Liberal Blogger Channels Don Imus: Condi Rice Called “Brown Sugar”
Confederate Yankee is all over another of the countless double-standard examples of liberals making racists remarks against conservative African-Americans and getting away with it.
Oh oh….looks like a pouty Brown Sugar is going to ask Daddy to buy her another pair of Ferragamos Or invade another country.
Whatever.
As ConYank says, Tolerance. It is a liberal value. Except when they don’t feel like it.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
89 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hello.
I guess Dr. Rice isn’t really “black”, since she climbed her way to the top on her own merits and intelligence … but committed the mortal sin of being a conservative.
I’m so sick of this sort of B.S. mind-thought on the Fascist Left. They are constantly rewriting the dictionary and raising, and lowering, the bar whenever it suits them.
What an ugly bunch of deadly shape-shifters.
Comment by drillanwr — April 11, 2007 @ 2:49 pm - April 11, 2007
This, along with all the other ‘tolerant’ depictions of Sec. Rice will be ignored by the MSM. I’d love to see the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson stand up and call for this guys cancellation or an advertiser boycott. What’s that I hear? Oh, just crickets…figures.
She is everything the ‘Left’ despises in a minority. She has risen from the ranks of poverty in the south to become an intelligent, self-made woman without their help. Her success shows that it can be done without the so called black ‘leadership’ telling them how to become successful.
Comment by jon — April 11, 2007 @ 3:53 pm - April 11, 2007
Are you seriously suggesting that there’s no difference between referring to someone as “brown sugar” and referring to someone as a “nappy headed ho”????
Comment by Ian — April 11, 2007 @ 9:53 pm - April 11, 2007
#3 Yes.
Oh, sure, they aren’t exactly the same but I always thought “brown sugar” was referring to a whore or prostitute or someone, at any rate, who is supplying “sugar”. So that’s pretty much the same as ho. Isn’t it?
Now, ho and “house negro” would be entirely different things. No doubt.
I’m not sure what “nappy headed” means unless “nappy” actually does refer to having a cloth (nappy = diaper) tied on ones head, but I don’t think that’s right because among the blog responses to Imus that I saw was a clip (I believe from the movie “Coming to America”) of a “commercial” for a hair product that made an afro look like wet ringlets.
So I really have no idea what “nappy headed” means.
But “ho” and “brown sugar”… yeah, pretty much the same.
Comment by Synova — April 11, 2007 @ 11:00 pm - April 11, 2007
Oh, except that anyone can be a ho. Brown sugar definitely adds a racial element.
So if “nappy headed” adds a racial element, then they are even more alike, nearly the same all around.
Comment by Synova — April 11, 2007 @ 11:02 pm - April 11, 2007
You’re very confused, Synova.
Comment by sj — April 11, 2007 @ 11:22 pm - April 11, 2007
Syn-
Bravo (#4,5)
Ian proves once again that the only racist comment is one uttered by “someone else.” Liberals can’t be racist, after all.
Last I checked, there was this nifty new device called a MIRROR. Look into it, Ian.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — April 11, 2007 @ 11:49 pm - April 11, 2007
“I’d love to see the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson stand up and call for this guys cancellation or an advertiser boycott.”
He’s an obscure blogger that most of you had probably never heard of before today. As opposed to someone with a nationally-syndicated radio show and an audience of millions.
So yes, I expect this will be ignored by the MSM and Sharpton and Jackson et al.
Comment by vaara — April 11, 2007 @ 11:50 pm - April 11, 2007
#7 And that is the way that the two things actually are different.
I’d actually hate to see us all get too polite, overall. I’ve heard a couple people claiming that folks are starting to try to claim that Imus is actually conservative. I’d rather people just admitted that liberals are every bit as likely to use racial insults and slurs as anyone else.
It’s the truth, after all.
Comment by Synova — April 12, 2007 @ 12:21 am - April 12, 2007
As opposed to someone with a nationally-syndicated radio show and an audience of millions.
How about the top six rap tracks on the Billboard charts for this week?
Oh, that’s right, I forgot; Democrats and blacks are allowed to call black women whatever they like. It’s part of the required subservience that black women have to their betters.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2007 @ 1:06 am - April 12, 2007
“Democrats and blacks are allowed to call black women whatever they like”
Like “ghetto slut“?
Comment by vaara — April 12, 2007 @ 2:11 am - April 12, 2007
Like “ghetto slut“?
Maybe, but it’s not as bad as interring 120,000 Japanese-Americans or adding Jimmy Byrnes & Hugo Black to SCOTUS.
Or having Robert Byrd (D,KKK) the “lion of the U.S. Senate”.
Or “Blackbow Coalition” or “the Senator from B’nai B’rith”.
Or as bad as “Hymietown”
Or “They got the Buckwheats”
Or inciting violence against Jews in New York
Or seeking support from Metro South Citizens Council
Or to say “Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them,”
Or a Rep. telling Hispanics & whites “all look alike to me.”
Or blaming your daughter’s (Cynthia McKinney’s) failures on a Jewish conspiracy.
Shall I go on?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2007 @ 2:48 am - April 12, 2007
And believe me, I can.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2007 @ 2:49 am - April 12, 2007
BTW, who do you think the libs will go after once their “wetback” hunt fizzles like a wet fart?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2007 @ 3:10 am - April 12, 2007
TGC, so far, the agenda of the democrat congress is playing out exactly like I said it would. Surrender in Iraq, tax increases (the largest in history), and investigation after investigation after investigation.
