Rodeo clowns and announcer mock Obama in MO State Fair

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 17, 2013 17:20:56 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 17, 2013 13:14:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I found this to be a pathetic and disgusting display of disrespect. By the left.  Of the Constitutional right to freedom of expression.  This is the kind of thing you see in North Korea or the old USSR.  

These are the same people that find nothing wrong with taking tax dollars and bestowing them on "artists" whose work consists of a bull whip hanging out of a man's ass, or a crucifix in a jar of urine- so don't give me the 'state funded' or state sponsored event line.

It was hilarious.

You just proved the Left is all for Freedom of Expression.

Because he's banned for life from the County Fair?  Or, because he's getting death threats?

[EVT1]

I am for it- disrespectful- sure- but so be it.  Racist- probably to a degree.  Why do I care?  If some redneck wants to mock the president then go ahead.  Not fooling anyone what it is- but free speech wins.  Not like Obama didn't anticipate certain states and citizens wanting to hang him like he looked at a white girl with lustfull eyes.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 17, 2013 17:34:24 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 17, 2013 17:20:56 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You just proved the Left is all for Freedom of Expression.

Because he's banned for life from the County Fair?  Or, because he's getting death threats?

Is there only one county fair in the whole country?  Has the U.S. govrrnment arrested, convicted, and executed him?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 17, 2013 17:38:28 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am for it- disrespectful- sure- but so be it.  Racist- probably to a degree.  Why do I care?  If some redneck wants to mock the president then go ahead.  Not fooling anyone what it is- but free speech wins.  Not like Obama didn't anticipate certain states and citizens wanting to hang him like he looked at a white girl with lustfull eyes.

This is absurd.  Presidents are mocked and ridiculed- it's part of the deal.  Comes with the territory.  One could say that the expectation that we go easy on Obama because he's black is the real racism. 

[mmhmm]

Aug 17, 2013 22:55:07 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 17, 2013 17:38:28 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am for it- disrespectful- sure- but so be it.  Racist- probably to a degree.  Why do I care?  If some redneck wants to mock the president then go ahead.  Not fooling anyone what it is- but free speech wins.  Not like Obama didn't anticipate certain states and citizens wanting to hang him like he looked at a white girl with lustfull eyes.

This is absurd.  Presidents are mocked and ridiculed- it's part of the deal.  Comes with the territory.  One could say that the expectation that we go easy on Obama because he's black is the real racism. 

Who said anything like that, paul?

[tallguy]

When has that ever mattered, mmhmm?

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 18, 2013 0:10:45 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Aug 17, 2013 22:55:07 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

This is absurd.  Presidents are mocked and ridiculed- it's part of the deal.  Comes with the territory.  One could say that the expectation that we go easy on Obama because he's black is the real racism. 

Who said anything like that, paul?

The racism angle has featured several times in the thread. Zib, Tenn, and Optimist all brought it up on page 1.

Plus, the NAACP getting involved would tend to suggest that more just a few people considered the stunt to be racially motivated (or not racially motivated but incorrectly perceived as such, which I'm assuming is Paul's argument).

[mmhmm]

First of all, Virgil, it's probably best not to "assume" anything where another person is concerned.  I'm sure paul is well aware of his argument and perfectly capable of speaking to the issue himself.  That's why I addressed my question to him, not you.

Secondly, nobody here has said anything about going "easy on Obama because he's black".  I haven't read that from one poster.  Have you?

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm sure paul is well aware of his argument and perfectly capable of speaking to the issue himself.

I'm sure he is. But you hooked a Virgilfish instead.

Secondly, nobody here has said anything about going "easy on Obama because he's black". I haven't read that from one poster. Have you?

A few of the conservative posters (Zib, mtman et al.) have criticized the idea that the stunt was racially motivated. They see racism as a convenient scapegoat rather than an explanation. It's fair to characterize their position as "Cry 'racism' if you want, but we don't care about your perceptions, nor do we expect Americans to avoid lampooning the president because of them."

If we accept the premise that no racism is involved, the posters claiming racism (Optimist, happyhoix, Tenn, etc.) are (by assumption) unwilling to discriminate between racism and parody, requiring that Americans "go easy on Obama because he's black".

None of them have outright said this (obviously, since it's a blatant double-standard when stated so directly), but it follows logically from their comments if we accept Zib et al.'s thesis.

