Skip navigation



    • 21stCentury
    • Posted February 7, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    • Permalink

    I don’t get it. I mean, is there a joke in there? Is there some political commentary? If so, I’d like it if someone explained because I just don’t get it.

  1. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. It’s that simple. You’re just not in on our kind of humor around here, and that’s not a problem for me. That doesn’t mean we’re BAD or EVIL or RACIST or any of the other elementary-school-level cliches the left is apt to toss around, aimed at humor that is outside the boundaries of what has been sanctified as Politically Correctly Acceptable for them by the Democrat worldview and the extremely provincial and predictable mainstream media.

    • 21stCentury
    • Posted February 7, 2011 at 6:05 pm
    • Permalink

    First of all, I never called you anything, so I’m not entirely sure where you get the “bad, evil, racist or elementary-school-level cliche”. I just want to understand this. Do you mind explaining the joke (this is supposed to be humorous, right?) I know people usually say explaining a joke makes it unfunny, but I’m fairly sure it’s only explaining it in the work itself. Not sure what the “mainstream media” means when I’m not actually into it to begin with.

    Hoping to get an explanation, I’m actually quite puzzled by this. A simple “you don’t get it, you don’t get it” certainly doesn’t do it for me. I must know the meaning here. Please take some time from your busy schedule to indulge me.

  2. It’s just a fun/absurd imaginary movie poster, in large part. Also, I can’t stand Hanks with his smarmy do-gooder liberal Big Government worldview, so he seemed the perfect candidate for an imaginary Important Film based on the life of a smarmy do-gooder liberal Big Government prezzy.

    • 21stCentury
    • Posted February 7, 2011 at 6:50 pm
    • Permalink

    I wanted to know, what exactly is “Big government”? isn’t the American Government roughly the same size regardless of who’s president?

    Also, isn’t being a “do-gooder” a good thing? I mean, I certainly try to be a do-gooder, it beats being a do-badder.

  3. 21st: Well, no. I too try to do good, but a do-gooder does not refer to such normal laudable behavior. A do-gooder is someone who IN HIS MIND thinks he’s doing good but is actually being meddlesome at best by horning in on other people’s business to an irritating extent; or, too, one who flatters himself excessively over his real or imagined goodness. It can be sickening.

    Ever hear the expression “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”? This would be the kind of “good” the do-gooder perpetrates.

    For further depth of understanding on this subject please study every single thing Obama does.

    • 21stCentury
    • Posted February 7, 2011 at 7:05 pm
    • Permalink

    Well, of course not everything Obama did is entirely right, but it’s not entirely wrong either. Plus, i would assume we disagree on similar points for completely opposed reasons. Then again, it’s not like Obama’s the president of my country.

    As for what you said, isn’t there more or less only one “good”? By following your idiom, wouldn’t that mean the only way to avoid going to hell would be to go out of your way and avoid doing good?

    I still think someone trying to do good and failing is better than someone who doesn’t even try. Obviously we disagree on that point, eh Zack? 🙂

    • Jamie
    • Posted February 7, 2011 at 7:56 pm
    • Permalink

    *Zack posts a picture involving blackface*

    21: I don’t get the joke.


    I love the comment threads on this site. I love ’em to pieces. 🙂

  4. What are you implying, Jamie, that white men Shalt Not Play black men? And that if they do it means they’re “in blackface?” (Hanks patently is not, in my poster: blackface is a very specific style of application.) Should Lawrence Olivier not have played Othello in Moorish makeup, and by doing so was he “in blackface” and thus a laughable racist? And no my poster is not Shakespeare but neither is there anything remotely racist about it. A white can portray a black, a black can portray a white, and so what? Only a liberal or a halfwit would impute racist motives to such non-events.

    • 21stCentury
    • Posted February 7, 2011 at 8:38 pm
    • Permalink

    Zack, not that I only live to point out flaws in reasoning, but aren’t you the first one who put a racial spin on this? Your first reply is basically “Don’t call me racist”… By imputing a racial dimension yourself, aren’t you yourself acting like a “Liberal or a halfwit”?

    Call me Liberal if you want, but you can’t claim that there’s no racism problem in America.