And some poor idiots actually thought the democrats cared about advancing their issues. Suckers!
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2007 @ 5:26 am - April 12, 2007
Meanwhile, back at the topic, this must be a great time to be an African-American. Judging from the obsessions of the Racial Grievance leadership, there is no achievement gap, there is no illegitimacy problem, and there is most certainly no problem with black-on-black violence. Nope, if the biggest problems facing African-Americans are the puerile insults of a washed up elderly radio host and the existence of the Confederate flag, then African-Americans must really have it really good.
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2007 @ 7:32 am - April 12, 2007
Well, consider what happened with Gay Patriot when Mike Rogers came after him at his place of employment a couple of years ago. No one, absolutely no one in the gay community’s Democratic majority rose to defend him, as far as I know. There was and still exists a double standard here.
What TBogg did was apply the double standard in a singularly racist way. Rice was demeaned using stereotypes that play on both her race and her sexuality. That much is clear. TBogg will not be forced to apologize because for the left, racism directed at a black female who happens to be conservative who happens to be conservative is okay.
What is revelatory here is this: Rice is like a Rorschach test for white liberals. The more they are exposed to her presence, the greater the chance you’ll see their inner Kleagle, eager to attend the Cross Burning. TBogg simply got caught-that’s what’s important to understand.
He would never, ever had made these kind of remarks about a white woman.
Comment by section9 — April 12, 2007 @ 8:56 am - April 12, 2007
#4:
Well, you always thought wrong:
It seems “brown sugar” means just the opposite of what you thought. One really has to wonder how you ever got the impression that “brown sugar” was the equivalent of whore. Even I, a middle-aged white guy knew otherwise.
Oh, and Bruce: the only thing I proved was that folks ought to do at least a cursory investigation of a topic before they simply parrot someone else’s ignorant comments.
[GP Ed. Note: Folks, this is a perfect example of what normal people would call "rationalizing."]
Comment by Ian — April 12, 2007 @ 9:36 am - April 12, 2007
[GP Ed. Note: Folks, this is a perfect example of what normal people would call “rationalizing.”]
And what a gardener would call “covering everything in sight with ‘bovine-derived fertilizer.’”
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2007 @ 10:11 am - April 12, 2007
#19: you and Bruce can dance and spin all you like when presented with the facts but the real question here is why so many of you thought “brown sugar” meant the opposite of what it really does. Do you simply assume that any idiom referring to people of color must have negative connotations?
Comment by Ian — April 12, 2007 @ 10:22 am - April 12, 2007
It’s very clear in context that this TBogg person meant the appellation as a crude insult, desperate spinning by hack apologists notwithstanding.
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2007 @ 10:48 am - April 12, 2007
Given the fact that we are discussing a contextual usage of language, I wonder if our libtrolls reacted the same way about “brown sugar” as they did when Roseanne Barr made her comment about gays?
(Crickets chirping.)
I rest my case.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 12, 2007 @ 11:00 am - April 12, 2007
#21: Even in context, there simply was no “crude insult” only a sarcastic dig – “pouty” – at a woman who would fit the “brown sugar” definition to a tee: “attractive, pretty, sexy, female – with a pleasing face and body, of a medium Brown to Honey colored skin complexion.” Again, it all comes back to why you and others apparently assume idioms referring to people of color are invariably negative in connotation.
Synova was the first one who mistakenly interpreted “brown sugar” as meaning black whore but Bruce immediately cheered Synova on with his enthusiastic “bravo.” Presumably, you thought it meant the same as you only responded when I provided the proof they were both wrong and even now you still think it’s a “crude insult.”
Comment by Ian — April 12, 2007 @ 11:13 am - April 12, 2007
The problem, Ian, is that your definition doesn’t make sense in context. Are you suggesting that the person who said “Brown Sugar” was trying to compliment her?
If I’m wrong about the meaning, so is that person. The intended meaning is clearly not a compliment. (And the first time any lib suggests that Condi is attractive we’ll see the pigs fly, won’t we.)
Comment by Synova — April 12, 2007 @ 12:07 pm - April 12, 2007
In my opinion, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the definition of racism in America. Their racist reactions often times harm race relations more than they help. When will both the black and white communities alike hold these ”reverends” accountable? They are supposed to be peacemakers. Most of the fruit I see from them is far from peaceful or restorative. Their actions tend to drive a deep wedge amongst our citizens. And for what? To line their pockets?
Comment by thecisciokid — April 12, 2007 @ 12:23 pm - April 12, 2007
Actually Ian is struggling to make a point: He’s playing a game of gotcha over the UrbanDictionary’s definition of “brown sugar” at Bruce’s and other’s expense.
But he isn’t telling the whole story… that “dictionary” also includes in the definition several references to “ho” “bitch”. As in “she aint no ho, she’s brown sugar.”
The term rightly used is meant as a highly desirable lay who is of mixed heritage from interacial couplings… lightly, brown skinned. Young girls of that sort, in the low class black community, are called “swirls” and can add more than a few points to a stud’s scorecard if he beds her before she’s married. Even a few more points is he’s of very black skin and beds her… almost like scoring on a white female. A married white female gets you big points.
Anyone who remembers the Rolling Stones before they strapped on “Depends” knows that Brown Sugar refers to the progeny of the slave owners’ wife and the house boi.
