DIRECTFLT wrote:

Wanda Sykes -- a (Hypocritical) racist ??

https://youtu.be/DZHF67BIP40

Oh honey, you don't have a leg to stand on until Trump either apologizes or is held accountable by any of his supporters for any of the things he has said--and we know neither of those things will ever happen. So please enjoy your faux outrage by yourself in a corner somewhere.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

According to Darwinsts, all "races" evolved from apes.

Not true. Humans share a common ancestor with modern apes. This common ancestor lived around 5-8 million years ago. I think it's a stretch to claim this is what Barr was referring to, don't you?

So why is the "Black" or "African" race exempt from be compared to their ape ancestors, when other races are not exempt????

Essentially the reason is "US history".

MaverickM11 wrote:

I'm not sure, I haven't seen the birth certificate but I have it on good authority she's the product of her father and a donkey...but rest assured she's still a liar. Release the (long form birth certificate of the) Huckabeast!

Now now...let's not put SHS on the spot. It's not her fault this has gone out of control. I do, however, buy the theory that Trump's orange color stems from being a product of Trump Sr. and an orangutan, as Bill Maher once theorized. I haven't seen the long form birth certificate or attempted to disprove it so he may have been onto something.

LMP737 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

According to Darwinsts, all "races" evolved from apes.

So why is the "Black" or "African" race exempt from be compared to their ape ancestors, when other races are not exempt????

https://www.business2community.com/ente ... e-02070691

Because if you knew anything about US history you would know black people were compared to monkeys, i.e. less intelligent and more dirty than white people.

But is not racist to automatically link it to that context today? In the end it means that a person of colour calling a Caucasian an ape would be committing an insult, while in the reverse case it would be an act of racism. By all legal definitions I am aware of, this would be discrimination based on race.

Y A W N

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2QslJ38RBo

seahawk wrote:

But is not racist to automatically link it to that context today? In the end it means that a person of colour calling a Caucasian an ape would be committing an insult, while in the reverse case it would be an act of racism. By all legal definitions I am aware of, this would be discrimination based on race.

The monkey thing is like the N-word. Blacks were routinely portrayed as monkeys (mostly in "jest") in all kinds of advertising and comedy shows since they were first dragged to this country in chains. Not even the most racist of crackers, DRCFLT might be an exception, would do anything remotely monkey-like in front of a black person or group not understanding they were about to get their asses kicked. However, I might not hesitate to make monkey jokes in front of my son or his friends (and their families) if the right moment presents itself and I know I'm about to get some laughs. Think about doing that in front of a black family and even your white friends would just walk away from you saying "I never saw this asshole in my life".

Anyone that doesn't understand (or appreciate) the historical context is an absolute moron. Either that or they're just KKK-level racist assholes. It's one or the other.

It's not as if racism occurs in only one population, or that monkey is somehow a unique insult thought up in the USA in the 1920s. It has been an insult and canard of racism for thousands of years in dozens of cultures. Yes, in the US it has a particular context, and it is very bad. And Roseanne knew that. But the US did not invent racism -- instead the US is merely more transfixed and fascinated by race politics than other countries, sometimes to our detriment, in my opinion.

wingman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But is not racist to automatically link it to that context today? In the end it means that a person of colour calling a Caucasian an ape would be committing an insult, while in the reverse case it would be an act of racism. By all legal definitions I am aware of, this would be discrimination based on race.

The monkey thing is like the N-word. Blacks were routinely portrayed as monkeys (mostly in "jest") in all kinds of advertising and comedy shows since they were first dragged to this country in chains. Not even the most racist of crackers, DRCFLT might be an exception, would do anything remotely monkey-like in front of a black person or group not understanding they were about to get their asses kicked. However, I might not hesitate to make monkey jokes in front of my son or his friends (and their families) if the right moment presents itself and I know I'm about to get some laughs. Think about doing that in front of a black family and even your white friends would just walk away from you saying "I never saw this asshole in my life".

Anyone that doesn't understand (or appreciate) the historical context is an absolute moron. Either that or they're just KKK-level racist assholes. It's one or the other.

I get that, but I still think it is wrong to reason that way. Is it not enough that Roseanne insulted her and compared her to terrorists to fire Roseanne? Especially as according to Wikipedia Valerie Jarrett is about 50/50 European and Afro American, so in the end the reaction just confirms the old prejudice of calling Afro Americans apes. I think what Roseanne wrote is pretty enough to fire her, regardless of the race of the insulted person.

Flighty wrote:

It's not as if racism occurs in only one population, or that monkey is somehow a unique insult thought up in the USA in the 1920s. It has been an insult and canard of racism for thousands of years in dozens of cultures. Yes, in the US it has a particular context, and it is very bad. And Roseanne knew that. But the US did not invent racism -- instead the US is merely more transfixed and fascinated by race politics than other countries, sometimes to our detriment, in my opinion.

I think the USA deals with racism more openly than many countries. Many countries in Asia straight up accept it and many countries in Europe downplay the racism there or straight up deny its an issue. Like most things in the USA its right in your face. We confront it openly. We might not have the best solutions but its being discussed.

CCGPV wrote:

Flighty wrote:

It's not as if racism occurs in only one population, or that monkey is somehow a unique insult thought up in the USA in the 1920s. It has been an insult and canard of racism for thousands of years in dozens of cultures. Yes, in the US it has a particular context, and it is very bad. And Roseanne knew that. But the US did not invent racism -- instead the US is merely more transfixed and fascinated by race politics than other countries, sometimes to our detriment, in my opinion.

