but I feel that overt racism such as I've seen does real harm to the larger cause of conservatism; I'm not sure that I see the connection between the two.

Mel Shortner

“You just got yourself banned, real.”

Finally!

We live in an age, where complex, nuanced, or provocative thought cannot be reasonably discussed, without the obligatory 'no, YOU are a racist' line coming from somewhere.

It's amazing humanity made it as far as it has.

Then again, we never had internet chat boards until the last 20 years.

What's the phrase?

"Even if you win an argument on the internet, you've just proven yourself an idiot?"

Posted by: Mel Shortner>

“but I feel that overt racism such as I've seen does real harm to the larger cause of conservatism”

“Racism” is a very overused and loose term in our society.

Our education system teaches our kids that only one kind of racism exists, and that only one race is responsible and accountable for it. The left has grabbed onto this idea and slanders conservatives with blind shots, mudslinging “racist”, “homophobe”, “islamophobe” hoping it will stick, never considering the injustice or consequence of their actions.

Real racists exist across the globe and of all races. Pay attention to the outlandish race based gang and community violence in California between the Latino’s and blacks. The Arab verses blacks in Saharan Africa or the cast system of India.

Almost every country on earth with a ruling population over an indigenous population, represses the indigenous or tribal populations in one form or another.

To think racism only exists in “white” western peoples and culture is naive and grossly misrepresented. In fact it is subterfuge and an underhanded way to control western societies for personal and collective gain. The idea that the UK for example being a wealthy and prosperous society must completely dilute its own culture and debase itself as a viable society because it owes some kind of debt to the third world is bunk. To say so publicly you become a pariah in the politically correct poisoned culture it has become. Why does Japan or Taiwan, wealthy islands of similar size not suffer the same fate of British peoples when they actively disallow third world immigration, or immigration of any sort? It’s amazing that only one society and group of countries is desirable to the third world for exploitation, wonder why?

You will not be rid of racism in society EVER! The difference is why would good citizens allow active reverse discrimination in their own countries? Because that is what it is and that is what is promoted. It’s not about racism, it’s about repression of the wealthy or “haves” for the benefit of the “have not’s”. That is exactly why we should exercise our right to say what is on our mind in the way we feel it should be presented and not fall prey to the manufactured guilt designed to repress and covet, regardless of how it hurts touchy feelings. Those feelings are crocodile tears for a lame sheepish society that will buy into any crock and bull story these masters of bull can concoct.

It seems strange to me that the poster got banned merely for stating what seems to be true - that the cartoon put up on this site was a racist cartoon. As a conservative it pains me to see racist material on conservative sites since it goes a long way towards invalidating our philosophy at a time when we could use help.

I'm wondering why the webmaster here thought it relevant to conservative thought to post a racist cartoon. But moreso, I am pained as a longtime conservative to see someone 'banned' or censored. It seems to be me that it is the left who usually censors people and impinges upon their freedom of speech. (i.e. poltical correctness)

I'm guesing that maybe the banned person struck a sore spot in observing that the cartoon was racist and that racism appears frequently here because I'm not sure why a conservtaive would otherwise shut down freedom of speech

Mel Shortner

The individual was banned due to a pattern of abusive insults.

No one has been censored. He is free to start his own blog and write whatever he likes. He's just not going to do it on my bandwidth anymore.

This blog site is private property, and I reserve the right to evict anyone, for any reason, and without having to explain myself.

By the way, Mel - you're confusing racism with stereotypes. The cartoons are a product of its time, nothing more or less, and I post them because I find them interesting.