Despite Ian’s attempts, it’s ALL ABOUT sex and conquest and hoes. But nice try Ian. No points on the Gotcha Matrix for that one… common sense and context over rules even you sometimes.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 12, 2007 @ 12:25 pm - April 12, 2007
#24: First, Synova, it’s not my definition: it’s clearly what most people believe to be the definition. Second, as I already explained, Tbogg’s comment was sarcastic; the “pouty” ought to have clued you in to that but if it didn’t, the reference to the Ferragamos was the clincher. While I wouldn’t call her drop-dead gorgeous, I don’t think there’s any question about Condi being an attractive woman. As for sexy, I’ll leave that for others who are sexually attracted to women to assess. In any event, however you interpreted Tbogg’s comment, there was nothing whatsoever to hint that the meaning of “brown sugar” was black whore. That was in your mind but others commenting here apparently agreed with that interpretation. I’ve always thought “brown sugar” meant exactly how the Urban Dictionary defined it and that’s why I asked my original incredulous question. I remain amazed that you and others commenting here would all have it so wrong and even continue to defend your erroneous interpretation.
Comment by Ian — April 12, 2007 @ 12:35 pm - April 12, 2007
I guess if one can delude oneself that the Pelosi Congress is ethical, and that surrender in Iraq is good for America, then believing that ‘brown sugar’ was meant as a compliment is not too much of a stretch.
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2007 @ 12:36 pm - April 12, 2007
Not that I want to wade into this discussion but, I’m a masochist so…
As possibly the only person of color posting in this thread, I’ll state that “Nappy-headed ho” is patently more offensive than “Brown Sugar”, regardless of the context. One is a pejorative reference to the tight curls, uncombed or unkempt in this case, of black folks hair – conflated with prostitution. The other is at worst a sarcastic reference to someone’s skin color, and at best a very nice compliment (context is important).
Does that make either comment ok? No, but as someone mentioned earlier, who is this TBogg person anyway?
Comment by HotMess — April 12, 2007 @ 12:48 pm - April 12, 2007
If I called my supervisor (a black female) “Brown Sugar,” even in reverent tones, I’d be fired. Enough said.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 12, 2007 @ 12:57 pm - April 12, 2007
#27 – Peter, true enough. If I called my Director (a white male) “cutie” I’d be fired too. Why, because there are certain things you don’t say at work. While it has not been deserving of all the Jackson/Sharpton drama, ol’ dude (Imus) was on the job. TBone or whoever was just mouthing off on his blog.
Comment by HotMess — April 12, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - April 12, 2007
In #28, Constitutional expert extraordinaire declares:
Nah, she’d just know you were insincerely sucking up to her. Speaking of which, are you still fantasizing about my massiveness?
#27: Thank you for the explanation. There is simply no way that Tbogg’s comment can be construed to suggest he was calling Condi a whore unless the person construing actually believes “brown sugar” means “black whore.” Even I, a middle-aged white guy, knew what it actually meant so I’m at a loss as to why others commenting here didn’t.
Comment by Ian — April 12, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - April 12, 2007
I call my boss “My nigga wit de huge greek cock”.. he hates that.
Comment by Vince P — April 12, 2007 @ 1:23 pm - April 12, 2007
Oh please, IgnoAndNaus, get over yourself. Everyone else has.
#33 – Vince, since I am part Greek myself (no pun intended), how can you get away with saying that to your boss? Just curious.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 12, 2007 @ 2:42 pm - April 12, 2007
Ian, you lost playing the Gotcha Game this time… let it go. Common sense and context is working solidly against you. Again. Even your liberalLeft brothers over at TBogg’s site thought it was a ho slur… like your brethen tried with calling Secy of State Rice “Bush’s House Nigga” a few months ago.
Quit while you can.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 12, 2007 @ 2:56 pm - April 12, 2007
Oh… and Ian… in honor of your penchant to google a phrase to prove you’re right (or Left)… I googled “brown sugar” and “ho”.
The result: 1,270,000 hits in 2/100ths of a second. Ouch.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 12, 2007 @ 3:03 pm - April 12, 2007
#35: The commenters complaining at Tbogg appear to be LGF trolls. That’s very interesting and suggests that much if not all of the wingnutosphere suffers from the same ignorance on display by conservatives in this thread. But I’m starting to wonder if it’s merely ignorance or a manifestation of something darker. After all, HotMess has confirmed that I am correct that the term “brown sugar” has nothing to do with “whore.” Why do you ignore what Hot Mess, a person of color, has stated on the meaning of the idiom?
Comment by Ian — April 12, 2007 @ 3:18 pm - April 12, 2007
Why do you ignore what Hot Mess, a person of color, has stated on the meaning of the idiom?
Because we noticed this sentence in HotMess’s response.
Does that make either comment ok?
The answer, in case you missed it, was “No”.
Therefore, what we have here is you trying to spin and explain why a comment made about a conservative black women was somehow appropriate when a black person — to whom you yourself give the ultimate authority to pass judgment on whether or not something is “OK” — said that it was not OK.
What you’ve made clear, Ian, is that you consider it OK to make derogatory remarks, which other black people have made clear are NOT OK, about Condi Rice because she’s black and conservative.
Black people with non-Democrat and non-servile views towards white people, such as Condi has, terrify you — and are apparently allowed to be racially insulted using terms that other black people say are not OK.
Why is that?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2007 @ 4:47 pm - April 12, 2007
Like “ghetto slut“?
Vaara, you did read the post I cited outlining the top six Billboard rap tracks in airplay this week, didn’t you?
