Dems: 'If America Isn't Racist, How Do You Explain These White Hoods We're Wearing?'

  

Category:  The Lighter Side/ Humor

Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  65 comments

By:   The Babylon Bee

Dems: 'If America Isn't Racist, How Do You Explain These White Hoods We're Wearing?'
WASHINGTON, D.C. - After Senator Tim Scott said America is no longer a racist country, Democrats scrambled to prove him wrong. They quickly devastated his argument by going into storage and dusting off their old KKK hoods, which they then donned to show him just how racist America actually is.'If America isn't racist, would we be wearing these? Ch ...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



WASHINGTON, D.C.—After Senator Tim Scott said America is no longer a racist country, Democrats scrambled to prove him wrong. They quickly devastated his argument by going into storage and dusting off their old KKK hoods, which they then donned to show him just how racist America actually is.

"If America isn't racist, would we be wearing these? Checkmate!" said Nancy Pelosi triumphantly as she solemnly put on the white hood. "Your move, Republicans."

Chuck Schumer also put on a hood, having borrowed it from the Museum of Democratic History in D.C.

"My colleague is right -- if we weren't racist as Senator Tim Scott suggested, why would we put on these white hoods with no political repercussions whatsoever? It's clear as day: America is racist." Schumer went on to propose reenacting Jim Crow laws in order to dunk on Senator Scott and prove his argument "completely without merit."

"Senator Scott is truly an 'Uncle Tim' after all."

"Furthermore, we will begin instituting separate but equal Senate chambers for senators of color. Just to show them how racist America still is." Reporters applauded Schumer for his bold move toward equality by saying and doing really racist things to show that America is still racist.

Pelosi and Schumer assured everyone they were wearing a smug look of being proven right on their faces, though you couldn't tell. Because of the hoods.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

The Babylon Bee has the story again - it's that systemic racism!


Trump and his supporters are off topic.
I am off topic.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago
Trump and his supporters are off topic.I am off topic.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
1.1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1    3 weeks ago

Removed for context - sandy

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

They nailed it big time with that satire that mimics reality.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2    3 weeks ago

The reality is beyond belief - that the left launched a racist attack on a Black US Senator who dared take on their lies.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

Tom Scott?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    3 weeks ago
Tom Scott?

Casual leftist racism.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Participates
2  Dismayed Patriot    3 weeks ago

They better bee careful, the actual conservative KKK members who are all likely staunch conservative Republicans might find the use of their hoods being cut and pasted on Nancy Pelosi offensive.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    3 weeks ago

The KKK is a democrat party creation. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1    3 weeks ago

The personal attacks against Senator Tim Scott were despicable

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Participates
2.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1    3 weeks ago

" A Ku Klux Klan newspaper has declared support for Donald Trump’s Republican run for U.S. president, saying America became great because it was a white, Christian republic."

"Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke is running for U.S. Senate and tells NPR that he believes he'll be getting the votes of Donald Trump supporters. And he reiterated his own support for Trump, saying he's "100 percent behind" the Republican presidential candidate's agenda.

Duke criticized the Republicans who have   recently declared   that they don't support Trump. "I think that those Republicans, or those so-called conservatives, they are betraying the principles of the Republican Party and certainly conservatism," Duke said.

No matter how much you try to hide it or deny it, todays Republican party is the party that white supremacists, KKK members and neo-Nazi's flock to and are welcomed with open arms. You can stick your head in the sand or use 150 year old excuses that are full of holes but the facts remain, the conservative Democrat party, Southern Democrats or Dixiecrats do not share one iota of ideology or agenda with the modern Democrat party, the only thing they share are 7 letters that have been used by dozens and dozens of different political parties, even the original party founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Maddison in 1790 which was the Democratic-Republican Party. Trying to simply throw the word out there as if it means anything shows how utterly impotent and ignorant your attempted defense of the current KKK members supporting Republicans really is.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
2.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

And Richard Spencer and David Duke endorsed Democrats in 2020. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    3 weeks ago

It didn't work with Sen Scott and it doesn't work with the American people. We all know how much the left hates Black Americans who don't follow the party line. A racist attack will be called out for what it is.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    3 weeks ago

No one is attacking Scott.  They are calling out all of his lies and projection.  