Do I personally think racism is involved here? My gut feeling is 'yes'. But it wouldn't take much to change my mind.

[AGB]

Aug 18, 2013 1:19:33 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

First of all, Virgil, it's probably best not to "assume" anything where another person is concerned.  I'm sure paul is well aware of his argument and perfectly capable of speaking to the issue himself.  That's why I addressed my question to him, not you.

Secondly, nobody here has said anything about going "easy on Obama because he's black".  I haven't read that from one poster.  Have you?

So people shouldn't assume the clown was motivated by racism?

[Opti]

Virgilfish, did you confuse me with someone else? I have not claimed it was a racist event.
I claimed it was bad because the clown basically promoted violence against the President. I'm OK with mocking. Not threatened bodily harm who exhort the crowd to agree to.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 12, 2013 14:56:14 GMT -5 Opti said:

lots of people have short memories when it came to Bush and how he was treated.

And lots of people have exaggerated memories and the inability to fairly compare things that happened recently versus things that happened in the past. I remember enough.
The bashing of W's background for example was small in scope and nowhere near as constant. He was seen as the lesser brother and a party animal, but nothing made up or contrived.

BS....I hated most of the policies Bush had (and my dislike of them didn't change just because a President with a "D" next to his name got elected).  I didn't vote for Bush, but to say the hate and vitriol was "small in scope and nowhere near as consistent" is just wrong.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 12, 2013 15:06:32 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

Aug 12, 2013 14:23:50 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Free speech is great isnt it?

I don't see the big deal.  I don't think the hate Obama has gotten is any worse than what Bush got.  It is entertaining to watch the left stew about it though, now that the shoe is on the other foot.  Now that their man is in the white house, it's all about how we should respect and revere him.

I know a lot of poeple didnt like Bush, but I definitely do not recall large groups of people at events and gathering wishing him physical harm.  That is going to far in my opinion.

Yeah it's not like people laughed about the Iraqi reporter who threw a shoe at him and people saying it would have been better if it hit him.    It's also a very good thing that camera phones weren't around to catch any of these things that you "do not recall."

[Tennesseer]

A Washinton Post article regarding the rodeo.

Obama rodeo clown incident illustrates nation’s continued racial divide

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 13, 2013 6:50:03 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Aug 12, 2013 14:51:05 GMT -5 Opti said:

You'll can pretend this happened before to other Presidents, but show me the stories!!!
Where is the evidence? Could it have happened at private parties? Sure. Probably happens for Obama now too. But in public as part of the entertainment when its not comedy or a roast? Yep, so far you'll got nothing. Just assertions with no evidence.

I'm still getting through all the posts on this so not sure if the above has been addressed yet...

Obama is the first president where YouTube was up for the full term of his presidency.  Couple that with the wide availability of smart phones/video recording devices and the potential for this type of display to go "viral" is exponentially higher than at any other point in history.  YouTube was only up for the (I believe) last few years of Bush Jr.'s term and was not the phenomenon it is today.

I dont' condone the behaviour as I believe we should respect the office.  However I VIVIDLY remember some protests when Jimmy Carter was in office during the oil/energy crisis when things were going south in Iran and I even remember him being burned in effigy on the news.  It was one of the first times my parents explained the concept of free speech to me.

Here's the link...

news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19781212&id=TKUfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PtYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4376,1588975

Just saw this one after posting that it is a good thing video phones weren't so accessible back under Bush...or any other President for that matter.

[mmhmm]

Aug 18, 2013 8:21:16 GMT -5 AGB said:

Aug 18, 2013 1:19:33 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

First of all, Virgil, it's probably best not to "assume" anything where another person is concerned.  I'm sure paul is well aware of his argument and perfectly capable of speaking to the issue himself.  That's why I addressed my question to him, not you.

Secondly, nobody here has said anything about going "easy on Obama because he's black".  I haven't read that from one poster.  Have you?

So people shouldn't assume the clown was motivated by racism?

In my opinion, no. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 18, 2013 8:28:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

Virgilfish, did you confuse me with someone else? I have not claimed it was a racist event.
I claimed it was bad because the clown basically promoted violence against the President. I'm OK with mocking. Not threatened bodily harm who exhort the crowd to agree to.

Optimist:

I reread your early comments, and you're right. I stand corrected.

