By The Right Scoop


Honestly this is so bad I can’t even believe he went there. LarryO called this cartoon racist and did a whole segment about it:

Seriously I see nothing racist about it. LarryO seems to think the artist, Batton Lash, made Obama look half animal/half human but that is completely ridiculous. Obama’s got big ears so Batton just made them bigger…you know, like dumbo. It’s a perfect fit actually.

LarryO doesn’t just criticize the cartoon though, he suggests that the artist needs an intervention by his loved ones. Really? How stupid.

This is the problem with the Left. They want to take every thing they can and make the Right look as racist as possible, even when there is absolutely no evidence of racism. It happened with the Tea Parties and it’s happening again. I suspect that even LarryO knows it isn’t racist, but he’s got to fit it in his ‘attack-the-Right’ agenda so he forces the square peg in the round racist hole.

But this is what we’ve come to expect from MSNBC, and that’s why they suffer so bad in the ratings department. Here’s the video if you want to suffer through it.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    LarryO believes the Barack Obama evolved from an ape. He has no right to call anyone racist.

    • COL Herb Smith

      Well? Have we not all evolved from one line or another of earlier humanoids?

      • Anonymous

        Speak for yourself. Some of us believe we are created by a loving God.

      • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

        Were created by God. If we evolved from apes, where are the transitional forms?

        • Anonymous
          • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

            Sorry too burst your bubble, but none of these have been officially recognized.

            NOT ONE!

            • Anonymous

              Just because your pastor hasn’t agreed doesn’t mean they haven’t been “officially recognized.” Rick Warren is not the arbiter of anything scientific.

              Sorry.

              • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

                Peer reviewed studies in recognized scientific journals???

                Sorry but I used to be an atheist. Been there, done that. Looked at the fact objectively and Christianity is the real deal.

                Simon Greenleaf was a law professor at Harvard. He looked at the evidence for Christ and became a Christian.

                Darwinism is mathematically imposable. You do believe in mathematics don’t you?

                • Anonymous

                  Did you mean “impossible?” I see assertion, non sequitur, appeal to authority, and assertion.

                  You expect a law professor to be able to reliably evaluate the evidence in such a way as to show that every scientist (you know, those actually trained in the subjects) for the last couple centuries has been wrong? You mentioning “law professor at Harvard” was an appeal to authority, you could have at least appealed to a relevant authority.

                  I see a lot of people saying “I used to be an atheist” to try and buy themselves some more credibility with the skeptical community. It doesn’t work by the way, for every one of you, there is one or two who have gone the opposite way.

                  If you looked at the evidence then you’ve taken quite a leap, because the farthest you can take any piece of evidence or argument through Reason is to some vague idea of a “grand architect.” Anything more than that is non sequitur and a leap, probably based in a bias of what you wanted to belief, which in turn was probably based on where you were born. If you also knew what you were talking about when it comes to evidence you would understand the value of convergence in scientific understandings as well as just how many fields definitively point all to the same answer regarding the diversity of life.

                  No, I don’t “believe” in Mathematics, just as I don’t “believe” in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Taxonomy, Paleontology, Archeology, Geology, Genetics, and Modern Medicine. I accept them because that is where the evidence points to as the most likely explanations and most reliable processes for understanding the Universe. There’s a big difference between belief and acceptance.

                  /end threadjack

                • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

                  Let me make it simple. The Wistar Conference held back in the 60s used main frame computers to calculate the probability of life evolving by pure random chance.

                  For an organism as complex as a human being to evolve by pure random chance would take 1 X 10 to the 110,000 power years. That’s 1 with 110,000 zeros after it.

                  These are facts, but they are meaningless to Darwinists because, my friends, Darwinism has become a religion.

                • Aitch748

                  What the devil does that have to do with transitional forms?

                  And from the sound of it, your Wistar Conference just did a computer simulation of random particles bumping together in the void and just happening to collide in such a fashion that they formed a human being. If that was the premise of their computer experiment, then it’s not much of a refutation of evolution OR of abiogenesis. I’ve yet to hear anyone proclaim that this is how one species develops from another or that this is how the first primitive living things arise from non-living things.

                • Anonymous

                  ^ What this guy said.

                • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

                  Google it and find out the facts. If you trust computer models for the Global Warming hoax, why can’t you trust computer models for this.

                  Note:Evolution is the only scientific theory that has be protected by the courts in some states. You can’t teach anything that questions it.

                  Evolution is the state religion.

                • Anonymous

                  It’s a fact that you, nor your conference, have any understanding AT ALL of Evolution, or Abiogenesis. Or you do have an understanding are are dishonestly playing with definitions and other people’s understandings/ignorances in order to score points for your agenda. Your use of the word Darwinist alone shows where your information and biases come from, and chances are the notion that you were an atheist was a lie.

                  Those are pointless calculations, simulations, and probabilities, and if you are too ignorant to understand why, take some night school classes. It’s really very simply to understand where you’ve gone awry.

                  Either way, you’ve just shown better than I ever could that you aren’t worthy the effort of even the most basic of laymen on the subject. You are beyond help.

                • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

                  Someday you will know that I was telling you the truth.

                • Anonymous

                  Will that be while I’m boiling in that eternal torment that I hear “loving” theists talk about so much threateningly with a gleeful chuckle? Not likely.

                • Rshill7

                  good grief. lost your cool huh?

                • Anonymous

                  I don’t suffer liars very well.

              • Ira Thurby-Wright

                “arbiter of anything scientific”

                I didn’t know that science was subject to arbitration? Well, I guess pseudo “sciences” like Global Warming, Cold Fusion, Climatology, Evolutionism are, but there’s no real debate that they are just opinionated dogmas that perhaps are subject to the whims of an arbiter. That’s what you mean, right?

                • Anonymous

                  You’re aware that Cold Fusion was shown to be nothing more than a flop, correct?

                  Popular media blowing something out of proportion is not a case against the Scientific Method or how Scientists practice it. The exact same situation played out with Nebraska Man, one stupid scientist got carried away, went to a non-peer-reviewed magazine to get the word out, they blew it up even more. Then the next thing you know, real peer-review got it’s hands on it and called the whole thing out for what it was.

                  You need to recognize that the real thing to dispute regarding Global Warming/Climate Change (whatever they call it now) is not whether or not the climate is changing. The thing to dispute is the Anthropogenic part of it, ie. what part do humans play in it, and what can we do about it.

                  It’s relatively clear that the climates change (herp derp), but I’m still skeptical that we are at fault or that even if we are we can do anything about it. The left-wing gives way too much credit to humanity and the right-wing are petrified of all things science. How about some rationality in the discussion?

                  Climatology is more or less “Global Warming,” way to pad your list of terms to make it more impressive. You aren’t fooling anyone.

                  Your use of the term “Evolutionism,” just shows your openness to information, the strength of your biases, your complete absence of understanding, and your mindless recitation of terms dreamt up by the Creationism Agenda. “Evolutionism,” is a term/attempt to try and not-so-subtly make the Theory of Evolution out to be as much a religion as the hocus pocus of real religions, like “Scientism.” Again, it’s cheap, and on one level or another it’s dishonest.

                  Move along, Chief.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  “You’re aware that Cold Fusion was shown to be nothing more than a flop, correct?”

                  No, really!? Cause I’ve got an open order for a cold fusion reactor to be installed and I’ve been waiting about 20 years! Should I be asking for a refund of my deposit? I thought it was real because scientists (not the press) from France to Russia, from one coast of the US to the other, reported duplicating the Ponns/Fleishman experiment. Wow, some good ol’ peer-to-peer would have really been timely before they rushed to make their conclusions public!

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  The exact same situation played out with Nebraska Man, one stupid scientist got carried away, went to a non-peer-reviewed magazine to get the word out, they blew it up even more.