Notice how these rappers are allowed to call women “ghetto sluts” and worse at maximum volume — and you and your fellow leftists say nothing.
I think it gives an excellent view into the Democrat psyche that you don’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - April 12, 2007
#38: NDT, amidst all your blather, you continue to ignore HotMess’ explanation of the meaning of the idiom, “brown sugar.” Apparently you too believe it means “black whore” and, as is typical for an authoritarian conservative, you refuse to change your mind in spite of evidence that you are wrong.
Comment by Ian — April 12, 2007 @ 4:57 pm - April 12, 2007
More desperate spin, Ian?
NDT, amidst all your blather, you continue to ignore HotMess’ explanation of the meaning of the idiom, “brown sugar.”
Not at all. In fact, I cited him directly saying that it was NOT “OK” to call Condi Rice that.
You invoked black people as your authority, Ian. HotMess, who is black, said it was wrong to call Condi that. But instead of admitting that it was wrong to call Condi that, you try to spin and explain that it WAS OK because a) it’s not really an insult and b) it’s only a blogger.
You demonstrate the typical attitude of Democrats towards black people, Ian; use them when you need them, and disregard them when they’re inconvenient.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2007 @ 5:49 pm - April 12, 2007
So does anyone else here feel offended when some libtard makes a statement like “Gay is the New Black?”
I thought so.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 12, 2007 @ 5:56 pm - April 12, 2007
NDT/Ian – Given the context of TBoxes statement, he obviously meant it as a dig and as such it’s inappropriate. Now, since in my opinion “Brown Sugar” is to “Nappy, etc” as jaywalking is to theft, I also don’t see the need for all the shrill comments on his blog. Just my opinion.
Peter – I happen to find it a little offensive, seeing as the issues are different and so is the history. For one thing gay stereotypes in my experience seem less harmful. I don’t care if people assume I like pink flowers or wear make-up when I go out. It’s the whole “Wow, you speak so well, your illegitimate kids by 3 different women must be real proud of your prison education” thing that gets on my nerves.
disclaimer: statements by HotMess should not be taken as representative of the opinions or views of black, brown, tan, or other similarly tinted humans.
Comment by HotMess — April 12, 2007 @ 6:39 pm - April 12, 2007
#43:
Of course, his whole statement was a dig. But my original question was with regard to equating what the blogger said with calling someone a “nappy-headed ho.” And all too many here continue to insist those idioms even mean the same. They don’t as you have unequivocally confirmed.
Comment by Ian — April 12, 2007 @ 7:31 pm - April 12, 2007
#41:
Once again, you’re hallucinating: I never said any such thing.
Comment by Ian — April 12, 2007 @ 7:34 pm - April 12, 2007
Ian, you ARE spinning… and playing a Gotcha Game that doesn’t withstand a simple test of common sense or context.
You may think “brown sugar” was a term of endearment toward Secy Rice but coupled with the slams about high-end shoe shopping and the Left’s belief that Bush has a penchant for invading countries (both mentioned with the the brown sugar remark)… you’re as wrong as when you started.
Further, the brown sugar slur was parallel to TBoggs claim that WorldBankPrez Wolfie (and also Iraq War architect) had a lilttle piece of ass on the payroll… for about $200k/yr.
The Tbogg readers thought it was ho-ish. The post was about ho-ing for da Man, Ian.
On top of that, the UrbanDictionary you selectively quoted used the terms “bitch” and “ho” in the multiple definitions of brown sugar.
You really need to quit when you’re getting started; the wasted effort could be utilized printing “CindySheehan 4 Prez” signs.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 12, 2007 @ 8:11 pm - April 12, 2007
#46:
Really? Which definition of “brown sugar” has any reference to “bitch”? C’mon Matt, let’s have the full quote. As for “ho”, it’s used exclusively to contrast its meaning with the idiom “brown sugar.” For anyone interested, here’s the link Matt hopes you won’t peruse.
BTW Matt, why is it you dismiss HotMess and what he has to say about the idiom?
Comment by Ian — April 12, 2007 @ 11:23 pm - April 12, 2007
BTW Matt, why is it you dismiss HotMess and what he has to say about the idiom?
You mean like you did here?
Of course, his whole statement was a dig. But my original question was with regard to equating what the blogger said with calling someone a “nappy-headed ho.”
Frankly, I don’t see what Matt’s doing. But what I see you doing is claiming that the black person, who you claimed holds ultimate authority on these matters, is wrong when he says something that is directly contrary to what you believe.
Ironically, your attempt to use HotMess as cover for your foolish insistence that this was not an insult to Condi Rice did nothing more than show your racism; when the black person didn’t exactly parrot what you wanted them to, you cast them aside and said they were wrong — despite having held them up as the authority on the issue bare seconds ago.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 13, 2007 @ 12:59 am - April 13, 2007
Do you simply assume that any idiom referring to people of color must have negative connotations?
When it comes from liberals? Of course.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 13, 2007 @ 5:47 am - April 13, 2007
Liberals like to pretend black people dont exist, because you make any observation about black people, you are racist. the solution to being called a racist is just not to say anything.
Comment by Vince P — April 13, 2007 @ 8:34 am - April 13, 2007
Hey Ian, your link to the UrbanDictionary is as impotent as your defense of TBoggs slandering and smearing Secy Rice. But let’s concede that “bitch” isn’t used in that site’s definition… but “ho” and “hoe” are. I was reading from another site before posting.