I think the USA deals with racism more openly than many countries. Many countries in Asia straight up accept it and many countries in Europe downplay the racism there or straight up deny its an issue. Like most things in the USA its right in your face. We confront it openly. We might not have the best solutions but its being discussed.

The other thing is: People like Roseanne and all other open racists think they should be immune because First Amendment. It has been pointed out many times that they can be as racist as they want but do not expect everyone to sit back and take it. They must accept First Amendment Rights in response to their First Amendment Rights. They can not be upset over the responses.

And it sill is ironic that people who demand "liberal" celebrities take ownership of the bad things they say and do end up blaming other things or other people. Roseanne blames Ambien. Hannity blames Obama. Samantha Bee says "yes I said that and I am sorry" even though it is nowhere near the same and the other side said the exact same thing gleefully.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Flighty wrote:

It's not as if racism occurs in only one population, or that monkey is somehow a unique insult thought up in the USA in the 1920s. It has been an insult and canard of racism for thousands of years in dozens of cultures. Yes, in the US it has a particular context, and it is very bad. And Roseanne knew that. But the US did not invent racism -- instead the US is merely more transfixed and fascinated by race politics than other countries, sometimes to our detriment, in my opinion.

I think the USA deals with racism more openly than many countries. Many countries in Asia straight up accept it and many countries in Europe downplay the racism there or straight up deny its an issue. Like most things in the USA its right in your face. We confront it openly. We might not have the best solutions but its being discussed.

The other thing is: People like Roseanne and all other open racists think they should be immune because First Amendment. It has been pointed out many times that they can be as racist as they want but do not expect everyone to sit back and take it. They must accept First Amendment Rights in response to their First Amendment Rights. They can not be upset over the responses.

And it sill is ironic that people who demand "liberal" celebrities take ownership of the bad things they say and do end up blaming other things or other people. Roseanne blames Ambien. Hannity blames Obama. Samantha Bee says "yes I said that and I am sorry" even though it is nowhere near the same and the other side said the exact same thing gleefully.

I don't think its that they feel immune its that they feel what they are saying "isn't that bad." Plus, many of these celebrities and comics are used to being praised and lauded for their behavior so they take more risks than the average Joe with a direct manager.

They understand the issue because if they really felt immune they'd be dropping N-bombs and being way more direct than the "jokey" or "coded" words and phrases many use now. Lee atwater said it best. Just look up his quote from the 80's.

While it is different I think calling the first lady a C*nt is pretty dang far over the line. Its completely unacceptable too.

Then there is comedian (?) Samantha Bee who used the vile c-word for a woman's body part in a taping of her show on the TBS cable network in anger as to Ivanka Trump and her not caring about the growing crises and horrors of persons illegally entering the USA and physically separated from their kids as part of her fathers draconian immigration enforcement policies. Bee was stupid to use such a word that if any of us used it at a work place would get us fired ASAP and should. So far TBS (owned by Warner Communications, who is into merger consideration with AT&T) hasn't fired her and killed her show but has lost several advertisers for it. Of course Pres. Trump called for Bee's firing and her show expunged but silence as to Roseanne Barr and agreeing with her being fired too by ABC. Warner should fire Bee and terminate he show, fire the producers and other who let the use of the c-word in her show by the end of the business day out of decency and for their financial bottom line.

No doubt many of us have terrible frustration with our public figures but using certain offensive words like Roseanne and Bee did is counterproductive, making them become targets for the social commentators and deserve a strong reaction including losing jobs and income. Deeper is the general coursing of our culture in the world, with 'leaders' like Donald Trump who speak in offensive ways (especially as to anyone but White males) encouraging such vile words.

CCGPV wrote:

While it is different I think calling the first lady a C*nt is pretty dang far over the line. Its completely unacceptable too.

I know Trump basically said he would screw his own daughter, and that's probably confused a lot of people, but last time I checked, Ivanka isn't FLOTUS.

wingman wrote:

I might not hesitate to make monkey jokes in front of my son or his friends (and their families) if the right moment presents itself and I know I'm about to get some laughs. Think about doing that in front of a black family and even your white friends would just walk away from you saying "I never saw this asshole in my life".

Anyone that doesn't understand (or appreciate) the historical context is an absolute moron. Either that or they're just KKK-level racist assholes. It's one or the other.

Wrong, I am pretty sure KKK members understand and appreciate what you are talking about. I am guessing a lot of millenials don't.

CCGPV wrote:

Flighty wrote:

It's not as if racism occurs in only one population, or that monkey is somehow a unique insult thought up in the USA in the 1920s. It has been an insult and canard of racism for thousands of years in dozens of cultures. Yes, in the US it has a particular context, and it is very bad. And Roseanne knew that. But the US did not invent racism -- instead the US is merely more transfixed and fascinated by race politics than other countries, sometimes to our detriment, in my opinion.

I think the USA deals with racism more openly than many countries. Many countries in Asia straight up accept it and many countries in Europe downplay the racism there or straight up deny its an issue.

Don't forget Latin America. From my experience, I'm sure the vast majority of Mexican one-percenters are cheering Trump on.