                  Oh, you mean Homo prosthennops! I had forgot about that. That one sure went a distance before people realized H.sapien probably wasn’t descended from the wart hog. I mean, we’re probably as related to wart hogs as any other creature, but that rigorous peer review process (or more like peer-2-peer as scientists with the same agenda and ideology pat each other on the back) only took 8 years to flush out misplaced conclusions. That’s an order of magnitude five times faster than it took to debunk Piltdown man! Glad the priests custodians of Evolutionism are so fast on the uptake to pass on something that might support their dogma theory!

                • Anonymous

                  That’s cute, I’m sure Kent Hovind is very proud of you. Or is it Ken Ham? I can never tell, there are so many nut bar sophists out there in the lucrative business of misrepresenting, twisting, and lying about legitimate science to the uninformed and willfully ignorant.

                  It’s good to see you either read very little or have poor reading comprehension, I already explained to you that the hype over “Nebraska Man” was due to the poor practices of the “discoverer” going to a popular publication than to real peer-review. That publication then hired an artist to render an image of an entire animal from that 1 over blown and not peer-reviewed “discovery.”

                  Real science is what debunked both “Nebraska Man” and “Piltdown Man,” you Creationists then stroll in and use the products of the very science you condemn to try and twist reality and make your “case” against what the very sciences you are citing have gone on to support.

                  I would expect cognitive dissonance from a thinking person, but I know better when dealing with Creationists to have any expectations at all.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  I’m sure Kent Hovind is very proud of you. Or is it Ken Ham?

                  To quote Tony Randall, when you assume you make an a$$ out of yourself. I haven’t the slightest of who Kent or Ken is, nor why I would aspire to their approval. If they are Young Earthers, Evangelists, Educational Crusaders, I’ve never heard of them.

                  lucrative business of misrepresenting, twisting, and lying

                  and I’m not in the employ, nor do I have any profitable ventures that would motivate me thus, so back at you.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  you Creationists then stroll in and use the products of the very science you condemn to try and twist reality and make your “case” against what the very sciences you are citing have gone on to support.

                  No, I would think Creationists would use their own canonical sources to argue their position. If an opponent uses facts and logic, it’s surprising that you emote such a strong reaction if you are truly convinced solely by the facts and logic of Evolutionism, but apparently you’re somewhat emotionally committed to your belief system.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  I already explained to you that the hype over “Nebraska Man” was due to the poor practices of the “discoverer” going to a popular publication than to real peer-review. That publication then hired an artist to render an image of an entire animal from that 1 over blown and not peer-reviewed discovery.

                  You either read very little or have poor reading comprehension, I already explained that it took eight years from publication to reveal the fallacy. You claim it’s science at work that flushed out “Nebraska Man” and “Piltdown” man, but how many others remain unexposed, and regardless of Nebraska man, Piltdown man was the subject of over 500 peer papers. If that’s science at work, then after 60 years of perpetuation of Piltdown before it was finally vanquished from the London museum and various biology texts, I think it’s safe to say science wasn’t working and every individual better learn to think for themselves rather than rely on a priestly intermediary between them and the truth.

                • Anonymous

                  Will fossils be revealed as hoaxes in the future? Perhaps. A handful from the fossil record, considering just how many are part of that record, are not likely to have a very large impact on the whole.

                  As for how long Piltdown man was accepted in England, refer to my response to you below regarding the absence of the testing methods used to definitively prove the hoax.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  I know better when dealing with Creationists to have any expectations at all.

                  Glad you have your talking points down, but again, you assume too much. I’ve said nothing whatsoever about Creationism. My argument is that Evolutionism is self contradictory, improbable, implausible, and in many cases, in direct conflict with more established and readily observable fields of science, that it collapses under its own weight without any help from proponents of alternative theories of genesis.

                • Anonymous

                  That’s cute, I’m sure Kent Hovind is very proud of you. Or is it Ken Ham? I can never tell, there are so many nut bar sophists out there in the lucrative business of misrepresenting, twisting, and lying about legitimate science to the uninformed and willfully ignorant.

                  It’s good to see you either read very little or have poor reading comprehension, I already explained to you that the hype over “Nebraska Man” was due to the poor practices of the “discoverer” going to a popular publication than to real peer-review. That publication then hired an artist to render an image of an entire animal from that 1 over blown and not peer-reviewed “discovery.”

                  Real science is what debunked both “Nebraska Man” and “Piltdown Man,” you Creationists then stroll in and use the products of the very science you condemn to try and twist reality and make your “case” against what the very sciences you are citing have gone on to support.

                  I would expect cognitive dissonance from a thinking person, but I know better when dealing with Creationists to have any expectations at all.

                • Anonymous

                  That’s cute, I’m sure Kent Hovind is very proud of you. Or is it Ken Ham? I can never tell, there are so many nut bar sophists out there in the lucrative business of misrepresenting, twisting, and lying about legitimate science to the uninformed and willfully ignorant.

                  It’s good to see you either read very little or have poor reading comprehension, I already explained to you that the hype over “Nebraska Man” was due to the poor practices of the “discoverer” going to a popular publication than to real peer-review. That publication then hired an artist to render an image of an entire animal from that 1 over blown and not peer-reviewed “discovery.”

                  Real science is what debunked both “Nebraska Man” and “Piltdown Man,” you Creationists then stroll in and use the products of the very science you condemn to try and twist reality and make your “case” against what the very sciences you are citing have gone on to support.

                  I would expect cognitive dissonance from a thinking person, but I know better when dealing with Creationists to have any expectations at all.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  You need to recognize that the real thing to dispute regarding Global Warming/Climate Change (whatever they call it now) is not whether or not the climate is changing. The thing to dispute is the Anthropogenic part of it, ie. what part do humans play in it, and what can we do about it.

                  Yes, I did mean AGW, but the acronym isn’t universally known and “Anthropogenic” was slowing down my typing while being assumed and not really substantive to my point, but shoot, now you and I have just wasted in excess of five minutes discussing whether or not the term I used does or does not hinge on the man-made influence on climate change. So, without reservation, yes, I recognize that the real thing to dispute is the causality related to man.

                  Since climate has always changed, because of the inordinate magnitude of influence on the earth’s temperature by solar radiation, because simple particle and wave physics require the same nasty “green house gases” block from initial entry the radiated EMR that they supposedly trap, and finally because of the established laws of Thermodynamics, a fifth grader could easily be brought to the correct understanding that man does nothing to influence more than his immediate surroundings… That man can do nothing to accelerate or decelerate the warming or cooling of the planet (except his immediate surroundings).

                  If the AGW bozos would get out a $3 calculator and pull a bit of geographical and astronomical data from Wikipedia, they would quickly come to the same conclusion, but instead they toss around inconvenient terms like (plug your ears kiddies) “C-O-2″ and “Retreating Glaciers” while quickly showing graphs on a PowerPoint presentation without enough detail or time to show that CO2 levels historically trail temperature hikes. It takes a hacker to expose their cherry picked and fudge filled data sets before even half the world (excluding of course Europe that is too heavily invested) recognize them for the charlatans they are.

                  So this is the state of the science. Are you surprised that I’m critical of what we get force-fed by the supposed custodians of empirical knowledge?! The media refuses to vet and question either the data or the proponents, so even if I stand alone in the truth of it, I repudiate bad science (and economics to boot) wherever it shows up.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  You need to recognize that the real thing to dispute regarding Global Warming/Climate Change (whatever they call it now) is not whether or not the climate is changing. The thing to dispute is the Anthropogenic part of it, ie. what part do humans play in it, and what can we do about it.

                  Yes, I did mean AGW, but the acronym isn’t universally known and “Anthropogenic” was slowing down my typing while being assumed and not really substantive to my point, but shoot, now you and I have just wasted in excess of five minutes discussing whether or not the term I used does or does not hinge on the man-made influence on climate change. So, without reservation, yes, I recognize that the real thing to dispute is the causality related to man.