See the game you’re playing? You miss the simple fact that TBoggs meant his brown sugar comment, his comment about high end shoe shopping to appease an uppity nigga, his slam against Bush (Rice’s “daddy”) invading countries at will to keep her happy –all of that was in the context of WorldBankPrez Wolfowitz’s actions to secure a pay raise for his “woman”… a kept woman who gives him hand jobs, if you believe the slurring headline by TBoggs. Parallel construct? Condi is Bush’s kept piece of ass.
Rather than focus on minisucle and non-germane issues like “bitch” isn’t in the definition but “ho” and “hoe” are… you need to keep your focus. But for you, alas, Gotcha Games replace meaningful dialogue… I wonder if you’ve been instructing the Congressional Democrats again on practical partisan politics for pragmatic gain?
Common sense will always trump those cute little parlor games you learned in GayDrama101, Ian. You just haven’t learned your lesson yet.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 13, 2007 @ 9:07 am - April 13, 2007
If only that were true. Unfortunately, our political class is devoid of common sense, and capable of doing nothing other than playing parlor games. The key parlor game of the moment is “charades.” Like the charade that firing 8 political hacks is the biggest scandal since Watergate. Like the charade that Democrats support the troops, while doing nothing but put out plans to defund them and surrender to terror. Like the charade that Pelosi’s congress is “ethical” and fiscally responsible while she loads up her bills with pork-bribes, and keeps sleazebags like John Murtha and William “Cold Cash” Jefferson in her court of good graces. Or like the game Pelosi plays when she flies off to huddle with terrorist dictators in her ridiculous babushka.
Meanwhile, the borders are wide open, medicare is out of control, the country’s infrastructure remains vulnerable, dependence on foreign energy grows, public education continues to suck, the military is underfunded, the trade deficit grows, and instead of doing any meaningful work on this… Air Pelosi plans on a trip to make kissy-face with the dictator of Iran, while scheming to pass more resolutions, and stuff more pork in the budget.
Parlor games indeed.
All things considered, perhaps we are better off with Air Pelosi pretending to be the president instead of doing her actual job. Democrats doing nothing is certainly preferable to the kinds of things they do … like massive tax increases, and ridiculous regulation … when they’re not playing charades.
Comment by V the K — April 13, 2007 @ 9:27 am - April 13, 2007
#51 – Hey M-Matt, did you hear how upset Diane Sawyer got this morning on GMA when she was “attacked” (her words) by a black man?
Never mind that the “attacker” in this case was talk show host Larry Elder, who politely pointed out Ms. Sawyer’s error on the First Amendment. We all KNOW what happens when a black man attacks a white woman.
How petty. As a white, carpet-bagging, New York Upper East Side limousine liberal, Sawyer was aghast that a plantation “house boy” like Elder had the audacity to correct her. Obviously to Sawyer, he doesn’t know his “place.”
Dhimmicrats like Sawyer want the African-American vote, but not their opinion, and by implication, she is telling him to sit down and shut up, and don’t speak until you are spoken to.
I can see the same thing happening when Shrillary and Barack Hussein Obama have their debate. One slip-up by Obama, and Shrillary (or her minions) will immediately whine: “He attacked me! This Negro attacked me!”
After all, it worked with Rep. Lazio the last time when he “invaded her space” during the 2000 NY Senate debate.
Maybe Michael Savage is right. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 13, 2007 @ 10:04 am - April 13, 2007
#48:
Oh my, you really are delusional! HotMess and I agree Tbogg’s comment was a dig and we agree that “brown sugar” does not mean “black whore” as you apparently think it does. The only one so far in these comments to agree with HotMess is me. You conservatives dismiss or ignore what he has said on the subject. I’ve asked before to no avail but I’ll ask again: why do you all dismiss HotMess?
Comment by Ian — April 13, 2007 @ 10:13 am - April 13, 2007
#51:
The simple fact is this: Bruce’s post equated the term “brown sugar” with “nappy headed ho” and I called him on it. Synova claimed “brown sugar” meant black whore. I proved her wrong and HotMess agreed with me. The rest of you have tried to change the subject and have consistently refused to acknowledge HotMess’ confirmation of the meaning of “brown sugar.” You have your minds made up on a definition that suits your prejudices and no one is going to change that, least of all a person of color. That the only “game” being played.
Comment by Ian — April 13, 2007 @ 10:32 am - April 13, 2007
Ian, a simple application of common sense PROVES that TBoggs was suggesting that Condi Rice is Geo Bush’s “brown sugar” ho… the lead of the post was about Wolfie’s piece of tail on the payroll (or did you miss the $50 for a handjob comment?) followed by those three ho-ish comments about trying to appease the brown sugar ho with high priced shoes, a purse and maybe an invasion of some country.
The picture of Rice looks like she’s hectoring her “Sugar Daddy” for more of the grocery money to appease her latest pout. Where the heck do you think “Sugar Daddy” came from, Ian? It stems from the black culture where, for some people, a light skinned black woman is alluring to many men wanting a piece of tail on the side. If she gets lucky, one of them becomes her Sugar Daddy –giving her all the attention and money and gifts she needs to put on the show. Ho, Ian; brown sugar ho.
How YOU can contend that isn’t about ho-like behavior given the context of all this is, well, amazingly blind.
I think I was right to contend you’re just playing Gotcha Games and not interested in discussion. Pity that little world of yours, Ian. Maybe BlogActive is a more synergistic fit with your game playing?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 13, 2007 @ 10:47 am - April 13, 2007
Peter, not surprising about Sawyer… after Imus it’s open season on the hidden racisim prevalent in the LeftLiberal DemocratLand.