I'd also say that racism in the U.S. is pretty regional and dependent upon how well different economic classes integrate (economic class being correlated with race). I know the stereotype is that the South is a hotbed of racism, and for good reason--certainly there are horrible parts--but much of the Trumpy Bear racism and anti-immigrant sentiment seems to be coming from the Midwest--the area of the country most affected by the decrease in working-class jobs.

Coastal California may not be racist by the traditional definition, but I'd say it's far less integrated than many parts of the country. I'm sure if California were going on rough economic times you'd see a resurgence of racism there and loud cries to "Build the Wall."

scbriml wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

While it is different I think calling the first lady a C*nt is pretty dang far over the line. Its completely unacceptable too.

I know Trump basically said he would screw his own daughter, and that's probably confused a lot of people, but last time I checked, Ivanka isn't FLOTUS.

My bad I thought it was Melania who was the recipient of the insult. Still, pretty over the top for a TV host to be using that language against someone. Other than the "N-word" (ugh) its the worst thing you can call a woman.

Samantha Bee's comment was not from out of nowhere. It was pointed. Nearly 1500 undocumented immigrant children have been taken from their families and, essentially, lost. The agency in charge of taking care of them and knowing where they are does not know where they are. Further, this administration does not care that families are separated. Ivanka made a post about how lucky she is to have her kids. While her father and administration actively tear families apart. With Ivanka's high security clearance, one would think she could help these families stay together. But, she makes a completely tone deaf post and is called out for it.

The same people who stayed silent or cheered when Ted Nugent called Hillary the exact same word are now demanding that Samantha Bee no longer be heard. Nugent got to tour the White House and is still making money. What is the difference?

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Flighty wrote:

It's not as if racism occurs in only one population, or that monkey is somehow a unique insult thought up in the USA in the 1920s. It has been an insult and canard of racism for thousands of years in dozens of cultures. Yes, in the US it has a particular context, and it is very bad. And Roseanne knew that. But the US did not invent racism -- instead the US is merely more transfixed and fascinated by race politics than other countries, sometimes to our detriment, in my opinion.

I think the USA deals with racism more openly than many countries. Many countries in Asia straight up accept it and many countries in Europe downplay the racism there or straight up deny its an issue.

Don't forget Latin America. From my experience, I'm sure the vast majority of Mexican one-percenters are cheering Trump on.

I'd also say that racism in the U.S. is pretty regional and dependent upon how well different economic classes integrate (economic class being correlated with race). I know the stereotype is that the South is a hotbed of racism, and for good reason--certainly there are horrible parts--but much of the Trumpy Bear racism and anti-immigrant sentiment seems to be coming from the Midwest--the area of the country most affected by the decrease in working-class jobs.

Coastal California may not be racist by the traditional definition, but I'd say it's far less integrated than many parts of the country. I'm sure if California were going on rough economic times you'd see a resurgence of racism there and loud cries to "Build the Wall."

.

I think you're right. Its not "traditional" racism like we had in the Jim Crow south. Its economic "boogyman" based racism. The Roseann thing is totally unrelated IMO to the Trump type racism we're seeing. Roseann has always been pushing the limits of taste and this time she went too far. It always happens with these types.

Of the handful of black people I hang out with I'd say a third of them support Trump. It shocked me initially but its the case. Maybe its their socioeconomic status more so than their race. The "build the wall" people are scared of the future because they have no job skills or prospects so they blame someone else for their situation- people willing to do their jobs for less. They don't actually hate Mexicans they just suck at dealing with the modern world. Same with the "Muslim ban." Its a generic fear of terrorism.

Its all still prejudicial but I don't think its the type of racism that's ingrained in people like it was in George Wallace days. Its still bad though but its the type of racism that can be reversed.

seb146 wrote:

Samantha Bee's comment was not from out of nowhere. It was pointed. Nearly 1500 undocumented immigrant children have been taken from their families and, essentially, lost. The agency in charge of taking care of them and knowing where they are does not know where they are. Further, this administration does not care that families are separated. Ivanka made a post about how lucky she is to have her kids. While her father and administration actively tear families apart. With Ivanka's high security clearance, one would think she could help these families stay together. But, she makes a completely tone deaf post and is called out for it.

The same people who stayed silent or cheered when Ted Nugent called Hillary the exact same word are now demanding that Samantha Bee no longer be heard. Nugent got to tour the White House and is still making money. What is the difference?

Let me explain what happens to virtually all these kids. They aren't actually missing. Well, they are missing from the government. They are separated from their families initially and are sent to live with foster families around the country. Many of these foster families that accept these kids know the drill. They keep the kids until their parents are released and then they "disappear" and go back living illegally with their parents in the States. Happens all the time. There's not bands of
boxcar children wandering in the streets.

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Samantha Bee's comment was not from out of nowhere. It was pointed. Nearly 1500 undocumented immigrant children have been taken from their families and, essentially, lost. The agency in charge of taking care of them and knowing where they are does not know where they are. Further, this administration does not care that families are separated. Ivanka made a post about how lucky she is to have her kids. While her father and administration actively tear families apart. With Ivanka's high security clearance, one would think she could help these families stay together. But, she makes a completely tone deaf post and is called out for it.

The same people who stayed silent or cheered when Ted Nugent called Hillary the exact same word are now demanding that Samantha Bee no longer be heard. Nugent got to tour the White House and is still making money. What is the difference?