                  Since climate has always changed, because of the inordinate magnitude of influence on the earth’s temperature by solar radiation, because simple particle and wave physics require the same nasty “green house gases” block from initial entry the radiated EMR that they supposedly trap, and finally because of the established laws of Thermodynamics, a fifth grader could easily be brought to the correct understanding that man does nothing to influence more than his immediate surroundings… That man can do nothing to accelerate or decelerate the warming or cooling of the planet (except his immediate surroundings).

                  If the AGW bozos would get out a $3 calculator and pull a bit of geographical and astronomical data from Wikipedia, they would quickly come to the same conclusion, but instead they toss around inconvenient terms like (plug your ears kiddies) “C-O-2″ and “Retreating Glaciers” while quickly showing graphs on a PowerPoint presentation without enough detail or time to show that CO2 levels historically trail temperature hikes. It takes a hacker to expose their cherry picked and fudge filled data sets before even half the world (excluding of course Europe that is too heavily invested) recognize them for the charlatans they are.

                  So this is the state of the science. Are you surprised that I’m critical of what we get force-fed by the supposed custodians of empirical knowledge?! The media refuses to vet and question either the data or the proponents, so even if I stand alone in the truth of it, I repudiate bad science (and economics to boot) wherever it shows up.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  Climatology is more or less “Global Warming,” way to pad your list of terms to make it more impressive. You aren’t fooling anyone.

                  Except for the fool I addressed, because while I was referring to the craft of weather prediction apart from “Global Warming”, you assumed I was referring to something else. You need to suppress that nasty proclivity to jump to conclusions as it quickly betrays your arguments as mere talking points.

            • Aitch748

              “None of these have been officially recognized”? What does that mean, exactly? Is there some official central authority that is responsible for signing off on these things but has yet to do so in this case? Who or what is this agency responsible for officially recognizing such things?

            • Aitch748

              “None of these have been officially recognized”? What does that mean, exactly? Is there some official central authority that is responsible for signing off on these things but has yet to do so in this case? Who or what is this agency responsible for officially recognizing such things?

              • Anonymous

                The several century spanning international anti-christian scientist conspiracy, duh! Also known as The SCSIACSC, they’re trying to come up with a snappier name…

              • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

                It means that they have never been written up in peer reviews. Not even Richard Dawkins talks about them.

                • Anonymous

                  Are you for real? Go ahead and look them up, there were hundreds listed in just the links I provided. That would mean that you would have to actually click on them, which likely, you didn’t.

                  Some of my links even show the author of the discoverer/publisher! I’m sorry, but you can’t get away with blatant dishonesty like that, either you know better or you don’t and pretending like you are.

                  Keep on getting your information from 1 side of the manufactured controversy, and more specifically, from sources looking to make their buck off telling you want you already want to hear.

                  P.S. For future reference, Dawkins does reference transitional fossils. Even if he did, he’s not the Pope of Evolutionary Biology so it would be a moot point.

                • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

                  Sooooo

                  My primary statement is still true. LarryO, and apparently you as well, believe that Barack Obama evolved from an ape??

                  No one who believes this has the moral authority to call me or anyone a racist.

                • Anonymous

                  Nice dodge, I wasn’t responding to that nor did I try to contend it, nor did I call anyone racist.

                  This post by you is just one more demonstration of your misunderstanding. It isn’t just that humanity is descended from apes. We are apes, just as we are mammals, animals, and eukaryotes. You can’t outgrow your ancestry, and if you understood the science you pretend to have investigated and discarded this would be a non-issue.

                  Obama is a human being, so are you. You are both descended from earlier Hominids, thus you are both part of a species of Ape. We all are.

                  If you are going to say that we aren’t apes, then you might as well also say we
                  don’t have cells with membranes and nuclei (Eukaryotes)
                  aren’t metabolic organisms that must ingest other organisms to generate energy (Animals)
                  don’t have a spinal chord (Chordates)
                  don’t have a spine (Vertebrates)
                  don’t have only four limbs (Tetrapods)
                  don’t have a skull with a single temporal fenestra (Synapsids)
                  aren’t a warm-blooded organism with hair and lactal nipples (Mammals)
                  and aren’t born from a placenta (Eutherians).

                  When you say we aren’t apes, then you are saying we aren’t all of the above, as well as that we don’t have 5 prehensile toes and 5 figures, we don’t have 2 nipples on our chest rather than our abdomen, that the males don’t have free-hanging genitalia, that we don’t have an appendix, reduced fangs, flat chitinous fingernails instead of claws, distinctive patterns on our extremities, a susceptibility to AIDS, and an inability to produce Vitamin-C.

                  Each and every one of those traits might independently be found in other organisms but there is only one organism in which every single one of those is found all at once, and that is the Ape.

                  Now come to terms with Taxonomy, it’s several centuries past-due.

                • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

                  Your avoiding the key point. All your filibustering doesn’t negate the fact that unguided evolution has a probability of zero.

                  Zero.

                  If unguided evolution is a proven fact then you should be able to produce a mathematical model that shows how sophisticated life forms could come about by pure mindless chance.

                  Evolution is such a brittle theory it must be protected by the courts. It can’t stand objective scrutiny.

                • Anonymous

                  Keep trying to change the subject chief, you’re as transparent as the nonexistent firmament your magic tome says is in the sky.

                  It’s beyond clear that you’ve investigated anything about this beyond apologetics websites and a nonsensical computer model which is not even applicable to the subject at hand. The fact that you can’t recognize that your conference’s computer model has not relevance is just further testament to your lack of any real investigation, and anyone who has bothered to put in the effort can spot you like a sore thumb.

                  Here’s a tip chief, the only model put forward that involves particles magically coming together and making a human being is Genesis 1 & 2 when we were magically “poofed” out of dirt. An occurrence like in your little model might very well disprove Evolution, just like the half-cat half-dog or half-crocodile half-duck you guys keep asking for.

                  Did the publications from real scientists hurt your head?

                  Maybe you can change the subject to a classic, like Nebraska Man, or maybe the eye?

                  All of this is ignoring the fact that even if Evolution, and the mountains of evidence from numerous separate fields pointing to it, were wrong, that doesn’t count as proof of your magic tome or it’s metaphysical father figure. If you were to disprove every single word of every scientific publication that contradicts the Bible it is still not even ONE shred of proof FOR your god. This is why your supposed conversion from Atheism to Christianity by looking at “evidence” is a giant non sequitur and likely bologna.

                  Evolution is the only part of science “protected by the courts” because it’s the only part (yet) under absurd attack by the lingering ideas of bronze age monolatrist barbarians.

                  And the fact that neither you, nor the Creationism political agenda can even bother trying to refute the evidence says a lot. Instead you act like hypocrites and try to dishonestly smuggle it through courts (Constitution be damned) and cross your fingers for an activist judge, the same kind of judge you probably decry in every other case.
                  Example: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

                  1. Explain atavisms in the genome, and their corresponding traits emerging on occasion. Ex. chickens with teeth, snakes/whales with legs, and humans with tails
                  2. Explain the Endogenous Retrovirus DNA in the exact same parts with the exact same sequences in the genomes of humans and other apes.
                  3. Explain the progressions evidenced in the fossil record from one form to another corresponding both with multiple dating methods and the stratum they are found in + the geological timescale.
                  4. Explained the multitudes of OBSERVED speciation events.
                  5. Explain absence of any mammal fossils in the Pre-Cambrian.
                  6. Explain the proven accuracy of 16S Ribosomal Testing, a test based ENTIRELY on Evolutionary predictions.
                  7. Explain Darwin’s correct prediction about Archaeopteryx, and no it’s not a member of the Aves and I can get the reasons why if you want.

                  “Goddidit” is not an explanation. Religion can’t explain any of that with any specificity beyond bumper sticker slogans. Evolution explains all of it, and it great detail.