I remember a few years ago the great liberal activist and Equal Rights Amendment feminist Rep. Martha Griffith(D-Detroit) offering that black men are happiest if you give a bridge and something to fish for… WTFWT?
She got slaughtered in the press and her boytoy Governor JimmieBlanchard had to drop her from the ticket as Lt Gov.
Liberals as racists? You betcha. And like Bruce has pointed out on a number of occasions, intolerant too.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 13, 2007 @ 11:37 am - April 13, 2007
HotMess and I agree Tbogg’s comment was a dig
Nope, you don’t; you said, “of course it was a dig, BUT” — and went on to explain why it wasn’t really one — when HotMess had made it clear that the blogger in question WAS deliberately using a racial slur to insult Condi Rice.
In all these posts, you have never once admitted that that was wrong. Not once. Not a single, solitary, time.
Instead, you’ve tried every spin in the book to avoid it.
You will answer now, Ian; is it wrong for a liberal to use a racial slur to describe Condi Rice with the intent of insulting her, as HotMess states TBogg did?
And then I suggest you start condemning them now, because you insist that anyone who uses a racial slur is a hate-filled racist who should be publicly excoriated on their blog. In fact, I will insist that you go over to that blog and publish that that person is a racist.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 13, 2007 @ 1:57 pm - April 13, 2007
NDXXX confesses to Ian: “Frankly, I don’t see what Matt’s doing.”
From the looks of #58, you “got” what I was doing in the prior comments, ND30.
Ian loves to spin and play GotchaGames… brown sugar ho, having the ho go all sugar daddy on us and in an article that leads with references to a $50 handjob isn’t demeaning or racially taunting… it’s, it’s… as Ian might say, just stating the truth about this corrupt evil BushCo.
Ian, I think you won your spot in Eternity for the GayLeftBorg today.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 13, 2007 @ 2:56 pm - April 13, 2007
#58:
NDT’s actual thought bubble while writing above: “I don’t dare complete the actual quote because it’s not what I want it to say. Instead, I’ll just make sh!t up as I usually do hoping no one will notice.”
Just who do you think you are? The Queen? LOL! Next you’ll be exclaiming: “we are not amused. Harrumph!”
Comment by Ian — April 13, 2007 @ 8:02 pm - April 13, 2007
oops wrong thread
Comment by Vince P — April 13, 2007 @ 8:20 pm - April 13, 2007
#60: just as expected, rather than admit that HotMess was right and that a liberal used a racial slur against Condi Rice to insult her, Ian spins.
One wonders why he has such trouble admitting that liberals used racial slurs to insult Condi Rice. Is it because he would then have to treat them the same way he demands that anyone else who uses racial slurs be treated — or expose his hypocrisy and racist beliefs?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 14, 2007 @ 1:56 am - April 14, 2007
#62:
You’re lying. Hotmess was right and I’ve said that all along. For example, I absolutely agree with the following:
and:
Frankly, Your Royal Highness, you are the one who seems to have an issue with what HotMess said but I don’t think you have the courage to say so.
Comment by Ian — April 14, 2007 @ 10:38 am - April 14, 2007
And AGAIN, rather than admit HotMess was right and a liberal used a racial slur against Condi Rice to insult her, Ian spins.
One wonders why he has such trouble admitting that liberals used racial slurs to insult Condi Rice. Is it because he would then have to treat them the same way he demands that anyone else who uses racial slurs be treated — or expose his hypocrisy and racist beliefs?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 14, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - April 14, 2007
Hey Bruce and Dan, that ancient FORTRAN “NDT” program you’re running appears to have entered an endless DO loop. Perhaps you should reboot.
Comment by Ian — April 14, 2007 @ 3:06 pm - April 14, 2007
It’s a compliment to call a Black women brown sugar but I’m not what sure what TBogg meant. Maybe he thinks Rice is brown sugar material or he actually thought it was an insult and said it to attack her.
Comment by Nat — April 14, 2007 @ 4:38 pm - April 14, 2007
#66: I think Tbogg was being sarcastic – I suspect he doesn’t think she’s at all “brown sugar” material. It’s kind of like if I were to describe Dubya as having an outstanding intellect or if I were to suggest that the Bush Administration has demonstrated brilliance in its strategy for Iraq.
Comment by Ian — April 14, 2007 @ 9:14 pm - April 14, 2007
Well, well, looks like another racist liberal shows up to assist Ian.
It’s a compliment to call a Black women brown sugar but I’m not what sure what TBogg meant.
Unfortunately, Ian already appealed to a “black person” as the authority, and this black person said this:
Given the context of TBoxes statement, he obviously meant it as a dig and as such it’s inappropriate.
But racist Ian refuses to admit that one of his fellow liberals used a racial slur against Condi Rice to insult her.
And AGAIN, one wonders why he has such trouble admitting that liberals used racial slurs to insult Condi Rice. Is it because he would then have to treat them the same way he demands that anyone else who uses racial slurs be treated — or expose his hypocrisy and racist beliefs?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 15, 2007 @ 1:17 pm - April 15, 2007
Hey, NDXXX, you shouldn’t be surprised that ANOTHER racist liberal steps up to the plate to defend Ian… after all, liberals like Don Imus and Michaels and others have been as racist and other liberals like Jesse and Al have been race baiters.
