Reply #299: Are you always this nasty or just when you're on the losing side of an argument?

[Number23]

You are the one who is contorting yourself into a damn pretzel trying to defend and find EXPLICIT racist imagery in this cartoon. I'm beginning to understand why you would need things to be so black and white because it appears that your analytic skills are a bit lacking.

The NYP toon has no direct reference to Obama at all.

Don't you find it even the slightest bit odd that you are the ONLY PERSON who feels that way? Who in God's name could that cartoon have been about, if not Obama?

As I stated in an earlier post, there are some who believe that because something may not have been DELIBERATELY created to be racist, that somehow makes it non-racist. That is simply not true. The creator of this cartoon may not have DELIBERATELY set out to make this a racist cartoon, but there is no doubt that it is racially tinged and very racially insensitive. Why? Because Obama is black and throughout history, images of monkeys have been used as a DELIBERATE way to insult black people. You were the one who foolishly imo brought up that this would not be considered racist if the author had drawn this cartoon in response to a McCain bill. I tried to post something other than "no shit" in an effort to be civil, but I see that I'm wasting my time.

Words matter. History matters. You not only refuse to see that, but you've also DELIBERATELY chosen to be nasty as hell because you've (rightfully) gotten your ass handed to you by about 100 different people in this thread. Please don't be angry at the rest of us because we are able to see the forest AND the damned trees.