                  When you realize how pointless your first model of probabilities was you’ll realize how pointless and made up the “probabilities” meant to refute Big Bang Cosmology are as well.

                  Do you get how obvious you are? Freethinker you are not, and Atheist you were not.
                  http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Greg-Krukonis-PhD/dp/0470117737

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  If you were to disprove every single word of every scientific publication that contradicts the Bible it is still not even ONE shred of proof FOR your god.

                  There are two general tests embodied in the scientific method, the first is simply whether a theory can be observed outright, and the second whether a theory which cannot be observed outright, accurately predicts a secondary phenomenon which can be observed.

                  Because Evolutionists either don’t have one, or refuse to disclose their smoking gun case(s) for observed abiogenesis or speciation, the entire body of “science” rests on its ability to predict (something with a spotty record at best if you flip back through 100 years of biology text books at obsolete predictions, conclusions, diagrams, reconstructions, and illustrations). But that’s okay, because science is expected to progress from nascent theories to ones that are more mature and absolute, we allow it for physics and chemistry (e.g. Ruthford’s atomic model replaced by Bohr’s, Planck’s constant substantiated by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity) so we should give other branches time to flush out bad theories and build good ones.

                  However, there comes a point where a theory can’t carry the weight of the evidence, can’t accurately predict a meaningful outcome, and it gets replaced. While I’m sure that this is in fact the position of the Evolutionist in asserting his fanciful conjectures over Biblical ones (replacing religion with new knowledge (at best, or at worst, a new religion), reason would have it that an alternative theory could just as easily displace Evolution, and if the Evolutionists are even semi-impartial, he would have to admit, in the light of the holes in his theory, that there may be a “black swan” out there. Ditto to the Creationist.

                  There’s actually very little written with respect to the Creation event in the Jewish canon, so the challenge to the Creationist is whether or not the stated theory therein, it perhaps being witnessed, but no longer an event available for direct observation, does it accurately predict what we do observe in the present condition? Could the creative event itself have happened as described.

                  (Hint: Jewish writings must be read taking into account the literary form of chiasma.)

                • Anonymous

                  The Theory of Evolution has demonstrated it’s predictive capability many times over. From the discovery of fossils (location, how deep, how old, what traits to look for, etc.) to tests performed in medical practices routinely and frequently.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  The Theory of Evolution has demonstrated it’s predictive capability many times over.

                  And it’s demonstrated it’s flaws as well. Up until twenty or so years ago Biston betularia was showcased as a living example of Natural Selection and speciation. It seemed to both demonstrate actuality and predictability of the theory’s premise, that under environmental pressures, the parent population had split into two species typica and carbonaria and due to the de-lychenization of tree trunks and the darkening of rooftops in urban England and Ireland the darker population would supplant the lighter population. Then when the industries died and the moss returned, the typica returned as if nothing had happened.

                  Skeptics asserting that allele selection was all that was being observed accurately predicted that the adaptive trait was reversible and not a mutation. it was a sure thing that the populations would return to prior levels. Whereas many Evolutionists pre-maturely popped the cork to celebrate proof of sympatric speciation. Indeed, nothing grand had been observed, no genetic drift, just natural selection that would reduce or increase frequency of alleles, but no evidence whatsoever of the introduction or further evolution of a species.

                  In summary, Evolution falters as often as it seems to advance. A broken clock is correct twice a day, but this defeats predictability because you’ll only ever know when it was right in hindsight. Just like Lysenko, the Evolutionists then forget all the times their theory meandered (like Piltdown and Nebraska man which you – thank you – so aptly demonstrated Evolutionists like to whitewash) while highlighting the other half of the time it seems to work for the moment. G Gordon Liddy is a better barometer to Gold prices than Evolutionism is to biology.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  you’re as transparent as the nonexistent firmament your magic tome says is in the sky.

                  I just couldn’t let you slip that in and get away with it:

                  1) The “firmament” in the KJV or SRV, Book of Genesis refers to matter, which cannot be assumed to be transparent.

                  2) In the 6th verse, “the firmament is in the waters, not the sky, and it’s basically the continental shelf(s) which when made uneven, displaces the water by raising some ground above the water with the resulting valleys ending up below the water.

                  3) In the 7th verse, “the firmament” refers again to matter, but matter in space, of which evidence aplenty shows is abundant. As a matter of fact, the most recent discoveries upon which the brilliant (but petty) astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss comments, is the “dark matter ” in space which mass spectroscopy readings reveal more than was originally predicted (we can’t date or pre-suppose a “beginning” of the universe without conceding there’s much more matter than is immediately evident).

                  4) The tome isn’t magic. Sorry to dash your hopes, but there’s no such thing as magic. I’ll have to ask my Jewish and Christian friends, but I don’t believe they accept that there is magic, either. If I misunderstood what you mean by magic, maybe you could describe what you mean or give me an example of something that you think is magic. I’m sure with that we can set you straight.

                  As for the rest of your comments, hybrid duck-gators, cat-dogs, etc., short of us already having discussed Homo warthog (aka Nebraska Man), I have no idea of what you’re referencing, so I’ll stop here. I’m not a Biblical scholar by any stretch, but just like I can read the Biology, Genetic, and Evolutionism journals, I can linguistically parse a few passages from the Good Book and dispel your incorrect understanding. Hope that helps, chief.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  If unguided evolution is a proven fact then you should be able to produce a mathematical model that shows how sophisticated life forms could come about by pure mindless chance.

                  Be careful there, because if you are referring to Irreducible Complexity, the Evolutionist will simply argue that Natural Selection has no purposeful trajectory, in which case there is no need to reduce something that is the result of chance. Of course improbability is still an issue, but when something is already observed, you can no longer argue it’s improbability, it’s already happened.

                  However, if you induce that abiogenesis cannot be made severable from the Evolutionist argument, then Irreducible Complexity is back on the table, and after 10 years of research, the simplest specimen as it relates to acid-base pairs is M. genitalium which has about 400 genes to carry out cellular functions (membrane, metabolism, protein handling, etc.). With computer models, researchers have been able to theoretically reduce it (or a prototype) to about 200 genes. That’s the current “Minimal Gene Set”. 200 genes. That’s around a million base pair of amino acids. To spontaneously occur, over 20 Million chemical bonds, in the right order and sequence would need to form in the same place and time to give rise to life as we know it.

                  It’s not that life is improbable (obviously isn’t because it is), it’s just that Evolution, Speciation, and at their core, Abiogenesis are infinitely improbable and irreducible as a product of pure chance. This is where Occam’s razor slices Evolutionism to shreds.

                • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

                  Your point is well argued, especially the part about Irreducible Complexity. At the end of the day it’s not about facts, it’s about confronting the existence of God and a moral law. In the movie “Expelled: no intelligence allowed” Richard Dawkins admitted as much.

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  At the end of the day it’s not about facts, it’s about confronting the existence of God and a moral law.

                  Not to be disagreeable, but at the end of the day it is about facts, or more succinctly, about truth. Something is either true or false, irrepsective of its proponents or opponents, regardless of the arguments waged. Truth stands on its own, requires no authority or endorsement other than what is real. If G_d is real, He needs to apologists to defend or assert His existence. If He does not exist, it doesn’t matter what people believe about Him or His work.

                  As for Evolutionism, in its current state, it requires one to actively set aside their skepticism and turn logic on its head. It cherry picks its evidence, depends on multiple abstractions of extrapolated data, but more importantly, can’t reconcile with its own rules (Natural Selection) and where simple mechanisms should suffice, overly complex models are superimposed.

                  To give you an example of the last point, speciation is subdivided into Sympatric, Allopatric, and Parapatric. Given that genetic drift does not move across a population (Mendellian Genetics versus Michurinism, pretty much accepted throughout all of the biological sciences the world over now that the Soviet Union has failed), but begins only in a new generation (during meieosis or early zygotic development) and occurs discretely (non-blending of phenotypical traits).