Let me explain what happens to virtually all these kids. They aren't actually missing. Well, they are missing from the government. They are separated from their families initially and are sent to live with foster families around the country. Many of these foster families that accept these kids know the drill. They keep the kids until their parents are released and then they "disappear" and go back living illegally with their parents in the States. Happens all the time. There's not bands of
boxcar children wandering in the streets.

Children are taken from their parents and Ivanka makes a tone deaf post. My question still remains: what is the difference that Nugent can use that word but Bee can not?

aviationaware wrote:

Roseanne has never been shy with insults. This came to nobody's surprise. Her comments were out of place and hurtful, and unnecessary. The fake indignation from the left and ABC's caving in to it were just as ridiculously out of place and in no way justified. Here's the deal: If you get in bed with Roseanne, you know what you are in for. Don't act all surprised and outraged when it hits. I didn't watch her show but I think it's sad for all her co-stars that they have to suffer for this.

Also don't make this a conservative vs liberal thing. Roseanne is not a conservative. She ran for President 2 years ago on a lefty niche ticket. She has no ideological compass at all. But she does manage to put up a show that makes everyday people feel represented.

Oh Mr. Lover of the Free Market, is ABC's "caving in to it" justified if it can't get advertisers to fill the slots? It's just business, after all.

Roseanne has never been shy with insults. This came to nobody's surprise. Her comments were out of place and hurtful, and unnecessary. The fake indignation from the left and ABC's caving in to it were just as ridiculously out of place and in no way justified. Here's the deal: If you get in bed with Roseanne, you know what you are in for. Don't act all surprised and outraged when it hits. I didn't watch her show but I think it's sad for all her co-stars that they have to suffer for this.

Also don't make this a conservative vs liberal thing. Roseanne is not a conservative. She ran for President 2 years ago on a lefty niche ticket. She has no ideological compass at all. But she does manage to put up a show that makes everyday people feel represented.

aviationaware wrote:

Her comments were out of place and hurtful, and unnecessary.

By which you mean they were racist. Right?

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Samantha Bee's comment was not from out of nowhere. It was pointed. Nearly 1500 undocumented immigrant children have been taken from their families and, essentially, lost. The agency in charge of taking care of them and knowing where they are does not know where they are. Further, this administration does not care that families are separated. Ivanka made a post about how lucky she is to have her kids. While her father and administration actively tear families apart. With Ivanka's high security clearance, one would think she could help these families stay together. But, she makes a completely tone deaf post and is called out for it.

The same people who stayed silent or cheered when Ted Nugent called Hillary the exact same word are now demanding that Samantha Bee no longer be heard. Nugent got to tour the White House and is still making money. What is the difference?

Let me explain what happens to virtually all these kids. They aren't actually missing. Well, they are missing from the government. They are separated from their families initially and are sent to live with foster families around the country. Many of these foster families that accept these kids know the drill. They keep the kids until their parents are released and then they "disappear" and go back living illegally with their parents in the States. Happens all the time. There's not bands of
boxcar children wandering in the streets.

Children are taken from their parents and Ivanka makes a tone deaf post. My question still remains: what is the difference that Nugent can use that word but Bee can not?

I mean the whole Administration is tone-deaf. That's well established at this point. We shouldn't expect much from this train-wreck.

I don't really know the details of the Nugent thing but it sounds pretty bad as well. Its pretty clear there's a lot of hypocrisy involved. I don't think Bee should be fired just so you know. And I don't think Nugent is in the same moral league as Bee. He's a child molester and a racist that couldn't get a legitimate job on TV because of his idiocy. His whole thing is being an asshole. Bee on the other hand at least claims to play the game of being a good person so she should know not to sink to those levels. Its still hypocrisy and she should be held accountable- maybe make her do an apology segment or whatever. If she does it again she's gone.

aviationaware wrote:

Also don't make this a conservative vs liberal thing. Roseanne is not a conservative. She ran for President 2 years ago on a lefty niche ticket. She has no ideological compass at all. But she does manage to put up a show that makes everyday people feel represented.

She now supports tRump but, more importantly, she is racist. Not the good kind that knows they are racist and does something to change themselves, but the bad kind that just floats along and makes racist remarks and blames prescriptions and society.

Righties kept claiming that Obama's "friends" are racist with zero proof at all. Why is it so hard to believe that Roseanne is racist with so much proof?

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Let me explain what happens to virtually all these kids. They aren't actually missing. Well, they are missing from the government. They are separated from their families initially and are sent to live with foster families around the country. Many of these foster families that accept these kids know the drill. They keep the kids until their parents are released and then they "disappear" and go back living illegally with their parents in the States. Happens all the time. There's not bands of
boxcar children wandering in the streets.

Children are taken from their parents and Ivanka makes a tone deaf post. My question still remains: what is the difference that Nugent can use that word but Bee can not?

I mean the whole Administration is tone-deaf. That's well established at this point. We shouldn't expect much from this train-wreck.

I don't really know the details of the Nugent thing but it sounds pretty bad as well. Its pretty clear there's a lot of hypocrisy involved. I don't think Bee should be fired just so you know. And I don't think Nugent is in the same moral league as Bee. He's a child molester and a racist that couldn't get a legitimate job on TV because of his idiocy. His whole thing is being an asshole. Bee on the other hand at least claims to play the game of being a good person so she should know not to sink to those levels. Its still hypocrisy and she should be held accountable- maybe make her do an apology segment or whatever. If she does it again she's gone.

