Wanda Sykes, a comedian, speaks to honor King Obama.
"Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails," Sykes said. "So you're saying, 'I hope America fails', you're, like, 'I don't care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq'. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason He's not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight."
She goes on to wish say that she hopes (Rush Limbaugh's kidney fails.)
This was in response to Rush's comments on Obama and Limbaugh's hope that Obama fails. I don't hope Obama fails. I hope he's right and I and Limbaugh are wrong, but I don't think so. But to compare someone who is political in disagreement with King Obama to Osama Ben Laden, saying he's the 20th terrorist in 9-11, and hoping his kidney fails which is paramount to wishing him dead, is in a word disgusting.
I hope Obama chides dear Wanda. But he won't! Freedom of speech and all that. Of course, in America freedom of speech is banning the right, and clapping and giggling at death inuendo's made by things like Wanda Sykes.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 99
No one? Tried to go to England lately? Only come with your socialist card laminated.
Just like the U.S. should not stoop to the foolish and dishonorable tactics of our opponents.
I am glad you publicized this Carol.
There is no "liberal media bias" when the #1 TV guy is who? Bill O Reilly. #1 Radio? Rush Limbaugh.
Just like Democrats have put up with Limbuagh's parody, "Barack the Magic Negro", Republicans will have to suck up comments coming from the Left.
How do you think we felt seeing a Watermelon patch displayed in the Rose Garden?
How do you think we felt seeing a Monkey being shot compared to President Obama?
How do you think we felt hearing Sarah Palin say that President Obama was palling around with terrorists?
All is fair in Love and War. The Right needs to be a little bit more thick skinned. They want to throw punches, but we aren't allowed to punch back.
That is, in a word, disgusting.
Ick !!!
Good grief!
Whoa, Lloyd, I need to put a comment in here about this. This was NOT Rush Limbaugh's parody. The ditty was written by Jewish comedian Paul Shanklin, who since 1993 has been featured on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show as the “Man of Many Voices,” with songs lampooning public figures. The link here explains it. Plus the term "magic negro" was coined by Spike Lee as explained in the Wikipaedia article: "The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro ."
Personally, I don't think Sykes should have said what she did....and I actually don't find her funny anyway.
I could care less who wrote the parody. I could care less about Spike Lee's explanation.
Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Conservative movement. He should know better.
What do you expect me to do? Am I to research every parody played by the defacto leader of the Republican Party?
Unlike Paul Shanklin and Spike Lee, Rush Limbaugh has a audience of millions. Millions of people who are comfortable with parodies like "Barack The Magic Negro, but whine about comedian Wanda Sykes. Go figure!
In my opinion, you are reaching very deep to justify this insulting parody. What is it about this parody that you find so relevant or enlightening?
Anyway, I'll give you a pass on "Barack The Magic Negro".
What about the Watermelon Patch in the Rose Garden?
What about the Conservative New York Post's picture of a bullet ridden Chimpanzee being compared to President Obama?
You guys are thinned skinned. You guys can dish it out, but can't take it in return.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Cathi: You and I don't get to tell a black man what is and what isn't insulting about the term "Magic Negro." Nothing you wrote excuses Th' Bloviatin Blowhard playing that vicious parody over and over again (or even once). Nothing!"
Hello Chuck.
Thanks for your common sense reply.
Wanda is one of the funniest most out-spken and true comic going! I suppose your taste is carrot Top (wish some rabbit would get to him!)
Hunh? What is a "socialist card?" And why do I need it to go to England? And what does that have to do with my statement that No one is "banning the right." ?
it was wrong for her to say things like that but freedom of speech.
Here's my real problem. Spencer, What's your "real problem?"my real problem
I stated I thought Rush was wrong, but don't you read before you spit?
Be careful of what you wish for, it could hit you in white kidney.
Defending Rush, and Michael Savage by ATTACKING Wanda. Rush and Savage are both politicos and have sunk below the belly of a worm in their level of indecency. What Wanda said was not nice, but that is comedy all too often these days. She attacked people who have been attacking our President. She has as much right as they do, and she attacked a person, NOT THE WHOLE COUNTRY. get a real problem, or at least something worth defending.