                  This is why Punctuated Equilibrium is logically a better sub-theory than Phyletic Gradualism. Setting aside population genetics (which is useful for modeling, but not in and of itself a method of proof), every event of genetic divergence isn’t just going to occur in a single generation, but it has to occur at the individual level.

                  (side note A model relying on genetic change commencing simultaneously in more than one individual doesn’t just double the improbability, but exponentially decreases the probability to its own power. A 1 in a million event happening twice simultaneously is not 2-in-a-million, it’s 1-in-a-million-million.)

                  So, genetic variance leading to speciation has absolutely nothing to do with degree or method of separation, because generation 0 is physically in the presence of the parent population and if the genetic event is significant enough to demarcate a new species, then at the same time it is apart from the parent species. The three types of speciation are a smoke screen hiding that there’s only one kind of speciation occurring which is Sympatric Speciation, the least likely sounding of the three. It’s a fallacy that the odds are increased by creating a long list of how speciation might happen, it would always happen locally, one generation and one individual organism at a time.

                  Another example of an unnecessarily complex model attempting to prove the theory, is that if you accept punctuated equilibrium, as stated, it doesn’t rely on any form of separation, and furthermore, you don’t need millions of years. You don’t even need dozens of generations. Upon formation of the individual genome during meiosis or during sexual recombination, the genetic mutation that would define a new species would right then and there take place. If it didn’t take place in population zero, then in population 1, or 2 or 3, but if you push it back further, the parent population just moves further, so it’s always just generation zero where the new, incompatible genome comes into existence.

                  (side note The “new, incompatible genome” is preferably non-deleterious, otherwise generation zero, is not just the first, but probably the last. This of course works against the probability of speciation occurring at all.)

                  But, while failing to supply a physical principal requiring millions of years of small changes, Evolutionism (or at least the adherents when you get down to brass tacks) simply states without grounds whatsoever that you accept that premise. Computer models demonstrating the behavior are run endlessly, but this is neither predictive, nor does it explain WHY. As of six months ago, I still could not find one expert in the field who could provide a solid reason requiring it even though it is so prominent of a requirement that there’s actually no cited incidence where Evolutionism accepts any speciation happening spontaneously.

                  So, in the spirit of critical thinking (rare these days), Creationist or Evolutionist, ask yourself what physical principal, beside the utility of conveniently shaping the evidence to fit the the theory, what law of physics or chemistry or otherwise requires that speciation occur over many generations through minute changes? Again, an overly complex model with vague explanations seeks to obfuscate rather than clarify, to fudge rather than predict the outcome.

            • Aitch748

              “None of these have been officially recognized”? What does that mean, exactly? Is there some official central authority that is responsible for signing off on these things but has yet to do so in this case? Who or what is this agency responsible for officially recognizing such things?

          • Ira Thurby-Wright

            “countless examples they’ve found, along with why they are transitional”

            You forgot the Piltdown man – 40 years esteemed as a significant finding, shaping evolutionary thought, 500 peer review papers in support thereof, 3 years from discovery of fraud to publication, and then another 23 years in the collection of the London Museum of Natural Science. Love dem bones!

            • Anonymous

              Oh, you mean the hoax that was only accepted by English scientists and correctly held in skepticism by American and French Scientists?

              The hoax that was revealed by the very same tests that have put together the mountains of evidence?

              The hoax that was caught by the science that you decry?

              The one where in American museums was never presented as anything more than several old bones?

              Are you going to point to Nebraska Man, next? The eye? Ernst Haeckel?

              Again, these are non-points to people who know better because the eye was responded to by Darwin (the guy Creationists like to quote about it), and neither Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, or Ernst Haeckel’s proving to be jokes and hoaxes are a refutation of anything more.

              Are you going to dishonestly ignore the other THOUSANDS of fossils?

              Those examples are not some lynch pin that modern science rests on, and if you want to disprove Evolution, go find a Unicorn or Dragon like are mentioned in your book, or a Pegasus, or the half-crocodile half-duck you guys keep asking for. If you don’t know why those would disprove Evolution I am happy to explain.

              Piltdown Man is no more evidence against Evolution as if someone today proved that Arthur Eddington faked his observations in favor of Einstein’s General Relativity. It would be a footnote at best, because the evidence to support it since has grown to a point that I can’t fit it all in here. And Evolution has an even better track record than Relativity!

              Will you answer the questions Nick couldn’t?
              1. ERV DNA in our Genome in the precise locations and same sequences as other apes?
              2. Chickens have the genes for teeth, why?
              3. Snakes have the genes for legs, why?
              4. Humans have the genes for tails, why?
              5. The rest of the genome?
              6. 16S Ribosomal Testing?
              7. Observed speciation?
              8. Prediction of Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and thousands of others?
              9. The lack of mammals pre-cambrian?
              10. The convergence of Geology, Archeology, Paleontology, Genetics, Taxonomy, Chemistry, and Biology all together pointing to Evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life?

              You guys still try to contest that we are Apes even though that was understood by a Christian scientist named Carollus Linnaeus ~100 years before Darwin’s book. Stop loitering in the decrepit dustbin of rotting never-valid criticisms and see just how far behind the Apologetics really are, and how much further you fall behind every day.

              • Ira Thurby-Wright

                Oh, you mean the hoax that was only accepted by English scientists and … «insert Only a True Scotsman argument here» … The hoax that was caught by the science that you decry?”

                I think “caught” is a pretty liberal use of the word considering, and I repeat the historical facts, over 500 supportive research papers were produced and forty years passed between the initial “discovery”, and exposure of the fraud. To put that in perspective, a student just receiving his doctrate in 1912 might be age 30. In 1953 when the truth came out in full disclosure, the same “professor” of Evolutionist Biology would be 70, long retired. That is not what you want to hold up as an example of good science, or science at work, or a prototype of the peer review process. That’s the kind of occurrence that if there was any objectivity or humility among the Evolutionists, they’d just stick their tale (purposeful typo) between their legs and hope no one notices their sloppy negligence or willful deceit.

                • Anonymous

                  You ignore or overlook the fact that the testing methods which revealed Piltdown man to be a hoax once and for all were not yet available when it was “discovered.”

                  It’s a tad difficult to use tests which do not exist yet, don’t you think?

                • Ira Thurby-Wright

                  the testing methods which revealed Piltdown man to be a hoax once and for all were not yet available

                  Poor excuse, blaming the tools. The fraud however didn’t occur because of the primitive tools available but because Evolutionists were anxious to advance their agenda which, at least to some, seemed to need some “nudging”. Stop looking for excuses, there are none. There are similarly no excuses for East Anglia, or any of the other frauds perpetrated by men of science (or should I say men of the cloth).

              • Ira Thurby-Wright

                Are you going to dishonestly ignore the other THOUSANDS of fossils?

                No, I look at them and go, “hmmm, interesting” and move along. Then again, I’m not an Omphaloskeptic, so I don’t worry much about my navel, either. I certainly don’t waste my time engaging in improbable fantasies trying to explain that for which no obvious explanation exists or perhaps may never in my lifetime be revealed. There are far too many Dawsons, Ponns, Fleishman, and Mannings to jump into bed with every grifter peddling an agenda laced theory, but I have to say, it sure is fun to watch them squirm under the antiseptic glare of the truth. As tragic as it is, it’s equally fun to watch their apologists flounder in support of these titilating ideologies, especially when they get to the point of setting aside logic and more simple truths in defense of their priestly authorities.

    • KeninMontana

      You really shouldn’t insult apes like that..BTW,there is an 800lb. gorilla here looking for someone named Lawrence…..

    • Ira Thurby-Wright

      Good Jews and Christians believe that Obama descended from Adam & Eve, who of course were created in the likeness of G_d. The liberal progressives that 99% buy into Evolution believe Obama descended from the Apes. Then, when they misinterpret something, they call others racists. Lesson learned?… you can’t argue with people who don’t use their cognitive facilities. It’s a lost cause, give up, get over it.

      • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

        The race card is used as a political weapon. There is more racism on the left but it is camouflaged. I live in liberal MA and I remember court ordered busing. I remember seeing crowds of white democrats throwing rocks at buses full of little black kids.

        They have no right to call anyone racist.

        • Anonymous

          Your comments are spot-on correct. DEM-Rats have hijacked the money-distribution train; it started with LBJ’s welfare experiment. When these DEM-Rats realized how much white-guilt that was there for the taking; like a shark in the water. 40 years later, what do the “downtrodden” have to show for this EXPENSIVE taxpayer-funded social experiment: shattered morals/homes, HS drop-out rates sky high, disillusioned and angry at the very people who handed the taxpayer money out like communist bureaucrats….

          • Anonymous

            I think you’re right about white guilt, coffee. I had not thought of it, but it’s a valid point. It makes me wonder how I might have been manipulated myself.

            Now, we come to a point where the heinous accusation of racism can be made without evidence and no one is offended by this. If they accused you of being something else horrible, like a rapist, they’d have to show proof.

            At this point, the disgusting trick has been over-played and I’m tired of being lumped into a big group and accused of something awful and untrue.

            For the record, I think the cartoon is insulting and crosses a line of decency and respect. Racist? Any jab at a black president can now be called racist. It’s awful.

            • Ira Thurby-Wright

              “Any jab at a black president can now be called racist. It’s awful.”

              And yet another racist comment in the mix!

              What exactly is a “Jab”? Why, of course, it’s a boxing term. And who are the top boxers in the history of the sport? Why, Caches Clay (Ali), Mike Tyson, George Foreman, and Rocky Balboa, all black men. So when you take a “Jab” at someone, it’s automatically racist because you’re obviously taking a jab at a black man just because of his skin color.

              Now if you wanted to be truly post-racist, you should have said “any karate chop at a black president” (Karate is distinctly a whiteman’s sport, like Chuck Norris, Stephen Segal, and Mr. Miyagi) or “any shot at a black president”.

              However, I would warn against saying “pot shot” because everyone knows that “pot” is a nick name for canabis, which we all know is part of the religious communion of those of the Rastafarian faith, who are primarily black (except for some white addicts who put mud in their hair and sneak in for a toke).

              In short, your comments are laced with racism and ignorance!

          • Anonymous

            I think you’re right about white guilt, coffee. I had not thought of it, but it’s a valid point. It makes me wonder how I might have been manipulated myself.

            Now, we come to a point where the heinous accusation of racism can be made without evidence and no one is offended by this. If they accused you of being something else horrible, like a rapist, they’d have to show proof.

            At this point, the disgusting trick has been over-played and I’m tired of being lumped into a big group and accused of something awful and untrue.

            For the record, I think the cartoon is insulting and crosses a line of decency and respect. Racist? Any jab at a black president can now be called racist. It’s awful.

      • poptoy1949

        Speaking of Cognitive Facilities why in the hell is someone as smart as you using a picture of Che’ to describe himself. I just don’t understand.

        • Ira Thurby-Wright

          “someone as smart as you using a picture of Che’ to describe himself”

          Che!? I think you’re mistaken, it’s a picture of my father-in-law, Jose Gavarez. He was an immigrant who lived in Florida during the 1950s who was a very successful entrepreneur and made a fortune in the garment industry. A great man, a titan of industry, real philanthropist. Don’t feel bad though, because several others have strangely made the same mistake. Sadly Jose died a few years back, but I’ll have to google “Che”. Is he the inventor of the Che-a-pet? Because that was a really stupid trend.

    • destroyer of moonbats

      gwbush and the obamas are apes, chimps and monkeys. darwin said so. go and complain to him you liberal buttclowns.

  • http://twitter.com/michaelddunyan michael

    after I looked at the picture long enough I thought it was Oprah. IT’S A CARTOON. If Obama’s ever went to a county fair, bet they already have a picture like that. ITS A CARTOON.

    • Ira Thurby-Wright

      “ITS A CARTOON”

      When dealing with liberals and progressives, it is impossible to lampoon Obama in a cartoon because if you make him dark skinned or Africanus in appearance, you are obviously a racist for pointing out the color of his skin or the curl in his hair. If you make him look light skinned, well, then you are obviously a racist because you are drawing attention to the color of his skin by showing it wrong. As a matter of fact, you can’t mention his name because it’s kind of Muslim sounding and you’ll be accused of perpetuating that he isn’t a Christian, but if you use Barry, well, you are just drawing attention to his pre-conversion name which of course means that you don’t really think he’s a Christian.

      You see, they don’t just let the Manchurian candidate into the wild, they first have to apply a tempered layer of Teflon(TM) so that nothing can stick to him, and then a layer of shiny PoliMetalAlloy(TM) so that the mere mention of his name or any attempt to create an image of him reflects poorly on his critics. Of course, the one vulnerability is that he can accidentally shellac himself.

    • Anonymous

      I notice there’s very little humor among some peoples, no laughing at all!!

  • Davidkiser21

    Amazing to hear members of the KKK party (Democrats stared and have run the KKK for over 150 years) calling others racist. Funny.

    • Ira Thurby-Wright

      “the KKK party”

      Isn’t that the company that makes all of our zippers?

    • no_treble

      Don’t forget Planned Parenthood, which was started and supported entirely by liberal democrats, with it’s main goal being to reduce the population of black people specifically, and to this day still overwhelmingly locates it’s facilities in/near black communities.

  • shawn

    Lawrence needs to stop hanging out with Charlie Sheen and stop doing crack. just say no to drugs Larry

  • Mikearbanas

    Get over it! This cartoon fully depicts the first couple! Just ’cause they are black shouldn’t exempt them from political humor. Barack has BIG ears! Michelle ain’t the prettiest! Realize it!

  • Anonymous

    Just be glad he didn’t write “shut up and pass the fried chicken”. Now that would have been racist. Really tired of this stuff.

    • Aaron Watts

      No, that wouldn’t be racist. This is what happens as a result of the left for decades painting everything as racism, sort of the overton window effect.

      Racism is the belief that your race is somehow superior to others. Period.

      Saying black people like chicken does not in any way infer that they are any less of a person/people/race, its just a stereotype. No different than saying teenage girls like Justin Bieber. NO DIFFERENT!

      To truly live in a colorblind society I believe this has to be the way of thinking.

      • Anonymous

        I was kidding around, albeit some have used fried chicken as being racist when prepared on a black holiday menu. Just so dumb. Personally, I love fried chicken every once in a while, biscuits n’ gravy, and watermelon too.

  • COL Herb Smith

    LarryO cannot be helped. He cannot believe that an opposing view cannot be contrivied without hatred and bias. Is it possible that MSNBC might open their eyes and ears and step on the learning curve without prejudice and hatred with views center right to those of MSNBC? I do not think that such a transformation is possible without an event that will awaken their sensitivity to review all the information available before making such declarations of prejudice and hatred by an opposing view. If all the information is not available, they should inform those of us in the public that their observation is a knee jerk reaction subject to change as furher information is gathered. Would this not be a more honest view?

  • timj

    Poor Larry. So political cartoons have always tried to depict their subjects in a manner that looks like them? What about Doonesbury’s depiction of Presidents as waffles or feathers?

    As for Michelle being the most famous black woman in the world, any rational person knows that title belongs to Oprah.

    The fact is that this cartoon is dead on when you compare her public statements with the menu for the WH Superbowl party. She clearly believes in “do as I say, not as I do.”

  • timj

    Poor Larry. So political cartoons have always tried to depict their subjects in a manner that looks like them? What about Doonesbury’s depiction of Presidents as waffles or feathers?