Wow, in one group… racists and race baiters? And these guys complain that the GOP is all whitey?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 16, 2007 @ 7:28 am - April 16, 2007
I guess a person’s “intellect” is a buzzword for the libtards who follow the DailyKaka or DemonicUnderwear. Must be a form of snobbishness or (gasp!) elitist bigotry – you know, the old “I’m smarter than you so I must be better than you” argument.
That kind of mentality belongs in an elementary school playground. But enough about the DNC for now…
And I’m sure it would freak out our trolls when they discover that our Prez (a) has a master’s degree in business and (b) has effectively run a multi-million-dollar business prior to going into politics.
Contrast that to the massive carbon footprint known as Algore, who actually had to leave divinity school because of his bad grades. Now, some people may think Bush is “stupid” (and I have yet to see anyone provide certifiable proof), but really…how do you flunk God 101?
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 16, 2007 @ 9:46 am - April 16, 2007
Nat, echoes of Ian, offers: “It’s a compliment to call a Black women brown sugar”
Maybe on the Plantation, Nat. But as Ian learned here and has tried ever so hard to ignore, the context of TBoggs’ slur was about ho-like conduct, pissed off mistresses, and using power to keep a mistress well paid and happy. Just like the Left calling Rice “Bush’s House Nigga” a few months ago.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 16, 2007 @ 11:01 am - April 16, 2007
#71: The fact remains that my opinion on Tbogg’s post is identical to that of HotMess. Of course, neither you nor the DO-Loop have the cajones to attack him outright for his stand. Nonetheless, your indirect attack is glaringly obvious. Keep it up so all can see it for what it really is.
Comment by Ian — April 16, 2007 @ 4:27 pm - April 16, 2007
Of course, neither you nor the DO-Loop have the cajones to attack him outright for his stand.
His stand is that Tbogg used a racial slur to insult Condi Rice.
Why on earth would either Matt or I OPPOSE that stance?
What I find funny, Ian, is that you can’t admit that Tbogg used a racial slur to insult Condi Rice. You’ve spent an entire thread trying to spin that it wasn’t a racial slur, that it wasn’t an insult, etc., etc. Anything but simply admitting the fact.
That’s because, and I repeat, you would then have to treat them the same way you demand that anyone else who uses racial slurs be treated — or expose your hypocrisy and racist beliefs.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2007 @ 5:29 pm - April 16, 2007
#73:
If that is indeed the case, then you should be able to produce the exact quote where he called it a “racial slur.”
Comment by Ian — April 16, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - April 16, 2007
Gee, there’s a surprise; Ian AGAIN trying to spin that it wasn’t a racial slur, that it wasn’t an insult, etc.
What this boils down to, Ian, is that you don’t have the guts to admit that one of your fellow liberals is a racist — or to carry out what you demand be done to anyone who uses a racial slur to insult a black person.
Or you aren’t man enough to admit that you have no problem with using racial slurs to insult black conservatives.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2007 @ 7:52 pm - April 16, 2007
#75: I guess we can assume that you can’t come up with the quote. Why am I not surprised?
Comment by Ian — April 16, 2007 @ 9:29 pm - April 16, 2007
Good grief. 76 comments over “brown sugar?”
Did anyone notice that tbogg’s “blog” had nothing at all to do with Ms. Rice? Maybe he’s just generating controversy for himself in a “safe” way? Which, while pathetic, might have been overlooked if the blogger had actually used it to say something.
@Ian: If you can read that blog entry and still say the usage wasn’t intended as an insult with intentional racial overtones, you have issues.
Comment by cowb0y — April 16, 2007 @ 10:45 pm - April 16, 2007
And I guess we can assume you’re making another cowardly attempt to spin rather than to confront the fact that another liberal used a racial slur to insult Condi Rice.
Sorry, Ian; you tried to argue it was a compliment and got shot down. You tried to argue that black people thought it was OK and got shot down. You tried to argue that black people agreed with you that it wasn’t an insult and got shot down. Now you’re spinning like a dervish, trying to avoid the obvious: by your own definition, your fellow liberal is a racist, and you’re making excuses for it.
What this is all about, Ian, is rationalizing the obvious; you don’t think what Tbogg did was in the least wrong. Be a man and insist that you see nothing wrong with making racial slurs against Condi Rice.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2007 @ 11:45 pm - April 16, 2007
#77:
As I have maintained all along, I think it was an insult. Now, “brown sugar” is not the equivalent of black prostitute as some here were originally claiming nor is it a racial slur like “nappy-headed ho”. In fact, the entire Tbogg post, while an insult, is hardly a racial slur. Otherwise, HotMess who is black, would not have stated “that “Nappy-headed ho” is patently more offensive than “Brown Sugar” regardless of the context.” Notice that last phrase: regardless of the context. Nor would you have employed a strained description like “intentional racial overtones.”
Comment by Ian — April 17, 2007 @ 11:42 am - April 17, 2007
As I have maintained all along, I think it was an insult.
Mhm.
Even in context, there simply was no “crude insult” only a sarcastic dig
So first Ian denies it was an insult, then blabbers that he thinks it was, but it wasn’t racial.
Tend to agree with you, cowb0y…..he has issues.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 17, 2007 @ 12:17 pm - April 17, 2007
#80:
No, I denied it was a “crude insult.” There’s a difference especially when, in context, “crude insult” is construed to mean racial slur. I will reiterate: Tbogg’s post was an insult, a “dig” but I don’t believe it was a racial slur.