You might want to read up on some of his literary 'gems' before holding him up as an example. He is an evil pig!
I need my meds.
I stated I thought Rush was wrong, but don't you read before you spit?
I read your entire comment which is why I asked you what I did. Rush was wrong but she is just hateful. How much more hateful can one get as to wish the President to fail? That was my point. I am not a fan of Wanda's but in reading these complaints (comments) one would think she committed a massive sin yet or like someone said "she" crossed the line. That is all so absurd when TV and radio commentators are saying a lot worse on a regular basis. That's what I have an issue with. As long as Obama has been in office the right winged talkers have lobbed racial (sometimes thinly veiled) epitaphs at him, low life comments like wanting him to fail, vilify him because of the type of mustard he used and a whole range of juvenile type comments like he walks with his nose in the air which is repeated over and over by a lot of people.
I wonder do those who are guilty give a hoot for what our kids will think of this crap and what they will feel about our political structure. So many yell freedom of speech and wrap themselves in the flag but they don't hesitate to poke a piss poor shot at the President every chance they get.
Obama has been President for not even four months yet many of you have decided he has been there long enough for you to "know" he is wrong and going in the wrong direction. How do you explain giving Bush eight years of support and some still doing it in some cases while he got us in the middle of not one but two wars, lead an administration which ran rough shod over the constitution denying Congress had the right to issue legal subpenas, allowed friends and supporters to get paid on contracts in war zones not completed or not performed in a professional manner. In the mean time our President stayed busy creating rules and mandates which favored only those who lead multi faceted industries and ignoring the needs of the citizens. I have a hard time crasping the thinkology of those who go all the way ballistic at the mention of any gun control yet see nothing wrong with the government ease dropping on our phone calls without a court order. Yes many accepted that from Bush but now Obama should apologize for what a comedian said about one of the most twisted minds on radio are TV.
Go figure that kind of thinking. I can't.
I didn't care for Bush when he was elected but because he was my President also I tried to support him until I saw with horror in the things he did which were harming this country yet ignored by many because of his politics. I feel if more of you looked at our situation as citizens and not as idealogs you might see differently.
As for visiting "England" only with your "socialist" credentials intact, that's off topic and just plain wrong. Modern capitalism, the market economy, and even democracy as we know it evolved largely in Britain, which in many respects is still our intellectual and cultural mother country. Over time, America has had few allies who have stuck with us in good times and bad in the way Britain has done. By the way, Great Britain (or the United Kingdom) consists of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Your comment above makes the error of consigning all of Britain to the English. The Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish do not appreciate such mistakes. I've visited the UK many times, and I have yet to be asked to present "socialist" credentials at Heathrow, Glasgow, Manchester, or any other British point of entry.
One more thing: "King Obama"? How helpful is that? Sounds to me like a situation in which pots and kettles are calling each other names. You don't seem to be engaging in comedy, so what's your reason for using such obvious exaggeration?
Then we are in aggrement.
It's helpful, as he is re-writing the constitution. Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, is rolling in his grave over this spending and printing paper money. My reason to use comedy is my laconic sense of outrage over what this women calls comedy. Rush, who I can't stand, doesn't hide his stupidity behind a comedy routine. He isn't funny, and she's cursing a man. There's a big difference.
I don't know about the watermelon patch in the rose garden. I thought the bullet ridden chimpanzee was wrong. But I do know the LA Times has a large readership, too. I'm not defending Rush Limbaugh but you are misplaced on blame with this one. The parody is making fun of the LA Times article which was calling Barack Obama "Barack the Magic Negro."
Certainly you don't need to research every parody played by anybody. But if you are going to use one of them as an argument, be sure what your argument is. Is it the article you are angry at? The writer of the parody, the fact it has been played by a variety of radio stations throughout the country? Or just Limbaugh because he's hated and the "presumed" head of the conservative party? And when did a radio personality become the head of the conservative party?
"You guys are thinned skinned. You guys can dishit out, but can't take it in return." What? When you say "you guys" who are you talking about? What am I dishing out and what can't I take? That's pretty presumptuious if you are thinking I am a Rush Limbaugh follower.
You can discuss issues or you call names. We are not politicians, and we are not comedians. In your post, you are engaging in just the kind of hyperbole you condemn. That detracts from your authority and your credibility.
By the way, Andrew Jackson's handling of the banking crisis of 1836 led to depositing federal monies into a handful of politically connected state banks. Moreover, it undermined American economic integrity abroad, encouraged financial speculation, and led to a run on banks--with an even worse financial crisis following in 1837. Jackson's successor, Martin van Buren, was left with the responsibility for fixing the mess. (Sound familiar?) These are not my opinions. This is the consensus for most historians. My point here is: Jackson turning over in his grave at the handling of the current crisis is not particularly a negative result. The last model we need for managing the current crisis is Jackson. Indeed, Jackson's role more acurately resembled Bush's in the lead-up to the current crisis.
As for Obama's rewriting of the Constitution, you threw that out without an explanation. It's just an accusation that stands without objective substance, an accusation dropped randomly and without context. Of course, it is "an inconvenient truth" that the Constitution was written to be rewritten, amended, and reinterpreted. Indeed, we started out our Constitutional era with 10 major "rewrites" that are now known as the Bill of Rights. So if you wish to make a usable point, you might tell us how Obama is rewriting the Constitution and why you think that's bad.
You also failed to address your stereotyping of the British in your response. There again, your comments fell randomly and without context. Britain is a friend and ally, our parent in some ways and our cousin in others. I have a feeling you don't really know what the word "socialist" means. It has become another of those words dropped conveniently to make points when a truly valid point isn't handy.
A final point regarding Britain's decision not to allow Michael Savage to enter the country. The U.S. makes similar choices. For example, in 2004 the singer Yusuf Islam (the name assumed by Cat Stevens after his conversion to Islam) was denied entry to the United States. Citing "national security concerns," no specific reasons or evidence were stated for his rejection. Given the singer's history on behalf of peace and humanitarian causes, the refusal to grant a visa caused widespread criticism of the U.S.
Maybe she could have tempered her words a bit..
But, then again, I'm a very firm believer in freedom of speech.
And, if I dislike what someone is saying, I turn off the t.v, the radio, or skip them on the internet.
That's just me, of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o6yrdInw6s
You saved me a whole ream of explanations of what is wrong with the UK/England rubbish and the 'socialist' credentials, too.
Thanks!
It just shows once again, to be a Republican, you have to have a lobotomy, as well as having your sense of humor removed.
Shoot, Hannity is reduced to screaming about Obama putting dijon mustard on his hamburger--and as Wanda said, lets allow Olbermann waterboard that fool.
She is edgy, she is rude, and she is WICKED FUNNY!
Wanda Sykes is a disgrace, but I guess she is part of a "protected class," So we can only whisper bad things about her.
For example, Edward Kennedy's name ended up on the no-fly list (another Edward Kennedy had unsavory connections), and EVERY Edward Kennedy, including Senator Ted Kennedy, got all manner of grief every time they tried to fly. The process to get an effective process for folks with the same name was apparently too much trouble. I find it stange that anyone could realistically view a standard interogation of Senator Kennedy as justifiable.
The former administration ran and/or supported gut-wrenchingly nasty ads against politicians they considered to be "liberal"--check out old ads on Max Clelland, triple amputee from the Vietnam War who had his patriotism challenged and his portrait presented in split screens with Osama bin Laden. The White House regarded that as "politics as usual" to gain a key Senate seat.
The list could go on and on for the "open season" implemented by the previous administration, but let a black female comedian tell a few pointed jokes about Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney and the whole right wing political establishment shutters and under the weight of the oppression and paranoia!
But here's a joke you may enjoy:
You know, you may want to look into this, because I think Barack Hussein Obama was the 20th hijacker. I hear he dropped out when he was told he couldn't bring his teleprompter on board the plane! [zingo!]. Anyone laughing out there?
Oh for pity sake. He put mustard on a burger? Off with his head!!!
Thanks, Erik. Now I know why I missed this one! LOL!
misty y., May 11, 2009, 1:02pm EDT
How utterly ridiculous! Nit pick much?
Remember, your party is lead by an entertainer, one who picks on people with medical conditions and 13 year old girls.
It's all good.
Imus' nappy-headed ho joke didn't seem to get the same "shrug" as Sykes very directed aim at Limbaugh. I remember Tom Joyner's Titanic joke that made fun of 7,000 white people dying and the blacks celebrating. What category do you put that in?
If you laugh at one... you should be able to laugh at all of them. If you are offended by one, you should be offended by them all. It's shameful that folks accept hate when it supports their own prejudice, but condemn it when it violates their personal space.
Just as a point of order: the basketball players that Imus bounced his humor off were accomplished young women, university students working at their studies and their sport. They were not political talk show hosts routinely taking pock shots at every "liberal" politicians to the left of Ghangis Khan.
Not all jokes are funny. Those that make fun of the weak, the innocent, and the helpless are not funny. Those that make fun of politican commentators who routinely cross all lines and take no prisoners are in an entirely different category. Limbaugh gives at least as good as he gets. By his own actions, he asks for the countervolley. Not recognizing the difference in these targets may not be shameful, but it certainly is shortsighted.
It strikes me that it is unlikely you can't recognize the difference between a group of fairly annonymous college athletes and an internationally known political blowhard. Would it be OK for a TV personality to jump on a mother and her newborn and spout off jokes about ugly babies and uglier mothers? By your reasoning, I suppose so. Sheesh. Give me a break.
misty y., May 11, 2009, 1:02pm EDT
It wasn't a joke. I'm serious, I don't think Sykes would take Rush up on that bet. No one who wishes death on anyone is classy or moral.
My, my. Such careful and discriminant analysis. I haven't seen the rule book for such events. It's nice to know you're privy to that. I'm still fascinated by how you guys get bent out of shape when someone speaks derisively about Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage.
Speaking of "tasteless," here are a couple of quotes from those you so admire:
Michael Savage on autism: "Now, you want me to tell you my opinion on autism, since I'm not talking about autism? A fraud, a racket. ... You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot.' Autism -- everybody has an illness. If I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, 'Don't behave like a fool.' The worst thing he said -- 'Don't behave like a fool. Don't be anybody's dummy. Don't sound like an idiot. Don't act like a girl. Don't cry.' That's what I was raised with. That's what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You're turning your son into a girl, and you're turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That's why we have the politicians we have." (Uuly 16, 2008)
Rush Limbaugh on Obama: "If Barack Obama were Caucasian, they would have taken this guy out on the basis of pure ignorance long ago" (May 14, 2008)
While you folks are tut-tuting over the injustice of comedians making wisecracks at the expense of the Limbaughs of the world, you might consider the damage done by the random arrogance and "tasteless hate speech" spouted by your heroes. Since when are autistic children fair game for this sort of attack. And as for Obama's "ignorance," the accusation says much more about the speaker than it does about Obama.
As shown by the above, the reactionary right is great at dishing it out, but when their hens come home to roost, they suddenly discover they're allergic to feathers.
Funny thing is Limbaugh (who I assume you are talking about) admits he's an entertainer. What about the Dem leaders, whats their excuse?
Much has been said about the awful impact of Wanda Sykes's "hate speech." Here are a couple more examples of Limbaugh's:
On James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr.:
You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
On black "criminals"--or is it just black activists?:
Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
On slavery in America:
I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
Limbaugh likes to refer to President Obama as a "halfrican American." He takes delight in insinuating that Obama is really an Arab and a Moslem. He has made a career on tapping into hatred, bigotry, and racism. And this rhetoric is not offered as humor. It's offered up as traditional American values. Wanda Sykes has a long way to go before she falls to Limbaugh's level.
must be fine for the gander as well. To differentiate... to laugh at the above images, then cry racism when the same comparison is made with the current president, is racism, because the complaint is made only due to the fact the president is black.
Liberal hate speech is no better, no more valid or justified, and certainly no holier than conservative hate speech. It is still hate speech, even when it is disguised as humor. There is no moral high ground here, just a lot of angry children playing king-of-the-hill.
From some of the statements above, I have to say, the better disguised humor comes from conservatives, as it is quite obvious that liberals aren't picking up on it. I'd explain, but by the time I was done, they still wouldn't get it, and I'd have a headache. I will only say that dry humor is still humor, even when you want to take it seriously because you think that will make your point.
Enjoy your argument, folks. I'm certainly enjoying the show!
Regarding the obama/chimp issue, all I have to say is this: What's good for the goose (or the mule)
must be fine for the gander as well. To differentiate... to laugh at the above images, then cry racism when the same comparison is made with the current president, is racism, because the complaint is made only due to the fact the president is black.
Liberal hate speech is no better, no more valid or justified, and certainly no holier than conservative hate speech. It is still hate speech, even when it is disguised as humor. There is no moral high ground here, just a lot of angry children playing king-of-the-hill.
From some of the statements above, I have to say, the better disguised humor comes from conservatives, as it is quite obvious that liberals aren't picking up on it. I'd explain, but by the time I was done, they still wouldn't get it, and I'd have a headache. I will only say that dry humor is still humor, even when you want to take it seriously because you think that will make your point.
Enjoy your argument, folks. I'm certainly enjoying the show!
Carol, would you just give it up. YOU PEOPLE LOST.
Got it? Get it? Good.
On the rush failure statement. If you actually hear his comment in context which I am willing to bet a majority of those who post have not. He says if obama really stands for larger government and less freedom I hope he fails. Of course he does, thats like being offended that a yankee fan wants a boston player to strike out.
I have found that because I agree with Rush Limbaugh on some issues, far left Liberals will label me a right-wing conservative middle-class (or higher) racially bigoted homophobe and sexist with homicidal tendencies. Because I disagree with Rush Limbaugh on some very key religious conservative issues, far right Conservatives will label me a left-wing wealthy (or poor) intellectually snobbish man-hating bull-dike who is not playing with a full deck. Neither side is willing to concede my right to my own opinion, and they are both especially unwilling to concede my right to have political viewpoints which are not across-the-board loyal to only one side or the other.
In the case of this particular argument, I'd just like to point out that in order to make their arguments, commenters are having to take statements out of context which affects their meaning. I also have to state again that there really is no moral high ground here. You can't as a group claim to be the party of tolerance and acceptance, then individually wish people dead for exercising their freedom of speech, and expect to continue to be viewed as tolerant and accepting. Sorry, but the two contradict each other.
To the right: Rush Limbaugh is not God. He's a smart guy who has figured out a lot of things and who communicates his opinions in an engaging and entertaining manner. He has some good ideas and some bad ideas. The fact that he has good things to say does not mean that everything he says is good. Obama is not the devil. He's a politician who for whatever reason, has been elected to the office of president. Disagreeing with his political viewpoint is your right, and so is stating your disagreement. There is no reason to stoop to the level of mudslinging that we saw from the left during the Bush administration. Time will tell on this man as it does with every president, and all he can do is be in charge for 4 to 8 years. After that, it's someone else's turn.
To the Left: Rush Limbaugh is not the devil. He has the same right to free speech as every other person in the U.S. Misquoting him, trying to "interpret" his statements in a way that puts him in a negative light, taking things out of context to change their meaning... none of this will make true anything you say about the man. None of your anti-Rush hate speech will prevent anyone who listens to him from hearing what he has to say, change what any thinking individual believes, or cause the show to be canceled. All it does is make you look desperate, intolerant, and hateful. Obama is not God. He's a fallible human being with his own thoughts and ideas, some of which are good, and some of which are not. Disagreeing with his political ideology does not make one an anti-black racist. Using the same terminology and imagery to criticize Obama that the left used to criticize Bush does not make one an anti-black racist. Having voted again against the Democrat political platform during an election when a black man is running for President does not make one an anti-black racist. Get over the race issue; it's dead. We have a black President. The president doesn't represent the nation. He represents himself. Wishing failure upon his agenda does not extend to wishing anything on any citizen. It is just a statement of disagreement with the agenda of his party.
To BOTH sides: Saying something doesn't make it true. Twisting people's words doesn't make the person into whatever you are trying to make them using your twisted version of their original statement. Villainizing leaders doesn't eliminate the ideology of the electorate. In fact, sometimes it inspires them to stronger opinions.