  5. It may be that I jumped the gun here, 21st. Quite a few who stop here are forever cued up to seeing racism in places it doesn’t exist, and this may be a case of my being too quick on the defense.

    • Jamie
    • Posted February 7, 2011 at 8:59 pm
    • Permalink

    Zack, you did it AGAIN. Reacting to people who do not accuse you of racism with violent assertions that you are not racist makes you look GUILTY – that was the point of my post. And you have nothing to be guilty about – everything you said above was correct (and in case someone in the audience disagress, check out the sickening outrage over the new “Annie” that is in production – are you seeing the blatant racialism that PC nonsense causes?)

    I just hate (well, enjoy AND hate) seeing you so jumpy, especially when it regards a point that is far RIGHTER then any of your other right ones. Are the influx of liberal commentors you have on this site getting to you?

  6. Thanx, 21st, I’ll take that.

    Ya gotta understand, as a conservative one can at times be on the defensive, since there’s this whole liberal media machine bent on proving that we’re bad, sexist, racist, etc.– a formulation particularly curious when leveled against a group who worship the ground Palin and Marco Rubio walk on. (To name but two of many minority individuals dearly beloved by most of conservatism.)

  7. [Jamie: “Are the influx of liberal commentors you have on this site getting to you?”]
    Clearly they are, Jamie, and I regret my remarks to you if you cross-your-heart-&-hope-to-die that you’re telling the truth; I read and reread your earlier entry for the very purpose of being clear on what your were shooting for and it had seemed to me that when you said: *Zack posts a picture involving blackface* –you were implying that I had created a blackface (= racist) post. Soundz like my mistake; it isn’t the first & it won’t be the last. Do you think beer would help me through this tonight?

    • Spanish_Matlock
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 12:50 am
    • Permalink

    Man, this really makes sense. I’d hate Obama too if I thought he was Freddy Krueger.

    • Siegmund Wagneryann
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 2:39 am
    • Permalink

    “I don’t get it. I mean, is there a joke?” Thanks!
    The twenty-first century reminds visibly
    That Obama’s mom makes him half like Hanks,
    As Hopey memoirs tell quite awkwardly.

    What’s more those books speak of the “typical white,”
    Which gives us pause to ponder,
    Is “race” about ginning up for a fight?
    Yes, it pries loose bucks to squander.

    Umbrageous means “shadow spotted” thing,
    And “inclined to easily take offence.”
    The poster image is an umbrageous zing.
    Let the rabble rousing then commence!

    Confused? Flummoxed? Bewildered?
    Why be so disconcerted?
    Hanks is not Arnold, body-builded;
    Playing BO might seem to be inverted.

    But half is half, and mixed is mixed,
    And “race” is not the largest plot.
    So in this fiction what’s betwixt?
    In black and white it should be shot.

    • ikabod
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 6:44 am
    • Permalink

    This is becoming like images of Mohammad! Any depiction of Obama, is considered racist. The bottom line, thou shall not draw Obama. Unless approved by the federal government presidential depiction administration.

    • Tetsuo
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 12:04 pm
    • Permalink

    @Ikabod: The problem being he didn’t draw Obama at all. Otherwise your comment is totally applicable.

    • 21stCentury
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 3:46 pm
    • Permalink

    Huh, that’s odd. My reply to Ikabod’s comment seemingly dissapeared.

    @Ikabod: i’m not sure where you get the idea that “any depiction of Obama is considered racist”. Also, good job comparing it to Muhammad.

    Seriously, nice comparison. Obama administration = Islam and Obama is thought by the Left to be the messiah. This is completely grounded in reality (of course, I’m being sarcastic here).

    Truth is, there’s a very important nuance to be made between this depiction of Obama (Not really racist) and actual racist depictions of Obama (Like a gentleman comparing Obama to Curious George and saying that, to him, they’re more or less the same.)

    Again, your comment seems to paint a worldview where The Left is some kind of oppressive, all-controlling entity that actively works to suppress free speech… Nothing about that is grounded in reality, just how no one will actually try to say that every depiction of Obama is racist unless approved by the Obama Administration.

