Project Wonderful Banner

Friday, August 15, 2008

Those damned words

What's Mallard raving about today?

Words.

I'd like to think this was an unbelievably well-disguised paean to George Carlin and his Seven Words. But it's more likely he's just pissed off that it isn't acceptable to call his Black neighbor "boy" anymore.

And, yes, that's as tame as I can make this.

22 comments:

exanonymous said...

Mallard's still allowed to say those words, despite his "poor majority conservative duck aka white male" status.

His problem lies is in how people react. He is one with the people who write to Dear Abbey and complain about the number of people who treat their racist jokes with a hostile silence instead of the expected round of laughter.

GeoX said...

Yeah, it's really tragic that good honest hard-working salt-of-the-earth types like Tinsley can't actually come out and call Obama a nigger without all those hypersensitive, pee see, aclu-types getting all bent out of shape. If our forefathers were here to see this sorry state of affairs, they would all drop DEAD! What a world!

Kaitlyn said...

There's just no polite way to interpret this.

What a whiner.

But don't people like Mallard whine about how rude and awful society is now?

I wonder if he's ever claimed that "cracker" hurts his feelings.

Robert said...

Perhaps the epithet "quacker" has hurt Mallard's feelings.




I'm so sorry.

Michael said...

It's about time someone stuck up for the white man. We're the REAL victims of society!

EddyPo said...

Darn it Kaitlyn, you took the words right out of my mouth.

This is the group that is sure that there is more cursing on liberal websites and that just proves how terrible lefties are.

Angry Middle-Aged White Guy said...

You are allowed to say just as much as you've ever been "allowed" to say. The only difference now is that people are slightly more likely to react negatively to some racist or ignorant comment of Tinsley's. So he "just can't" say it anymore. Because some people use their right to free speech to let him know they disapprove. How mean of them, can't someone please take away their rights to express themselves so that poor obnoxious idiots can get approval for their ignorant rants?

Boo-hoo-hoo. Poor racists, why doesn't anyone stick up for them? Only Mallard Fillmore and talk radio and Fox news will do it! Let's all have a big pity party for racists who are still allowed to speak their idiotic minds but no longer have an easy time getting away with it. It's a real tragedy, no wonder angry middle aged white guys can't ever shut up about it.

Anonymous said...

We're mad as hell? Not really
It's almost an article of faith in the political dialogue this year that Americans are angry - about the war, about the economy, about gas prices, about the environment, about their political leaders - and that this anger is justified. In fact, when anybody threatens to upset that narrative - say, a Phil Gramm asserting we're merely in a "mental recession" - he's pounced upon.
But what if the assumption is wrong? What if Americans aren't really in a constant state of outrage? Arthur C. Brooks thinks the anger is being exaggerated. The Syracuse University public affairs professor noted in a Wall Street Journal column last week that recent data don't support the notion that we're ready to explode with rage.

A Gallup poll in May, Brooks points out, found that the average American adult felt "outraged" 1.17 days during the previous week, and that 54 percent of adults hadn't felt angry at all. Compare that to 1996, supposedly a golden time of peace and prosperity, when the average adult felt outraged 1.5 days per week and only 38 percent weren't angry at all.

But here's the really interesting part: Compared to 1996, almost every major demographic group in the nation is less angry today, except for one: people who consider themselves "very liberal." And they feel angry 2.28 days a week - about twice as much as the rest of us.

I guess the message here is that most Americans aren't as tormented or even divided as many in the media would like to portray them. Brooks suggests it's because deep down, we know we're still a stable, prosperous and fortunate nation, despite our problems.

Of course, that's not as dramatic or provocative, but maybe it's closer to the truth.

Anonymous said...

The Lord Messiah, B. Hussein Obama,
Things we can't talk about:
With Obama we started out, we couldn’t talk about his big ears ’cause that made him nervous. We’ve gone from that to this: Not only can we not mention his ears, we can’t talk about his mother. We can’t talk about his father. We can’t talk about his grandmother unless he does, brings her up as a ‘typical white person.’ We can’t talk about his wife, can’t talk about his preacher, can’t talk about his terrorist friends, can’t talk about his voting record, can’t talk about his religion.

We can’t talk about appeasement. We can’t talk about color; we can’t talk about lack of color. We can’t talk about race. We can’t talk about bombers and mobsters who are his friends. We can’t talk about schooling.
We can’t talk about his name, ‘Hussein.’ We can’t talk about his lack of experience. Can’t talk about his income. Can’t talk about his flag pin. This started out we can’t call him a liberal. Now we can’t say anything about this man.