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu     3 weeks ago

Personally I don't try stuff like this, IT always backfires on me. 

jrSmiley_51_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

One major problem with the article - it's not funny.   Not a good look when the article comes from a so called humor site. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago

From where your sitting John, I imagine it wouldn't be.  The fact is that the left spewed a racist rant against this courageous man.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    3 weeks ago

The only way the seeded article is humorous is if you believe the nonsense that the Democrats are the real racist party because they started the Ku Klux Klan 150 years ago. Otherwise the bit about Pelosi and Harris putting on white hoods makes no sense. 

Sorry, the "satire" attempted here is very weak. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Guide
4.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

The Dems are the original party of slavery, segregation, and any residual racism in the US.

Now they use this inherent racism today to intimidate and silence any Black person who dares to question the orthodoxy of TPTB

 
 
 
Phaedrus
Freshman Quiet
4.1.3  Phaedrus  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
The Dems are the original party of slavery,

Let's play this game again, Greg. Were the klan conservative or progressive? I'm not asking about parties. I'm asking about their ideology.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
The Dems are the original party of slavery, segregation, and any residual racism in the US.

If one ignores the last 100 years or so, which apparently you intend to keep doing. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Phaedrus @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
ere the klan conservative or progressive?

Progressive.

Just look at the 1924 Democratic Klanbake convention, the Klan's candidate was the progressive Democrat Robert McAdoo. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    3 weeks ago
 ignores the last 100 years or so,

One need only look at the last 72 hours to know Democrats are still the party of racism. But by all means, tell us how whites calling a black Senator an Uncle Tom isn't racist. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

Derogatory terms for minorities is only bad when Republicans use them; they are acceptable as long as one of the "woke" use them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
The only way the seeded article is humorous is if you believe the nonsense that the Democrats are the real racist party because they started the Ku Klux Klan 150 years ago.

Although they were the party that started the Klan and they were the party that filibustered the Civil Rights Act, that wasn't the point at all. Calling Sen Tim Scott n "Uncle Tim" is racist. John, you can't recognize real racism anymore?

Not only was Scott's brief rebuttal the speech that everyone will remember, he actually got our POS vp to admit, at long last, that the US is not a racist country.

 
 
 
Phaedrus
Freshman Quiet
4.1.9  Phaedrus  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

You can't be fucking serious. You really think the klan was progressive? So you know nothing factual about history or politics. Good to know.jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
"Otherwise the bit about Pelosi and Harris putting on white hoods makes no sense."

No, it doesn't.  Yet some see it as hilarious.  They couldn't tell you, I'm sure, what makes it so hilarious. 

It's all sheer projection anyway.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Phaedrus @4.1.9    3 weeks ago
So you know nothing factual about history or politics.

Aww. Did someone read Howard Zinn and fancy himself a student of history.    I notice you didn't even address Klan's support for the progressive democrat in '24. Good move on your part.

Open an actual history  book. Anyone with a slight acquaintance with the progressive movement understands it's ties to racism. It's truly amazing how little modern liberals understand about the racist roots of the progressive movement. Progressive EA Ross championed the race suicide thesis that inspired the progressive academia of the time.  But  Woodrow Wilson is a nice simple subject to get your feet wet.  Why don't you read up on him and then come back and tell us all how America's first progressive  democratic President was really a "conservative" 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

Are you speaking of 1924?   You all do live in the past.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.8    3 weeks ago

Everything Tom Scott said in rebuttal to President Biden was made up nonsense and lies and projection.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

Sean, 

The same could be said about Lincoln. He might have wanted the slaves free, but he didn't want a country of free blacks. He even advocated for sending them back to Africa. He also felt that they had sub-normal intelligence. Is that not racist? As I recall, he was a republican. 