She did an apology already. She owned what she did. She did not blame it on Ambien or Long Island Iced Tea or "someone hacked my account." And righteis are still clutching their pearls and demanding her show be cancelled. All because Samantha Bee said "Donald does X, Y, and Z and Ivanka just sits back and does nothing even with her high security clearance and full access to the president...." Bee never said she (Bee) was a good person, either.

There is a world of difference between "Ivanka is a c*** because...." and "that c*** Hillary should be locked up!" and thousands of tRump supporters wearing "lock the c*** up!" shirts....

BTW, what is Ivanka's official role and title in the administration that she still has a high security clearance? She did not have to go through Congressional hearings or anything. "Here is your clearance!" is what it seems like happened. I get that family should have some level of White House clearance. I am not questioning that. But why so high?

seb146 wrote:

Samantha Bee's comment was not from out of nowhere. It was pointed. Nearly 1500 undocumented immigrant children have been taken from their families and, essentially, lost. The agency in charge of taking care of them and knowing where they are does not know where they are. Further, this administration does not care that families are separated. Ivanka made a post about how lucky she is to have her kids. While her father and administration actively tear families apart. With Ivanka's high security clearance, one would think she could help these families stay together. But, she makes a completely tone deaf post and is called out for it.

The same people who stayed silent or cheered when Ted Nugent called Hillary the exact same word are now demanding that Samantha Bee no longer be heard. Nugent got to tour the White House and is still making money. What is the difference?

Absolutely, and that is why it is complete hypocrisy for her to apologize for it! I have never heard of a more craven and meaningless apology in my life. She is an experienced writer and performer. Own it. By the way I thought it was incredibly funny.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Children are taken from their parents and Ivanka makes a tone deaf post. My question still remains: what is the difference that Nugent can use that word but Bee can not?

I mean the whole Administration is tone-deaf. That's well established at this point. We shouldn't expect much from this train-wreck.

I don't really know the details of the Nugent thing but it sounds pretty bad as well. Its pretty clear there's a lot of hypocrisy involved. I don't think Bee should be fired just so you know. And I don't think Nugent is in the same moral league as Bee. He's a child molester and a racist that couldn't get a legitimate job on TV because of his idiocy. His whole thing is being an asshole. Bee on the other hand at least claims to play the game of being a good person so she should know not to sink to those levels. Its still hypocrisy and she should be held accountable- maybe make her do an apology segment or whatever. If she does it again she's gone.

She did an apology already. She owned what she did. She did not blame it on Ambien or Long Island Iced Tea or "someone hacked my account." And righteis are still clutching their pearls and demanding her show be cancelled. All because Samantha Bee said "Donald does X, Y, and Z and Ivanka just sits back and does nothing even with her high security clearance and full access to the president...." Bee never said she (Bee) was a good person, either.

There is a world of difference between "Ivanka is a c*** because...." and "that c*** Hillary should be locked up!" and thousands of tRump supporters wearing "lock the c*** up!" shirts....

BTW, what is Ivanka's official role and title in the administration that she still has a high security clearance? She did not have to go through Congressional hearings or anything. "Here is your clearance!" is what it seems like happened. I get that family should have some level of White House clearance. I am not questioning that. But why so high?

Yeah, we've established they're hypocrites. They're doing what they always do- dominating the news cycle to change the story. They're very good at it.

The position she's in traditionally comes with some of the highest clearances available due to the varied subjects discussed daily in the WH. Its just the nature of the job. Friends, past colleagues, and all manor of people have held the same position through the years. Positions like that have never had to have congressional approval.

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I mean the whole Administration is tone-deaf. That's well established at this point. We shouldn't expect much from this train-wreck.

I don't really know the details of the Nugent thing but it sounds pretty bad as well. Its pretty clear there's a lot of hypocrisy involved. I don't think Bee should be fired just so you know. And I don't think Nugent is in the same moral league as Bee. He's a child molester and a racist that couldn't get a legitimate job on TV because of his idiocy. His whole thing is being an asshole. Bee on the other hand at least claims to play the game of being a good person so she should know not to sink to those levels. Its still hypocrisy and she should be held accountable- maybe make her do an apology segment or whatever. If she does it again she's gone.

She did an apology already. She owned what she did. She did not blame it on Ambien or Long Island Iced Tea or "someone hacked my account." And righteis are still clutching their pearls and demanding her show be cancelled. All because Samantha Bee said "Donald does X, Y, and Z and Ivanka just sits back and does nothing even with her high security clearance and full access to the president...." Bee never said she (Bee) was a good person, either.

There is a world of difference between "Ivanka is a c*** because...." and "that c*** Hillary should be locked up!" and thousands of tRump supporters wearing "lock the c*** up!" shirts....

BTW, what is Ivanka's official role and title in the administration that she still has a high security clearance? She did not have to go through Congressional hearings or anything. "Here is your clearance!" is what it seems like happened. I get that family should have some level of White House clearance. I am not questioning that. But why so high?

Yeah, we've established they're hypocrites. They're doing what they always do- dominating the news cycle to change the story. They're very good at it.

The position she's in traditionally comes with some of the highest clearances available due to the varied subjects discussed daily in the WH. Its just the nature of the job. Friends, past colleagues, and all manor of people have held the same position through the years. Positions like that have never had to have congressional approval.

