nwtk2007 wrote:
I plagiarized nothing. I write my own criticism. But you, yes you, pretend to have "knowledge" of the "art." Lol! My ass.
What is the head of a 20th century white woman, but his r****t capitulation of his peers views?
I find you to be a liar, theo.
My knowledge stands unchallenged, now doesn't it? You offered nothing of substance, "capitulation" as you put it is a malapropism, and you conflate imagery with a manicheeist view of race and g****r. Wiley is not obliged to kowtow to your i***t dualism. That, junior, is his point.
To paraphrase Yosemite Sam, wingnuts is Sooo stoopid.
nwtk2007 wrote:
I just read all about the story it's "based" upon. LOL! The head is the contemporary interpretation of the biblical story in which a woman cuts off the head of a king. A "man" king. The artists bloviating nonsense used to obscure his real intent is obvious. The man is a feminist, dominated by women and h**es white women. He believes in the super spiritual nature of the black woman and the satanic evil of white women. He's warped and warps history to suit his needs. In this case, to hide his purely racial motif.
You, might believe that drivel, but I certainly don't.
He's a r****t of r****ts. Obama admires his gall. So does Michele. We will find much the same of her artist. And very basically, this insistence in dedication to all things black, is r****t, pure and simple, because the reverse would be exactly the same. An insistence on all things white, would be perceived as nothing more than r****t, of the highest degree. In fact, we see it constantly. All things white, or all things of historical value like mathematics or algebra, is now seen as r****ts signs of w***e s*******y. The highest of stupidly.
I just read all about the story it's "based&q... (
show quote)
The West would never have had higher mathematics without the Muslims in Spain. Look up "The History of Zero."
Your suggestion that Wiley made a feminist statement of paintings by Tintoretto et al is really funny. But not ha-ha funny. The story of Judith is in fact about retribution. Have someone read it to you 20 or 30 times (the Book of Judith is in the Apocrypha) . You might get it.
There is no bloviating; Wiley set out to satirise institutional r****m. Your reaction is the kind of unintended self satire that makes Wiley's point and underscores it.
And Incidentally, I am aware that your thoughts are loony talking points cobbled up from wilful ignorance and visceral hatred. Barack Obama, and his wife, so far out class you that - well, we're back to funny.
Why don't you go to the spurious critic you plagiarized and report about the meaning of sign and symbol in any of the paintings that take the story of Judith and Holofernes as their subject. Then comment on how Wiley's uses that symbolism as a mirror held up to history?
You can't, of course, because you're in way over your head.
Now go home and hide.
nwtk2007 wrote:
Forget it theotts, you are reaching way too far.
I'm reminded of Michelle's comments that white people need to be uncomfortable, that we shouldn't apologise for being mostly w****s in n the room.
There's no reach, junior. That's exactly what the painting means. Your response is boilerplate rightwing raving.
Of course, your last sentence is a dialect of gobbledegook with which I am unfamiliar. If you "think" it means Mrs. Obama feels w****s are inferior, you are dead wrong.
But then, you get "wrong" a lot.
nwtk2007 wrote:
Revealing, to say the least, but not overly unexpected or surprising. Obama and wife have proven themselves to be of the utmost r****t stock.
This was explained above. It is no more r****t than the Bible story on which it's based, or the Gentileschi, Caravaggio, Titan, Raphael, etc. that preceded it.
The bigotry this reveals is 100% yours and the rest of the lunatic fringe.
oldroy wrote:
So you don't consider Obama to be much of a r****t? Do you remember the White House beer garden? Wasn't there a bit of r****m in that?
Quite obvious r****m. No Caucasian would be arrested for reporting a burglary. Fortunately, we had a President who believed in dialogue, not schoolyard bullying. It helped, too, that President Obama is perhaps 50 times smarter than Trump.
Mitigate: to reduce in effect, especially severity
Vapid: insubstantial, empty
Header: a subject title given to an article or a part thereof.
oldroy wrote:
Who are you to call me junior? Usually you must be older to talk like that.
I am glad that you admitted to not reading much of that link. Thanks.