Kaitlyn said...

Uh huh.

If he was talking about Obama today, he would have jammed his name in there somewhere. Too much text has never been a concern.

And anger?

What does that have to do with today's comic, or any from this week?

exanonymous said...

Funny, Anon.
You just did talk about all those things, didn't you? And there it stands, on the internet, posted in all it's... length.

How about we play fair? Let's start easy. How about the connotations of middle names? Sidney. It sounds like a city in Australia. Australia was populated by white criminals and later stole land from a people to whom the concept of ownership was foreign.

Discuss.

GeoX said...

Jeez, Tinzanonymous, I always knew you were a fucking idiot, but you've really outdone yourself this time. Please, by all means, let us all know: who exactly do you think is stopping you from bleating endlessly about how Barack HUSSEIN!!! Obama is a SCARY BLACK MAN! with a SCARY BLACK FATHER! who is a friend of other SCARY BLACK MEN! and wants to APPEASE TERRORISTS! and who LOOKS FUNNY! and WON'T WEAR A FLAG PIN LIKE A REAL MURKIN! and who is simultaneously a SCARY MUSLIM! and a SCARY BLACK CHRISTIAN! and also THE ANTICHRIST! who EATS ARUGULA!?

...'Cause it seems to me that if anybody's trying to STOP you from talking about this, they're doing a pretty piss-poor job, since you and your gibbering, barely-reconstructed racist ilk absolutely WILL NOT SHUT THE FUCK UP about it.

I know you won't admit it, but you don't have to, since everyone here already knows it: you're just upset that there are people calling you on your bullshit, and you're DOUBLY upset that this...this...this UPPITY NEGRO has the presumption to run for a WHITE MAN'S JOB and you can't respond by just shouting NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER even as every fiber of your being wants to more badly than its ever wanted anything else in your LIFE.

Pardon me if I have trouble empathizing.

Kaitlyn said...

Where is this Obama as messiah stuff coming from?

First, I saw it in the comic. And now anonymous is repeating it.

factinista said...

And it's not just that. Where is this "we can't talk about him" garbage coming from?

Truce Binsley said...

The tirade Anonymous posted above is apparently from Rush Limbaugh.

When a guy with a nationally syndicated talk show claims he's not allowed to speak his mind, I get the sense he's full of shit.

Kaitlyn said...

Truce - I'm going to assume Anonymous is really Rush Limbaugh.

Dude, that would be awesome if it were true.

Hell, it's awesome that people like the various anonymous commenters stop by - this blog isn't just read by Mallard haters.

PC Thug said...

I am reporting anonymous for SPEAKING HIS MIND!! He is NOT ALLOWED to say what he said!! NOT ALLOWED! I am telling!! The police are going to kick down his door and lock him up for saying what he used to be allowed to say!! Because he's not allowed to say it anymore. Some law was passed recently about this, I head all about it on talk radio and Fox News. It's true, you aren't allowed to say what you used to say anymore.

exanonymous said...

Anon is likely not Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh as far as I know speaks his own mind with his own spin. Anon with the bold lettering and lack of structure is a copy-paste debater. I'd like to think that if Limbaugh did visit this blog, the ideas presented would be a bit more original.

And I'm not a Mallard hater. I don't invest time in things I hate, like cooked carrots. I read because ignorance never helped anything get anywhere.

DonkleDuck said...

Re: Anon - this right-wing paranoia is really getting tedious. Do you not understand the utter absurdity of complaning about how "we" can't say things, and then turning around and saying them? Who is this "we" you speak of? And what on earth is the point, much less the importance, of being able to talk about Obama's "Big Ears?" Unless one wants to make an infantile "Neener, neener Hussein's got big ears" style "joke."

Seriously, Tinsley, stop posting anonymously. You're not fooling anyone.

DonkleDuck said...

"But what if the assumption is wrong? What if Americans aren't really in a constant state of outrage? Arthur C. Brooks thinks the anger is being exaggerated."

I don't think the average American is angry today. Disgusted, cynical, and worried about the future might be better terms to use in the next poll. Anger and outrage seem to be the only emotions right-wing nutjobs such as yourself feel.

Kaitlyn said...

Ex - Mallard haters was the only thing I could think of.

That's why you shouldn't comment when you should be sleeping.

Truce Binsley said...

Obama's big ears are an important issue. Studies show that politicians raise taxes in direct proportion with the size of their ears.