But what does she do other than advance her own career and her own brand name?

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

She did an apology already. She owned what she did. She did not blame it on Ambien or Long Island Iced Tea or "someone hacked my account." And righteis are still clutching their pearls and demanding her show be cancelled. All because Samantha Bee said "Donald does X, Y, and Z and Ivanka just sits back and does nothing even with her high security clearance and full access to the president...." Bee never said she (Bee) was a good person, either.

There is a world of difference between "Ivanka is a c*** because...." and "that c*** Hillary should be locked up!" and thousands of tRump supporters wearing "lock the c*** up!" shirts....

BTW, what is Ivanka's official role and title in the administration that she still has a high security clearance? She did not have to go through Congressional hearings or anything. "Here is your clearance!" is what it seems like happened. I get that family should have some level of White House clearance. I am not questioning that. But why so high?

Yeah, we've established they're hypocrites. They're doing what they always do- dominating the news cycle to change the story. They're very good at it.

The position she's in traditionally comes with some of the highest clearances available due to the varied subjects discussed daily in the WH. Its just the nature of the job. Friends, past colleagues, and all manor of people have held the same position through the years. Positions like that have never had to have congressional approval.

But what does she do other than advance her own career and her own brand name?

I'm not really sure as its not a very public position. These positions are traditionally fluid. She seems to be involved with lots of Israel related issues. I'd imagine she attends and has involvement with a lot of the mid level staff meetings. At least that's what the advisers in the same position did in other administrations.

2122M wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Her comments were out of place and hurtful, and unnecessary.

By which you mean they were racist. Right?

Frankly, I don't think of black people as apes. So I didn't even immediately make that connection. Also, the woman she insulted never appeared black to me at all. She has lighter skin than I do on some vacation pictures. If Roseanne knew, which she probably did, then yes, that was racism. Racism in words is something that will never go away and that affected people have learned to live with. Just how I couldn't give a damn when people call me a hook-nosed Jew. Actions speak louder than words, and I am not a fan of being offended by words or banning them. I just pity Roseanne for making such a poor attempt at a joke. As a professional she should know better.

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Yeah, we've established they're hypocrites. They're doing what they always do- dominating the news cycle to change the story. They're very good at it.

The position she's in traditionally comes with some of the highest clearances available due to the varied subjects discussed daily in the WH. Its just the nature of the job. Friends, past colleagues, and all manor of people have held the same position through the years. Positions like that have never had to have congressional approval.

But what does she do other than advance her own career and her own brand name?

I'm not really sure as its not a very public position. These positions are traditionally fluid. She seems to be involved with lots of Israel related issues. I'd imagine she attends and has involvement with a lot of the mid level staff meetings. At least that's what the advisers in the same position did in other administrations.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... /99795232/

Her official title is "assistant to the president" but if you google that, no one else has ever held that title. They made something up for her. And she really does nothing to assist him. She has done a lot to assist her. Especially after daddy saved ZTE and all those Chinese jobs.

Sorry, Charlie.

Vulgarity is not the same as racism. Calling someone a c*** is nasty. Calling a black woman an ape (OUT OF THE BLUE!) is unforgivable. Sorry white boyz, but there is no equating the two.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Children are taken from their parents and Ivanka makes a tone deaf post. My question still remains: what is the difference that Nugent can use that word but Bee can not?

I mean the whole Administration is tone-deaf. That's well established at this point. We shouldn't expect much from this train-wreck.

I don't really know the details of the Nugent thing but it sounds pretty bad as well. Its pretty clear there's a lot of hypocrisy involved. I don't think Bee should be fired just so you know. And I don't think Nugent is in the same moral league as Bee. He's a child molester and a racist that couldn't get a legitimate job on TV because of his idiocy. His whole thing is being an asshole. Bee on the other hand at least claims to play the game of being a good person so she should know not to sink to those levels. Its still hypocrisy and she should be held accountable- maybe make her do an apology segment or whatever. If she does it again she's gone.

She did an apology already. She owned what she did. She did not blame it on Ambien or Long Island Iced Tea or "someone hacked my account." And righteis are still clutching their pearls and demanding her show be cancelled. All because Samantha Bee said "Donald does X, Y, and Z and Ivanka just sits back and does nothing even with her high security clearance and full access to the president...." Bee never said she (Bee) was a good person, either.

There is a world of difference between "Ivanka is a c*** because...." and "that c*** Hillary should be locked up!" and thousands of tRump supporters wearing "lock the c*** up!" shirts....

BTW, what is Ivanka's official role and title in the administration that she still has a high security clearance? She did not have to go through Congressional hearings or anything. "Here is your clearance!" is what it seems like happened. I get that family should have some level of White House clearance. I am not questioning that. But why so high?

This is my problem with you liberals Seb you always give a pass to other liberals no matter how egregious the issue. Roseanne? She is a dumbass and totally deserved to lose her show and this is not the first time she has had issues. So Samantha Bee goes on her C word rampage and it's all ok. Look you can hate Trump he is fair game but Ivanka seems to be a pretty decent person and Trumps young son who is autistic seems to be fair game for liberals as well and that too is bullshit. You can hate Trump all you want leave his family out of it especially a kid. I will take exception to Don Jr tho you can attack him all you want.