Perhaps you'd deign to show how any more palaver mitigates the vapid header.
oldroy wrote:
How many of those tweets did you read? I am saying that your bigotry kept you away from them.
There's a difference between discernment and discrimination junior.
oldroy wrote:
You would be really funny if you went ahead and read my links. Well maybe you read some of it but not close to all of it. Try reading the tweets in it, just for kicks and maybe some proof that you are a liberal playing liberal games.
Your defense is that anyone who criticizes your bigotry must first endure your self-indulgent whining.
The response I posted speaks directly and exhaustively to your lurid lede and the wilful ignorance that is its only support
oldroy wrote:
Did Obama use that r****t clown to paint the Obama portraits? It sure seems that he did, but then he did many things at least this r****t in his reign.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/02/13/obamas-portrait-artist-also-painted-collection-black-women-holding-white-severed-heads-601710?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=BPR%20Email&utm_campaign=DMS
More right-wing hysteria and stupidity. Willey produced one painting, "Judith and Holofernes," which takes the Bible story of Judith as its theme http://www.womeninthebible.net/bible-paintings/judith-and-holofernes/
It has been the subject of many paintings;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Slaying_Holofernes_(Artemisia_Gentileschi). L. It is sharp satire, especially in Caravaggio and Gentileschi, and Willey imagines the story as Judith being black. That is more likely than Judith looking like a Northern European, since Judith was from North Africa.
You loonies would be funny if you weren't armed and irresponsible.
theotts wrote:
That, of course, is incorrect, as your fellow traveler Nacthefife would be able to tell you had he actually read Hamilton's essay - Federalist No. 68. If you're just sensible enough to know impeachment is a very real possibility, you might also have a look at Nos. 9, 10 and 28.
PS As I pointed out above, in 2000 it was the loony right who wanted to do away with the EC. That's because Shrub lost the popular v**e in Fla., but got the 29 e*******l v**es by an artifice the loonies knew they couldn't repeat.
4430 wrote:
Our founding fathers new exactly what they were doing when they came up the E*****r College as it was set up so the more populous states couldn't override the less populous states way over the heads of liberals .
Without the E*******l College the west and east coast would be the only ones to chose who becomes President.
It'd been no problem had the demo's won but since they lost now it's time to do away with it because we won the popular v**e thus we deserve the win !
That, of course, is incorrect, as your fellow traveler Nacthefife would be able to tell you had he actually read Hamilton's essay - Federalist No. 68. If you're just sensible enough to know impeachment is a very real possibility, you might also have a look at Nos. 9, 10 and 28.
ldsuttonjr wrote:
You poor jealous soul! Can you survive another 21 years of Conservatism?
1) What you advocate is not conservatism.
2)If your kakistocracy persists 21 more years, you will not survive.
3)I have long since taken dual citizenship; I will no longer suffer the thugs in the ascendancy.
4)Trump's "fine people" in Charlottesville were marching under the f**g of N**i Germany.
mactheknife wrote:
Boy, Theotts, are you ignorant. I hope that it is painful to be so ignorant that you do not know how and why presidents are elected through the E*******l College.
Your ability to miss the point is non-pariel.
And, bigot boy, Congressional e******ns are not subject to the EC.
Why don't you tell me all about the arguments for and against the E*******l College among the founders. I suggest you start in the Federalist Papers with Hamilton in No. 68.
Piggie wanna wallow?
ldsuttonjr wrote:
theotts: You have just proven that if you were any more stupid, you would have to be watered twice a week. I don't know what your life expectancy is; but be prepared for seven more years of Trump followed by another eight controlled by the First Female President!....And she is not a demorat!
Repeating the same fictive screed over and over will not make it true.
Just because all your co-workers at the Tawdry Merchandise Dump are gullible, don't think you're in a majority. You weren't in Nov. 2016, you are less so now, and in Nov. this year, your only hope is in c***ting. I'll be listening after e******n Tuesday in November, savoring every atom of your impotent rage. House and Senate seats are decided by popular v**e. A Congress with a modicum of respect for the Constitution will quickly move Trump from pernicious to irrelevant, and you from a pestilence to a prick.