    As for Michelle being the most famous black woman in the world, any rational person knows that title belongs to Oprah.

    The fact is that this cartoon is dead on when you compare her public statements with the menu for the WH Superbowl party. She clearly believes in “do as I say, not as I do.”

  • http://twitter.com/Super_Sachiko Jasmine Clark

    watched half of the video, couldnt stand to watch the rest, his tone and the look on his face are so creepy because hes angry over nothing!

    • Ira Thurby-Wright

      “watched half of the video, couldnt stand to watch the rest”

      Let me give you a synopsis.

      Larry shows the final frame of the strip and describes her as the most famous lady in America, and the most famous African woman in the world.

      Side note: I thought it looked like Michele Obama, but I guess it’s actually Oprah. How scandalous to suggest an affair between Barry and Oprah, there’s not evidence of that whatsoever.

      After a long diatribe stating in protest that he isn’t going to dignify the cartoon, Larry then describes it at length and in great detail. He can’t tell you what animal Obama looks like, but goes on to talk about how on Ellis Island there is an exhibit of immigrants characterized as animals.

      Side note: Larry thinks Obama looks like an immigrant. I thought he was born in the USA, but apparently not.

      Finally, Larry calls for an intervention, asking people in his family to ask him to stop.

      All told, a milestone in great journalism. Yawn,… too bad you missed it!

  • Shane2813

    So it’s racist to call a fat pig like Michelle Obama a fat a$$ pig????? Man it must suck being them. Talk about thin skinned….how about no skin. It’s fun driving the Leftist Loons crazy!!!! MARXIST=DEMOCRATS=TERRORIST All the same. Just ask the No skinned Obama’s.

    • Anonymous

      It’s disgusting to call her a pig. Pigs have feelings too.

      • Anonymous

        She is a wookie, not a pig.

    • Anonymous

      Really? You’re not even going to TRY to take the high road here? It’s better for all of us if you do. They get on my nerves too, but we’re always accusing the Lefties of being venomous and without balance. Let’s not stoop to that level!

  • Cheryl~

    Wow, this guy is really not thinking straight tonight-it is a cartoon and it is meant to depict their hypocrisy. More importantly, LARRY, NOONE should tell me or anyone else what they can and cannot eat, LEAST of all the GOVERNMENT.

    Someone needs to do a segment on how THIS man is losing touch with reality.

  • Tyler

    C’mon now. I’ve seen way worse…and it really was racist…and incredibly funny. Racism only has as much power as people give it. If you get butt-hurt by racist comments…then the comments have power over you. I’d like to just shrug words and jokes off like no big deal…but I’m a person who can think for myself and know that I am not what was said or drawn of me.

    • KeninMontana

      The representations of the Obamas are called caricatures, drawings in which physical features are exaggerated. I guess you never saw a drawing of Bush the younger with his ear size exaggerated? I would just love to hear exactly how they are racist.

    • KeninMontana

      The representations of the Obamas are called caricatures, drawings in which physical features are exaggerated. I guess you never saw a drawing of Bush the younger with his ear size exaggerated? I would just love to hear exactly how they are racist.

      • Anonymous

        If I were doing the caricature I would exagerate the more obvious feature of O’s. His nose. I would make it extra long like the one on that little wooden boy of lore. I won’t mention his name, but it kinda’ rhymes with JamochaJoe. (omg, I just cannot NOT be racist!)

        Hokey Pokey I give up!

        • KeninMontana

          The term “Racism” ,in my opinion, is a misuse of the word at best. We (humans) are all members of the same race,as in human, we belong to differing ethnic subgroups of the human race. In which case, would not the correct term be “ethnicism”? Looking at the term “Racist” in that perspective ( which I do) would mean that if a person is racist they hate the entire human race,themselves included and if they really desire to “cleanse” the race they should then feel free to suck on a muzzle and do the rest of us a favor. Just a thought.:)

      • Tyler

        I was actually referring to cartoons and comics made about Obama. Some of them I’ve seen actually are intentionally racist and insulting…but I just don’t care. If it’s funny…then it’s funny.

        Yeah. I did see the big ear Bush and chimp face Bush comics too. Some of those were also really funny and really insulting.

        Again…if it’s funny, then it’s just plain funny. I’m not concerned with other peoples’ feelings.

  • EuropTravl

    Good Lord, he went on for like 5 minutes over what should have been a 30 second story?

    I don’t know where the myth originated that Michelle Obama is glamorous and thin, but it is a myth.

    The country of Brazil has 300 million residents. The country of Brazil has a female President, as does the country of Argentina. But to limoliberals like Larry here, Michelle O is the most important woman in the world. BS. She’s obnoxious.

    • Tyler

      When he was sitting there asking his viewers to guess who she was and giving you “time to guess,” as if you really needed it…I was thinking about saying to the screen (even though I know he can’t hear me), “Fat Albert!” Haha.

  • EuropTravl

    Good Lord, he went on for like 5 minutes over what should have been a 30 second story?

    I don’t know where the myth originated that Michelle Obama is glamorous and thin, but it is a myth.

    The country of Brazil has 300 million residents. The country of Brazil has a female President, as does the country of Argentina. But to limoliberals like Larry here, Michelle O is the most important woman in the world. BS. She’s obnoxious.

  • EuropTravl

    Good Lord, he went on for like 5 minutes over what should have been a 30 second story?

    I don’t know where the myth originated that Michelle Obama is glamorous and thin, but it is a myth.

    The country of Brazil has 300 million residents. The country of Brazil has a female President, as does the country of Argentina. But to limoliberals like Larry here, Michelle O is the most important woman in the world. BS. She’s obnoxious.

  • EuropTravl

    Good Lord, he went on for like 5 minutes over what should have been a 30 second story?

    I don’t know where the myth originated that Michelle Obama is glamorous and thin, but it is a myth.

    The country of Brazil has 300 million residents. The country of Brazil has a female President, as does the country of Argentina. But to limoliberals like Larry here, Michelle O is the most important woman in the world. BS. She’s obnoxious.

  • Bsm138

    O man I hope Beck & Co. spend an entire hour on this tomorrow PLEASE!

    Michael Savage had a brilliant monologue about how the liberal left is humorless and wish to destroy satire, which he (and Rush) say show truth more than anything else.

  • Anonymous

    Obama Sees Self In Egyptian Pyramid

    Obama ” It looks like me.Look at those ears. “

  • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

    I think most of you are actually missing it-

    The problem is that LOD has guilt for his own racism. He sees things through that prism and he calls it out because he is projecting his racism onto others.

    Lets say that (hypothetically) that TRS is balding- and we post a comic of TRS but draw him completely bald (exaggerating the feature), he would see it as an attack on his hairline, when really it was just a cartoon.

    The fact that LOD sees it as racist means that it’s striking a personal note- he is projecting his views on something completely innocent—I do recall Bush being drawn with gigantic ears too (not as big as O’s though, but O’s ears are gigantic to begin with)—

  • Anonymous

    There is nothing even remotely racist about this cartoon. In fact, I think it is even less racist if the cartoonist is free to exaggerate Dumbo’s big ears.

  • Anonymous

    The Socialist is promoting confrontation with the families of Batton Lash and that could be dangerous.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

      That’s a good point.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IDAKYMXLZIRLMLGEZJXV3AOO7E Vorlath

    I watched the whole clip. That guy was painful to watch. He never even bothered to mention ONCE what exactly it was that was racist. The closest he came was mentioning that Obama’s ears were animalistic, but cartoonists make exaggerations like that all the time. Plus, the cartoonist is not saying that ALL black people have big ears. Neither is he saying that Obama has big ears because he’s black.

    Racism, to the Left, just means anyone that says anything they don’t like about Obama. So sad.