Stratosphere wrote:

My post could be written for you directly. VULGARITY, such as calling someone a c***, is not equivalent to RACISM, such as calling black women apes.

So, why the cries of double-standard?


Also, as for leaving his family out of it, Ivanka Trump is a government official, despite the regular anti-nepotism rules. SO, being a public figure in her own right, she is absolutely fair game.

Roseanne? She is a dumbass and totally deserved to lose her show and this is not the first time she has had issues. So Samantha Bee goes on her C word rampage and it's all ok.

I agree about Roseanne, and I certainly disagree about it being Ok for this other dumb ass getting a pass from anyone. She is crude, rude and for anyone to give her a pass is plain dumb. Unfortunately crude and rude is now accepted by more and more people. I never watch Comedians for this very reason. It is now Tit for Tat in our society, and I will not get into our Presidents penchant for this very same tactic or behavior. Many are guilty of it.

WarRI1 wrote:

Roseanne? She is a dumbass and totally deserved to lose her show and this is not the first time she has had issues. So Samantha Bee goes on her C word rampage and it's all ok.

I agree about Roseanne, and I certainly disagree about it being Ok for this other dumb ass getting a pass from anyone. She is crude, rude and for anyone to give her a pass is plain dumb. Unfortunately crude and rude is now accepted by more and more people. I never watch Comedians for this very reason. It is now Tit for Tat in our society, and I will not get into our Presidents penchant for this very same tactic or behavior. Many are guilty of it.

Its not going to stop until people are dying in the streets during political protests. Its going to be awesome.

WarRI1 wrote:

Roseanne? She is a dumbass and totally deserved to lose her show and this is not the first time she has had issues. So Samantha Bee goes on her C word rampage and it's all ok.

VULGARITY is not the same as RACISM.

People keep trying to make Samantha Bee “just as bad as Roseanne,” but it really isn’t. Not close. It’s like saying running a red light is the same as stealing a car.

Whataboutism at its finest.

D L X wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

Roseanne? She is a dumbass and totally deserved to lose her show and this is not the first time she has had issues. So Samantha Bee goes on her C word rampage and it's all ok.

VULGARITY is not the same as RACISM.

People keep trying to make Samantha Bee “just as bad as Roseanne,” but it really isn’t. Not close. It’s like saying running a red light is the same as stealing a car.

Whataboutism at its finest.

If someone on TBS would have dropped the C-bomb against one of the Obama kids or Michelle back in 2008 they'd have been put through the wringer and immediately fired.

Times have changed and unfortunately its acceptable now to do that. This is what we get.

D L X wrote:

Stratosphere wrote:

My post could be written for you directly. VULGARITY, such as calling someone a c***, is not equivalent to RACISM, such as calling black women apes.

So, why the cries of double-standard?


Also, as for leaving his family out of it, Ivanka Trump is a government official, despite the regular anti-nepotism rules. SO, being a public figure in her own right, she is absolutely fair game.

As much as I might agree with this particular issue with Roseanne which was most certainly deserved. However, the race card is thrown out there way too much much like the cry wolf to the point that it really has no value at least to me and I am sure a lot of whites. Too many people want to go there and it's a shame because there are some real injustices but they get watered down by blacks and liberals who go there with every damn thing a lot of which is not warrented so I don't even pay attention anymore I even roll my eyes when I hear the phrase racism.

D L X wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

Roseanne? She is a dumbass and totally deserved to lose her show and this is not the first time she has had issues. So Samantha Bee goes on her C word rampage and it's all ok.

VULGARITY is not the same as RACISM.

People keep trying to make Samantha Bee “just as bad as Roseanne,” but it really isn’t. Not close. It’s like saying running a red light is the same as stealing a car.

Whataboutism at its finest.

I never said it was, nor confused racial with crude. I said people are crude and rude, it is crude and rude to call anyone that name as this woman did. It is also crude and rude to call people any names racially or other wise. I would not call either a model of decorum, would you? I said it is becoming more common in our society by more people, is it not? I do not like crude people, I was tought not to be. I never use racial names or crudities. My children never heard such in our house.

CCGPV wrote:

D L X wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

Roseanne? She is a dumbass and totally deserved to lose her show and this is not the first time she has had issues. So Samantha Bee goes on her C word rampage and it's all ok.

VULGARITY is not the same as RACISM.

People keep trying to make Samantha Bee “just as bad as Roseanne,” but it really isn’t. Not close. It’s like saying running a red light is the same as stealing a car.

Whataboutism at its finest.

If someone on TBS would have dropped the C-bomb against one of the Obama kids or Michelle back in 2008 they'd have been put through the wringer and immediately fired.

Times have changed and unfortunately its acceptable now to do that. This is what we get.

Exactly racism is the be all get all of injustices and everything else that's vulgar or insulting is ok. .. Just because racism tops the list doesn't give every other low down insulting thing a pass but to liberals anything anti Trump or anti anything they don't agree with is fair game.

CCGPV wrote:

D L X wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

Roseanne? She is a dumbass and totally deserved to lose her show and this is not the first time she has had issues. So Samantha Bee goes on her C word rampage and it's all ok.

VULGARITY is not the same as RACISM.

People keep trying to make Samantha Bee “just as bad as Roseanne,” but it really isn’t. Not close. It’s like saying running a red light is the same as stealing a car.

Whataboutism at its finest.