I was initially thrown by your comment "Just as I was dismayed to find out how deep some people's hatred and racism was, I feel the same reading this." on the first page, but I see now that "this" pertained to some of the more colourful comments in this thread rather than to the rodeo.

I shall self-administer 40 lashes with a wet noodle.

ETA: And just to humour me, can you refer to it as "portraying bodily harm" rather than "threatening bodily harm". You may consider the difference to be semantic, but it isn't, and the term 'threat' really, really doesn't apply here. Moreover, legitimately threatening to harm the US President is already illegal.

[moon/Laura]

racist comment removed by moon

[Tennesseer]

Aug 18, 2013 10:09:32 GMT -5 moon/Laura said:

racist comment removed by moon

It would be nice to know which poster made the comment.  It helps other posters know where a poster stands on issues.  IMHO of course.

ETA:  Never mind.  I figured it out.  Please disregard.

[Opti]

And just to humour me, can you refer to it as "portraying bodily harm"

Sure. That is a better way to say it. However, at the very least I think you should
use an uncooked noodle.

[tallguy]

And that really is the point, Virgil.  There is a huge difference between "mocking" someone (even a president) and portraying violence against someone.  If one wants to mock, go right ahead.  Doonesbury and SNL did a wonderful job for years, against both sides.  Political cartoons, such as Thomas Nast portraying Boss Tweed with a bag of money where his head should be?  Fine, and well done.  Even Glenn Beck had a "Mock Obama" day in response to this.  But portraying violence crosses a line.

Do I consider it a credible threat against the President?  No.  Do I consider the clown's actions a sign that the American public has degenerated into a disgusting mob?  Not really, although the fact that there was a crowd of people apparently shouting their uproarious approval of that implied violence would lead to that conclusion about at least a segment of it.  Do I consider it racially motivated?  Not so much, although there is almost certainly at least some racial component in the crowd's reaction to it.  Is it a sign that the polarization and ignorance in this country has reached a point that people don't even want to try to come together, and prefer to remain mired in their contempt for the other side?  Probably.  And that is why I will repeat, "We are NOT better than that."  Not any more.   

[Virgil Showlion]

Not any more.

As several posters have proven, not since Bush.

I suspect we could go back even further and dig up rallies where men were burning Pres. Clinton in effigy and painting him in crosshairs.

The conservative argument in this thread is primarily "We've all witnessed burning, stabbed, hanged, shot presidential images for well over a decade. We're used to them. What rock have the rest of you been living under?"

[tallguy]

The conservative argument in this thread is primarily "We've all witnessed burning, stabbed, hanged, shot presidential images for well over a decade. We're used to them. What rock have the rest of you been living under?"

And without reading too much of this, I'd almost bet the liberal argument is primarily, "It's wrong either way, and how can you not denounce them no matter which side it is?" 

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 18, 2013 13:16:29 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The conservative argument in this thread is primarily "We've all witnessed burning, stabbed, hanged, shot presidential images for well over a decade. We're used to them. What rock have the rest of you been living under?"

And without reading too much of this, I'd almost bet the liberal argument is primarily, "It's wrong either way, and how can you not denounce them no matter which side it is?" 

I think the conservative answer would be "Alas, we dislike the man too much to care."

One other thing to consider: Posters here have been quick to jump on the "bodily harm is what makes it wrong" bandwagon, but that rationale quickly falls apart if we look at it critically.

There are many perverse ways to mock a man besides violence. If the rodeo clown had asked the crowd whether they wanted to see a bull defecate on Pres. Obama's face, for example, or whether they wanted to see Pres. Obama kiss a bull (somewhere besides the face), I'd consider both acts more objectionable than having Pres. Obama chased by a bull. I suspect most posters here would agree with me. Yet neither of these acts depicts bodily harm.

Conversely, if the act had been Pres. Obama being hit on the head with a giant mallet, or a mockup of Obama being run through a tumble dryer as part of an "Obama's All Wet!" skit, both of these actions would certainly kill a man in real life, and yet I suspect most of us would consider these acts to be much close to "goofy" on the goofy-to-offensive spectrum.