  • Anonymous

    Please Larry O, your parents, friend, and people on the street said, stop creating mountains out of none existing molehills (and droning on and on and on). Apparently, you think satirical cartoonist draw portraits so for your edification, caricatures “exaggerates characteristics for humorous or satirical effect.” When I first saw the hamburgers, I thought of Wimpy (cruel name), then I noticed the eyebrows and eyeliner and recognized FLOTUS. If they had drawn a big square-head, no lips, long nose, and Willie-way back we would have gotten her mixed up with you.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FRAOPO3PP2EK7WG3E2YS3MSK5U Star Spankled

    I saw this cartoon a few days ago , it cracked me up . Too bad LarryO didn’t get it .It’s more about LadyO dictating what we eat while putting a good bit of fatty food herself .
    LarryO had to go way out to see this as racist but then LarryO is always way out there , with his 10 viewers .

  • http://www.facebook.com/AMrSmith Robert Smith

    I am trying to think of what animal he looks like. I guess a texas Jackrabbit would have ears like that, but seriously, his ears are not near as big as his lies, but how do ya draw big lies?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mary-Schade/100000376034643 Mary Schade

    LOL!! Nothing racist, but it is the truth.

  • Anonymous

    Hot Damn! Cartoons! Is it saturday morning already? Hasn’t this week flown?!

    I have concluded all by my little ole’ self that being black gives one a sort of carte blanche.

    UNLESS HE WHO BE BLACK IS CONSERVATIVE. (that’s racist too ain’t it?)

    This card the left uses has expired I think. It’s dog-eared, has lost it’s sheen, it’s luster, it’s novelty, it’s hue, and most importantly, it’s sting. It’s a durn killer bee with a lobotomy and no stinger…bzzz, bzzzzz, bzzzzz. What else ya’ got? Anything worthy of human consumption? No? Ok…

    click!

  • Anonymous

    What is racist about it?
    The cartoonist could have done the same with white or Japanese or any other race.
    O’Donnell is nuts!

    • Tyler

      As KeninMontana pointed out…cartoonists did the same thing ear-wise with George Bush. Some even gave him a chimp face too.

  • Georgiajim

    just another wasted 6 minutes on msnbc.anyone supprised

  • Anonymous

    “LarryO,the CARTOON drawn by the cartoonist Hundall/Lash is a great likeness of Moochelle Maobama and as for the CARTOON of your hero Community Organizer Barry( NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE ),( IMAM ) Hussein ,( MARXIST ) Maobama also is a great likeness of the ONE was produced especially the depiction of his EARS . LarryO why don’t you take your “Taqqiyya”(lies) and COMEDY ACT to EGYPT where your COMMUNIST VIEWPOINTS will be accepted with the open loving arms of the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD . OR SIMPLY S.T.F.U. ! “

  • Kodiack

    Wah Wah Wah! He wont listen to you, and we arent listening to you either. Quit crying.

  • Kodiack

    Wah Wah Wah! He wont listen to you, and we arent listening to you either. Quit crying.

  • Jonathanccase

    I thought Oprah was the most famous and respected African American woman in the world. Weird…

  • Anonymous

    He does look a lot like a ‘RAT. hmmm if the shoe fits.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DS3G37AYWO5ZLWLN3HFKGVK37Q IMaTelaU

    Editorial cartoons have mocked public officals since day one!!!! This is no different, just a ploy by the left to stifle free expression!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    From the lunatic-left d-crat socialist dictionary:
    “RACIST” =
    1. “Not a socialist” or
    2. “A supporter of the Tea Party” or
    3. “Someone that believes in the US Constitution” or
    4. “A Christian who does not believe that hussein is The Messiah” or
    5. “Someone that believes that anything ILLEGAL is not legal, acceptable or welcomed in America” or
    6. “A person that thinks a TERRORIST should not be given the full rights and privileges of an American citizen” or
    7. “Anybody that resists the BIG GOVERNMENT/NANNY STATE mental disorder of the lunatic-left” or
    8. “A believer in personal freedom and responsibility” or
    9. “A hard-working, tax-paying, American citizen” or
    10. “Anybody that watches FOX News”

  • BabaTutu

    O’D. is a socialist, so it is unsurprising he would call for a revolutionary struggle session for those unable to recognize the greatness of the people’s leadership. Cartoonists should be surrounded by a political mob (sorry, organized community) and made to confess their anti-social tendencies. Then we can really be China for a day.

  • Scottnjacob

    i’ll pass’
    the left jut can’t except that the GIG is up……….
    normal everyday Americans have focused on why they have so much time to focus because the lack of job’s.
    we work, the system goes smoothly……..
    we no have jobs, we focus on why……..
    you people that have been in washington are gonna do what we the people say…….
    we the tea party are respectful, honest but often blunt with truthfulness…
    it may take a decade of elections, and a few that squeaked by this last time…
    ya know, the Gig is up,all your thug unions, and in most cases, 75% of union workers,
    not the leaders of them , are in tune with we the pea party people……..
    thats for one reason Washington, it’s about our America and the REPUBLIC that she is. we the people said clearly to your dismayu what we want…………
    clearly you have desided were to stupid to understand the complexity of it………
    whats so complexing about three little words. STOP THE SPENDING……
    leave our healthcare alone, my disfunctions are for me and the doc to discuss,
    not you the goverment, and the doc and i>>>>>>
    there is a document that we have made clear you will follow and not change the words without out majority vote, WE THE PEOPLE are not gonna be bullied or swindled out of this nation by anyone includeing you elected represenitives.
    there are more tea partiers who will peacefully show up and also vote than all your paid with our tax dollars special intrest……the only special intrest we the tea party have are assureing that America survives this assult from many,
    we tyhe people have chosen to unite under the banner of GOD BLESSED AMERICA,
    and now it’s time to reaffirm that tho we are tollorable…….
    BY GOD, we are a CHRISTIAN NATION,and BY GOD we intend to stay one…
    let the ones we tollorate do some God damn tollorateing themselves.
    we were here first, and it is our country,one nation UNDER GOD… get it.

  • Deb

    No thanks, I can only take so much of their blathering. Right now I’ve had my fill for the day. I liked the cartoon though.

  • poptoy1949

    Whoa there, I cannot begin to believe you think he went over the DEEP END. He is the DEEP END.

  • Markhimlousey

    Great catoon!!! the resembelace is remarkable!!

  • Pauline

    I think michelle o looks better in the cartoons than in person.

    They need to be careful about using the term “racism” because if and when it ever is true no-one will believe them.

  • Carlitamonique

    ummm…. did they not draw bush the same way… and they actually drew him like a monkey! lol the left really really needs to get a LIFE!

  • Carlitamonique

    ummm…. did they not draw bush the same way… and they actually drew him like a monkey! lol the left really really needs to get a LIFE!

  • Carlitamonique

    ummm…. did they not draw bush the same way… and they actually drew him like a monkey! lol the left really really needs to get a LIFE!

  • Carlitamonique

    ummm…. did they not draw bush the same way… and they actually drew him like a monkey! lol the left really really needs to get a LIFE!

  • Marie

    0 Plaheeeze!!

    It’s a cartoon. If Bush had big ears would cartoons of him been any different? And in addition to the fact that Bush is a Republican, those ears would have been drawn much bigger than Obama’s.
    Do you think people are that stupid?
    Come on!
    LOL

    MSNBC you may be PATHETIC – but you did manage to find a good replacement for Keith O. Larry O’s rich, dramatic tones of remorseful disgust are simply PRICELESS!

    How about you have him (Larry O) do a segment on the black genocide going on in America through Planned Parenthood. How about that truth? Hmmm?
    Larry?
    Larry?
    Wish you had some ears to hear what I had to say to you and your network. You are opportunists who are bent on dividing and destroying America. NOTHING more.

    But I wonder, if and when America becomes all that you want it to be, who will protect you and your rights? Who will come to your aid if your beat in the streets while trying to report on it?

    A question worth considering I think. Or be careful what you wish for since you just might get it.