Excuse me? Is Rice in some exalted class, that I should not even deign to 
disparage her? Pa-leeze. I don't buy into that mind-set. She's a dummy and a 
puppet, plain and simple. No big deal to me, though she was so obviously 
unqualified, it was more than a little embarrassing to have her representing 
this country.  

 For example, even TRY to compare her to George Schultz, Dean Rusk, John Foster 
Dulles, Madeline Albright, John Kerry, or even Henry Kissinger, for example. 
She falls to the bottom of the list effortlessly, out of her depth, and then 
some. 
 

 Michelle Obama is a beautiful, smart, well-qualified First Lady, who has done 
nothing except bring grace and poise to The White House. No comparison at all 
to the bad hire.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 Well Ollie, you might as well say that she's a real *Aunt Jemima*. 
 BTW, what has Michelle Obama ever done that is so note worthy besides 
parroting her husband and showing off her new clothes and taking food out of 
the mouths of hungry kids?
  For you to try to judge her intelligence is like the twenty watt light bulb 
saying the hundred watt ain't so bright.
 


 From: "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 3:36 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consolation
 
 
   I didn't care for either cartoon. That said, Michelle Obama is miles ahead 
of Condoleeza in terms of intelligence and ability. What a failed pianist was 
doing as secretary of state is beyond me. As far as I could tell, her main gig 
was showing off all her new clothes and parroting whatever Cheney wanted her to 
say - a real doofus. Now she is back at Stanford, playing the token. Bah.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 It is a matter of hypocrisy Judy. Ollie suggested that a cartoon of Michelle 
Obama was racist  because of her body mass as opposed to Trumps former model 
wife and I countered with the hypocrisy of the left.
  If you didn't notice, I followed that sentence invoking the Times and the 
Post with a question mark. No, it wasn't published by them but was by a 
syndicated cartoonist that they frequently publish and continue to do so.
 Let's not play stupid Judy, you know exactly what the sentiment of that 
cartoon was meant to convey. A black woman sitting in a rocking chair, rocking 
an aluminum tube as if it were a baby with a play on words from a famous movie. 
The line, "I don't know nothing 'bout birthing babies", mocking a simpleton, an 
uneducated lazy slave, one who does what the massa tells her to do. 
 The very fact that you can defend it, while claiming you're not, is ten times 
lower than my not knowing that neither the Times nor the Post actually 
published it even though it was one of their syndicated  cartoonists.
 It was all about hypocrisy Judy..


 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:47 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consolation

 
   For you to suggest the cartoon was published in the New York Times or 
Washington Post when you knew it wasn't was pretty low, Mike.
 

 And I just got done saying myself that the accuracy of the caption wasn't 
relevant.
 

 I don't know what "sentiment" the cartoon was intended to evoke, and neither 
do you. The political point, though, was valid, and I would guess that's why 
some defended it.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 No Judy, I didn't need a source. I remember the controversy it caused. Whether 
it was published in a news paper or not, it was defended by liberal bloggers 
and people in the media and there was more than just that one cartoon. The 
accuracy of the caption is irrelevant. It's the sentiment that it intended to 
evoke, that she was a stupid,  uneducated, black woman, still on the plantation.
 
 
WWW.iwf.org/media/2434659/IWF-Denounces-Racist-Depictions-of-Dr-Condoleezza-Rice-in-Popular-Editorial-Cartoons





 


 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 5:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Consolation

 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 (snip)
 
 A cartoon about Michelle being big and husky?How about the one with Condolezza 
Rice crying *I don't know nuthin' 'bout birthin' tubes* while rocking ion a 
chair with a rag tied around her head as if she were a slave in Gone With The 
Wind. Was that New York Times or Washington Post?

Hmmmmmmmm?

 
 

 That disgraceful cartoon was never published in a newspaper, only on the 
cartoonist's Web site.
 

 So much for the accuracy of your right-wing sources. (You have the caption 
wrong too, but it doesn't make any difference.)
 

 










 
















 














 


 












Reply via email to