Bodily harm clearly isn't the only variable that divides acceptable from unacceptable in such instances, and posters should bear this in mind if they don't want to flip-flop on the issue when some goofy-yet-violent lampoon of a prominent Republican next comes out. Reserve your right to say "Meh, get over it." if a group decides to fire a Mitt Romney doll out of a cannon or something.

[tallguy]

While I will grant that there is much more leeway in the case of the patently absurd, I would disagree that anyone considers violence to be the only rationale for disgust at the prospect.  The dehumanizing (as you brought up) is also reprehensible.  The focus on violence in this thread is because this incident referred specifically to violence.  Do you really need to divert the subject to make an argument?

As I said, it is wrong either way.  But it is also true that it says MUCH more about the people doing it than it does about the target.  And for the record, "disgusting POS-ness" is not an exclusively liberal, conservative, Democratic, or Republican trait.  It does, however, seem to much more populate the extremes of either side.  It is also why very few members of those extremes are worth listening to.  EVER.         

[Virgil Showlion]

I would disagree that anyone considers violence to be the only rationale for disgust at the prospect.

What can I say? Read the thread in its entirety.

If you stand by your statement, we disagree for at least three posters. And I don't want to argue the point, hence it will have to be an A2D.

ETA: My definition of 'only' in this case does not pertain to perfunctory statements. For example, if I poster states "Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of X, but Democrats are especially guilty because..." and goes on for three paragraphs about Democrats, I consider this to be 'only' a criticism of Democrats. As far as I'm concerned, the reference to Republicans is thrown in to give the post a veneer of non-partisanship, and I ain't buying it.

[mmhmm]

Aug 18, 2013 14:16:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I would disagree that anyone considers violence to be the only rationale for disgust at the prospect.

What can I say? Read the thread in its entirety.

If you stand by your statement, we disagree for at least three posters. And I don't want to argue the point, hence it will have to be an A2D.

Did a poster here say the ONLY reason they are against this display is because of the violence, Virgil?  Please point me to that post.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 18, 2013 14:22:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Aug 18, 2013 14:16:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What can I say? Read the thread in its entirety.

If you stand by your statement, we disagree for at least three posters. And I don't want to argue the point, hence it will have to be an A2D.

Did a poster here say the ONLY reason they are against this display is because of the violence, Virgil?  Please point me to that post.

See my ETA.

And I'm not going to start pointing fingers again. I promised certain parties that I wouldn't.

[tallguy]

Aug 18, 2013 14:16:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I would disagree that anyone considers violence to be the only rationale for disgust at the prospect.

What can I say? Read the thread in its entirety.

If you stand by your statement, we disagree for at least three posters. And I don't want to argue the point, hence it will have to be an A2D.

ETA: My definition of 'only' in this case does not pertain to perfunctory statements. For example, if I poster states "Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of X, but Democrats are especially guilty because..." and goes on for three paragraphs about Democrats, I consider this to be 'only' a criticism of Democrats.

Then I think you are misreading me.  My contention is that the "liberal" reaction would be the same were it either violence or your other examples.  This incident focused on violence, so this thread focuses on violence.  Had it been otherwise, this would be otherwise.   

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 18, 2013 14:28:45 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 18, 2013 14:16:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What can I say? Read the thread in its entirety.

If you stand by your statement, we disagree for at least three posters. And I don't want to argue the point, hence it will have to be an A2D.

ETA: My definition of 'only' in this case does not pertain to perfunctory statements. For example, if I poster states "Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of X, but Democrats are especially guilty because..." and goes on for three paragraphs about Democrats, I consider this to be 'only' a criticism of Democrats.

Then I think you are misreading me.  My contention is that the "liberal" reaction would be the same were it either violence or your other examples.  This incident focused on violence, so this thread focuses on violence.  Had it been otherwise, this would be otherwise.   

I have no idea.

The proof would be to dig up the zombie corpse of the old, old MSN money boards, mine it for data, and find out whether Tall et al. circa 2000-2008 were "How dare they do that to the President!" unhappy liberals, or "Bush is a mound of horse turd, and I'll shed no tears for him." sticks-and-stones liberals.

I find solace in knowing that regardless of what the reality actually is, we'll find not one liberal here claiming anything besides "I would have been outraged." and we'll find not one conservative here claiming anything besides "You would have blown it off or cheered it on."  It gives the boards a kind of warm, comfortable predictability. Like the way we can always enjoy James Bond movies because the outcome is 100% predetermined.