    As for the whole jab at Islam? Please remember that Muslims are Americans too. I don’t need to cite any great Muslim Americans but I’ll go ahead and drop the name “Malcolm X”, who you may also know as “El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz”.

    Hopefully, this time around, no moderator will try to stifle my free speech. 🙂

    • ikabod
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 5:38 pm
    • Permalink

    Jeesh both of you missed the point. Drawing/image what ever kids. The point remains. Depicting Obama in a negative light is racist. Equating Bush to Hitler healthy discourse! Obama worship is still going on. Please ditch the sudo concern. If anything a fair number of liberals are unsatisfied with Obama. Gitmo is still open, Healthcare is not free…..

    • Manny
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 10:22 pm
    • Permalink

    Except…nobody said that “Depicting Obama in a negative light = racist” anywhere here. Sure, there are people who claim that, but they’re just as bullheaded ignorant as the people who think Bush was literally Hitler. Bush was a pretty awful President, the worst since Reagan in my eyes, but he’s not Hitler.

    • Tetsuo
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 10:37 pm
    • Permalink

    @Ikabod: Count me in with that “fair number of liberals” who “are unsatisfied with Obama.” That still doesn’t make blackface cool.

    • Manny
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 11:35 pm
    • Permalink

    ditto that.

    • Siegmund Wagneryann
    • Posted February 9, 2011 at 2:32 am
    • Permalink

    So who wrote, “Blackface cool?”
    Hanks looks more like a speckled pool
    Of tans and oranges and in between
    And lots of other colors like carotine.
    Face it, pal, if you saw black,
    You’re the one with the racist knack.

    • Tetsuo
    • Posted February 9, 2011 at 4:54 am
    • Permalink

    @Siggy: He is explicitly supposed to be portraying Obama. Obama is black. Hanks is not naturally those colors. Although I agree that if he’s meant to look like a black man, he’s doing a career-worst job of it there. Definitely no Oscar for that one.

    • Siegmund Wagneryann
    • Posted February 9, 2011 at 8:32 am
    • Permalink

    Obama is black? Post-racial was once “in.”
    How quickly it’s faded back to measuring one’s skin.
    Obama is white as much as he’s black,
    If one uses genetics and science to crack
    The measure of a man, of what he is made.
    But racists return to talk of one’s shade.
    How Martin the King must spin in his grave
    To imagine a world where liberals crave
    To prop up a system where race remains king,
    Which rather defines that to which liberals cling.

  8. @ Zack:

    “Quite a few who stop here are forever cued up to seeing racism in places it doesn’t exist.”

    For every one of those, there are ten who are forever cued to seeing “people who are forever cured to seeing racism in places where it doesn’t exist”—-where they don’t exist.

    Get it? XD

    So much of this rhetoric is pre-emptive striking against people who aren’t actually there. Too many conservatives have this idea that any negative depiction of Obama is somehow daring, a thumb in the eye of those who yell “That’s racist!” about everything. Most of the time, they’re just fooling themselves. Campaign 2008 and its aftermath have been maddening for many reasons, but chief among them is how people keep saying “Everyone who criticizes Obama is called racist!” Really? Who? Who has been called a racist for disagreeing with Obama?** Conservatives bring race into these things about 10,000 times as often as anyone else has, thinking they’re just defending themselves preemptively, not realizing that no one was probably going to touch race anyway.

    I have no patience for those who cry wolf about racism. They run the gamut from sleazy manipulators to hypersensitive ignoramuses. But I have even less patience for those who project their defensiveness onto others and pretend all these silly racism accusations exist.

    **What’s that? The Tea Party, you say? Sigh. Do us a favor and ATTEMPT to understand why a crowd tainted with birthers, Birchers, militias and scads of hangers-on who spout overtly bigoted statements—gets smeared with that brush. Just ATTEMPT.

    • ikabod
    • Posted February 10, 2011 at 3:57 pm
    • Permalink

    Tetsuo: “Any depiction of Obama, is considered racist.” Depiction: To represent in a picture or sculpture.
    Shall we explore the definition of picture?
    My point remains.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: