The clip in the OP ends just after Colbert calls her on the racism.
The Comedy Network is having problems and only seems able to load the first 20 or so seconds of the interview.
Comedy Central, obviously, redirects to Comedy.
So, can someone summarize her comments?
:smack: Major brainfart. For some reason I thought the presidential election was 2006 when I wrote that.
Yes, thank you, I know harpies are from Greek myths.
I also know that banshees come to us from the land o’ leprechauns.
My point is that Ms. Ingraham may have gotten 2 different female mythological characters, both with unpleasant connotations, confused such that she thought Colbert was offering up an insult that is significantly different than the insult that was actually made.
I have no idea why she would have thought banshees were from North America. Apparently she thinks a banshee is something different than it actually is, and if her grasp on myths is so shaky that she wrongly thinks banshees are a North American myth, she may also wrongly think “banshee” when picturing “harpy”.
I don’t know of any Native American myths that come close to the banshee (loud, wailing harbinger of another’s death) or the harpy (loud, wailing bringers of violence and torture) that would cause that mistake. I can only conclude that this lady spent her time in other than Mythology or Cultural Anthropology courses, which given her career choice of “evil cunt” prolly makes sense.
OK…now it’s loading the whole thing. (Not showing the video or controls, but at least the sound’s there, which just means waiting for it to get to the point where the other clip ended…)
I don’t know if Stephen heard her comment about natives - he was already started his response to her first comment when she started to go there. If he didn’t, watching it later, he’s probably kicking himself for missing that opening.
I would take that a step further and posit that right wingers are incapable of art in any form.
This book is number one on the NYTimes bestseller list? It proves that morons need entertainment too. Even in book form, surprisingly.
As we write there are millions and millions of lips moving slowly and silently while holding that book.
I’m not going to stick up for Charlie Daniels or Ted Nugent but this is ridiculous. Dogmatic people are usually not (intentionally) funny. Dennis Miller used to be funny. John Swartzwelder wrote 60 episodes of the Simpsons and at least one very funny book and he’s sometimes described as a conservative.
Can’t see the video and don’t know the full context in which it was written but must admit that I’m stumped at what racial stereotype is invoked by Michelle Obama eating ribs.
It is a racial steretype that black people like barbecue. It’s pretty much the same as saying she likes fried chicken or watermelon.
I’ve never heard that stereotype before. I didn’t think the clip was that funny, just typical Colbert.
I read that conservative groups and sites buy the terrible books by the boatload and give them out or offer drastically discounted prices if you join their web site or group. I got emails from conservative sites that offered Palins book for $4.99 right after it came out.
More likely there are pallets and pallets of the book in warehouses owned by rich Republicans.
Going Rogue was a huge seller. Sold tens of millions of copies. How many people have you ever met that read the book? Hell, if I remember right (I do!), Palin’s PAC bought thousands and thousands of her book. $63,000 worth, in fact.
That’s how I know that when Bill Gates finally releases that album he and his buddies recorded back in '76, it’s gonna be the best selling album of all time. Bill will just but 1 billion of them himself.
Just because you may not have run across a particular stereotype, doesn’t mean said stereotype doesn’t exist. I’m sure there are plenty of folks out there unfamiliar with the Japanese internment camps in WWII - doesn’t mean it’s okay for them to call people “Japs.”
Furthermore, regardless of whether you happen to be aware that the “BLACK PEOPLE LOVES THEY BARBEQUE” stuff is offensive, it’s undeniable that Ingraham herself is. Why the hell would there be, in a book ostensibly about politics, a random vignette about Michelle’s proclivity for eating ribs unless it’s a dig at her race? I assure you it’s not because Michelle Obama is actually known in reality for her voracious appetite for ribs.
It’s racist. Period. Colbert was spot on in his criticism.
Ingraham isn’t evil so much as she is…how to say…callous. But you have the order reversed anyway.
The saddest part is that Colbert didn’t even touch on what appears to be the craziest part of Ingraham’s book, judging by this review in the Huffington Post. The quoted parts are Laura Ingraham’s vision of what Michelle Obama thinks about. The response is the reviewer’s interpretation of what Ingraham really means.
The entire book seems to be 400 pages (400? Really?) of Ingraham pulling a face going, “This is you! Derrrpy derpy doo!”
Bit of a hijack, but - isn’t callousness a variety of evil? If you’re indifferent to the pain your actions cause, how is that functionally distinguishable from a willingness to cause pain for your own ends? And if you have that willingness - well, isn’t that evil?
Mmmm… Japanese spare ribs!
The ridiculous thing is when you look at Michelle Obama you don’t get the impression that she craves any kind of fattening food. You do get the impression that Laura Ingraham thought “Fried chicken… watermelon… nah, too racist… ribs, those should have good plausible deniability”.
Of course the most offensive thing is that everybody knows the Obamas don’t eat ribs: they’re Muslim.