Comment by Ian — April 17, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - April 17, 2007
Well, ND30 and cowb0y, don’t forget that IgnoAndNaus also identified the made-up word “macaca” as a racial slur when it came to a GOP candidate, so it’s no wonder he’s back-pedaling on his etymology of the phrase “brown sugar” since it affects a powerful woman like Condi Rice.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 17, 2007 @ 3:24 pm - April 17, 2007
Ian, here ya go:
“Nat, echoes of Ian, offers: “It’s a compliment to call a Black women brown sugar”
Maybe on the Plantation, Nat. But as Ian learned here and has tried ever so hard to ignore, the context of TBoggs’ slur was about ho-like conduct, pissed off mistresses, and using power to keep a mistress well paid and happy. Just like the Left calling Rice “Bush’s House Nigga” a few months ago.”
Just because you avoid reality doesn’t mean ALL must ignore reality with you, Ian.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 17, 2007 @ 4:25 pm - April 17, 2007
#77: First, let me say that I’m not much for jumping on bandwagons. Being a Libertarian empowers me to have fun at everyone’s expense.
That said, when a white man in this day and age (who isn’t wearing a pointy white hat) gratuitously calls a black woman “brown sugar” because he doesn’t like her politics (or for any other reason, really), that is not in keeping with my definition of “Liberal” (or Conservative, for that matter). When you resort (can you “resort” out of convenience?) to language which is inherently “racial,” you are thinking and acting like a “racist,” either out of ignorance, or intentionally.
There is no such thing as “regardless of context.” People say things in the context of jokes or argumentation which they would never, ever think to say in a more reflective moment, usually because the context moderates or makes acceptable (at least to their minds, at that time) the usage. In this particular case, the author clearly felt that it was not excessively insulting, all things considered. In other words, he felt that he could get away with it. My point isn’t that it is equivalent to this-or-that, but that it is what it is, an insult which relies on it’s racial component as its raison d’etre, out of keeping with someone who values Reason and Discourse as the proper avenues for human advancement. [Sorry for the length.]
Comment by cowb0y — April 17, 2007 @ 11:27 pm - April 17, 2007
#84: The question boils down to whether or not Tbogg’s insult was a racial slur. I don’t think it was. The only black person who commented said if insults were crimes, it would be akin to jaywalking. White conservative southerners like NDT are only interested in attacking liberals with the racist taunt. Now I’m white but having had a partner who is half black and half Asian for five years, I’m not unaware of black sensibilities. You’ve made two comments on this but have so far not suggested it was a racial slur. I think that says a lot.
Comment by Ian — April 18, 2007 @ 12:59 am - April 18, 2007
cowboy 84: That was XLellent
Comment by Vince P — April 18, 2007 @ 8:48 am - April 18, 2007
Ah, delusional leftist Ian strikes again:
You’ve made two comments on this but have so far not suggested it was a racial slur.
Ignoring, of course, this very clear statement from cowb0y’s first post (emphasis mine):
@Ian: If you can read that blog entry and still say the usage wasn’t intended as an insult with intentional racial overtones, you have issues.
Or, from his second post,
My point isn’t that it is equivalent to this-or-that, but that it is what it is, an insult which relies on it’s racial component as its raison d’etre, out of keeping with someone who values Reason and Discourse as the proper avenues for human advancement.
It seems that everyone here EXCEPT you, Ian, agrees that it was a racial slur and made as an insult.
But your liberal racist nature comes out again; you honestly do not see anything wrong with making racial slurs and insults against black people who are not Democrats, do you?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 18, 2007 @ 3:50 pm - April 18, 2007
From #66:
From #85:
If you reread my #77, you’ll notice the thrust of it was somewhat different than the argument it’s embedded in. I don’t argue at all about the perceived magnitude of the insult, merely that it was one, was intended to be one, and that it was racial in nature. Unlike the excerpt from your #85 above, tbogg’s comment was completely gratuitous, and related in no way whatsoever to any relevant characteristics of the person in question except 1) her sex, and 2) her race. Certainly not anything that reflects upon her politics, job performance, or professional or intellectual characteristics. As a Liberal and a Conservative (see, twice the fun!), I find that somewhat lame.
I also believe in holding liberals to their own professed standards of open-mindedness and colorblindness, especially since that’s what they so often attack “others” (we know who those are) on. Talk the talk, walk the walk.
BTW, as un-PC as it sounds, I don’t think there are too many younger “ghetto culture” black men who haven’t used the phrase “[NHH]” quite a few times (in the 3rd person, of course
), and never once intended it as a major insult.
Now, don’t we have better things to argue about, like global climate change?
Comment by cowb0y — April 18, 2007 @ 9:33 pm - April 18, 2007
i am white and my hair was considered “nappy “when I was a kid because I DIDN T GET ALL THE SNARLS OUT OF IT. Everyone has a diferent opinion as to what nappy means. Im sick of the media over emphasizing on racist remarks. Cracker or whitey are just as racist and I have never ever heard anyone cry about being called a cracker or white boy. Get over it already! We do have something called freedom of speech and I hate to think that our country has young men and women fighting for you and me in vain! Some of these brave men and women will never make it home. Stop fighting about petty bullshit and direct your anger and bitterness into something more productive and worthwhile instead of a bunch of whiney boohoo poor me crap! GOD BLESS THE USA!!! We are diferent yet equal and it will never change.
Comment by carly — May 4, 2007 @ 12:29 pm - May 4, 2007