If someone on TBS would have dropped the C-bomb against one of the Obama kids or Michelle back in 2008 they'd have been put through the wringer and immediately fired.

Times have changed and unfortunately its acceptable now to do that. This is what we get.

Nope. The obama kids were 1) kids and 2) not officials in the administration. Ivanka is 35 years old and holds a title. She’s a public official that works for the United States (when she’s not selling shoes in China). You address her as The Honorable. She is absolutely fair game.

stratosphere wrote:

However, the race card is thrown out there way too much much...

Really? Roseanne equates black women to apes, and you dare use the phrase “race card?”

I think you’ve answers your own question.

stratosphere wrote:

Exactly racism is the be all get all of injustices and everything else that's vulgar or insulting is ok. .. Just because racism tops the list doesn't give every other low down insulting thing a pass but to liberals anything anti Trump or anti anything they don't agree with is fair game.

BULL****



Mind telling me why Kathy Griffin got fired from CNN?

D L X wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

However, the race card is thrown out there way too much much...

Really? Roseanne equates black women to apes, and you dare use the phrase “race card?”

I think you’ve answers your own question.

I said what Rosanne said doesn't apply what she said was no doubt racist I am saying in general the race card is played in all facets and a lot of the accusations are not true or are baseless. That is why it holds no value anymore.

D L X wrote:

People keep trying to make Samantha Bee “just as bad as Roseanne,” but it really isn’t. Not close. It’s like saying running a red light is the same as stealing a car.

You are right, what Samantha Bee did is worse.

Roseanne said something horrible on her own and she and everyone who works with her lost he jobs as a consequence.

Samantha Bee and her entire production team wrote, produced, edited and promoted her horrible thing and there were no consequences.

Talk about fairness.

I don't shed a single tear for Roseanne. Good riddance. But this liberal hypocrisy in this matter and others is just beyond words.

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I mean the whole Administration is tone-deaf. That's well established at this point. We shouldn't expect much from this train-wreck.

I don't really know the details of the Nugent thing but it sounds pretty bad as well. Its pretty clear there's a lot of hypocrisy involved. I don't think Bee should be fired just so you know. And I don't think Nugent is in the same moral league as Bee. He's a child molester and a racist that couldn't get a legitimate job on TV because of his idiocy. His whole thing is being an asshole. Bee on the other hand at least claims to play the game of being a good person so she should know not to sink to those levels. Its still hypocrisy and she should be held accountable- maybe make her do an apology segment or whatever. If she does it again she's gone.

She did an apology already. She owned what she did. She did not blame it on Ambien or Long Island Iced Tea or "someone hacked my account." And righteis are still clutching their pearls and demanding her show be cancelled. All because Samantha Bee said "Donald does X, Y, and Z and Ivanka just sits back and does nothing even with her high security clearance and full access to the president...." Bee never said she (Bee) was a good person, either.

There is a world of difference between "Ivanka is a c*** because...." and "that c*** Hillary should be locked up!" and thousands of tRump supporters wearing "lock the c*** up!" shirts....

BTW, what is Ivanka's official role and title in the administration that she still has a high security clearance? She did not have to go through Congressional hearings or anything. "Here is your clearance!" is what it seems like happened. I get that family should have some level of White House clearance. I am not questioning that. But why so high?

This is my problem with you liberals Seb you always give a pass to other liberals no matter how egregious the issue. Roseanne? She is a dumbass and totally deserved to lose her show and this is not the first time she has had issues. So Samantha Bee goes on her C word rampage and it's all ok. Look you can hate Trump he is fair game but Ivanka seems to be a pretty decent person and Trumps young son who is autistic seems to be fair game for liberals as well and that too is bullshit. You can hate Trump all you want leave his family out of it especially a kid. I will take exception to Don Jr tho you can attack him all you want.

So Nugent uses that word to describe Hillary and now you righties DEMAND he be given a pass and Bee be taken off the air? This is freakin' R-I-C-H!!!!

Oh please, enough with the Ivanka/Bee hypocrisy...

Can no one see the difference between a racist slur and a comedian insulting a political figure?
Comedians have been calling politicians name since we stepped out of monarchies and dictatorships.

Why do those who defend the current government not have a shred of judgement and common sense. What kind of b*llsh*t equivalency is this?

Talk about whataboutism... It seems many of the Trump fanatics on here would love to see Lese-Majeste crimes reinstated against anybody who dares speak ill of their supreme leader and his royal family.

Give me a break.

stratosphere wrote:

D L X wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

However, the race card is thrown out there way too much much...

Really? Roseanne equates black women to apes, and you dare use the phrase “race card?”

I think you’ve answers your own question.

I said what Rosanne said doesn't apply what she said was no doubt racist I am saying in general the race card is played in all facets and a lot of the accusations are not true or are baseless. That is why it holds no value anymore.

Why fall for the bait and go on the defensive when someone deliberately quotes you out of context when you clearly explained the first time you thought what she did was wrong (and exactly right before they started quoting you):

stratosphere wrote:

As much as I might agree with this particular issue with Roseanne which was most certainly deserved. However, the race card is thrown out there way too much much like the cry wolf to the point that it really has no value at least to me and I am sure a lot of whites. Too many people want to go there and it's a shame because there are some real injustices but they get watered down by blacks and liberals who go there with every damn thing a lot of which is not warrented so I don't even pay attention anymore I even roll my eyes when I hear the phrase racism.