We can all cherry-pick our facts from the past, but the thing is, we are judging these people in the present, not how they were viewed in their times.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.13    3 weeks ago

Who is Tom Scott, and what did he say?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.12    3 weeks ago
Are you speaking of 1924?   You all do live in the past

That's when the Klan was influential. How'd you miss that? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.16    3 weeks ago

It's hard to see with blinders on.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.17    3 weeks ago

You really need to take them off.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.8    3 weeks ago

Southerners obstructed the Civil Rights Act, not Democrats.  Buy a clue somewhere Vic. 

Guess how many southern Republicans in Congress voted for the 1964 CRA . How does ZERO grab you ? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.16    3 weeks ago

Like I said, some folks prefer to live in the past.

I prefer to live in the present, in reality.  Did you know that truth (and reality) have a liberal bias?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.21  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

Sean, Gateway Pundit is a top ten conservative and Republican news site. Trump even made made a GP "reporter" a member of the White House press corp for a while. Last week, after the Floyd verdict, the comment section on GP about the Floyd verdict was filled with dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of blatantly racist anti-black comments. 

Spare us your bs about who the real racists are before I really get pissed off. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.14    3 weeks ago
t, but the thing is, we are judging these people in the present, not how they were viewed in their times.

That's my point Perrie. You have people saying "I think conservatives are racist. Therefore the KKK was conservative."  It's that simplistic and ahistorical of an argument. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.21    3 weeks ago

you didn't  have to go to Gateway Pundit to see racist posts.   It was happening here. 

Do you think it's racist to call a black senator an Uncle Tom? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.19    3 weeks ago
Southerners obstructed the Civil Rights Act, not Democrats.  Buy a clue somewhere Vic. 

Say, JR, were those Southerners Democrats, by chance?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
4.1.25  evilgenius  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.14    3 weeks ago
We can all cherry-pick our facts from the past, but the thing is, we are judging these people in the present, not how they were viewed in their times.

I think we need to treat this almost like a recovery program.

  • An honest unvarnished and unbiased look at history - It wasn't all good and it wasn't all bad.
  • We have come a long way from slavery and wholesale slaughter but we still have a problem. 
  • Know we can be better through honesty and integrity.
  • Acknowledge individually we'll all fail at some point as we all have biases.
  • Work on finding and executing solutions short term and long term - Individually and country wide.

At present, as we see here, we can't even get enough people to admit there was ever a problem and if/when they do they claim it's all been fixed. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.24    3 weeks ago

Some of them were. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.26    3 weeks ago

Well, if you want the FACTS......

Democrat/GOP Vote Tally on 1964 Civil Rights Act - WSJ

With a little research, the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%). Thus, the no vote consisted of 78% Democrats. Further, the infamous 74-day filibuster was led by the Southern Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the act.

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%). The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.27    3 weeks ago

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%). The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans.

I borrowed this explanation from Quora.
Its interesting when you break down the votes of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by party and region. For the purposes of this discussion, the South is considered any members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederacy during the Civil War.

In the House:

Southern Democrats 7–87 (7% voted yes)

Southern Republicans 0–10 (0%)

Northern Democrats 145–9 (94%)

Northern Republicans 138–24 (85%)

In the Senate:

Southern Democrats 1–20 (5%)

Southern Republicans 0–1 (0%)

Northern Democrats 45–1 (98%)

Northern Republicans 27–5 (84%)

Totals by region:

Southern Democrats 8–107 (7%)

Southern Republicans 0–11 (0%)

South : 8–118 (6%)

Northern Democrats 190–10 (95%)

Northern Republicans 165–29 (85%)

North : 355–39 (90%)

By Party:

Democrats: 198–117 (62.9%)

Republicans: 165–40 (80.5%)

So, 198 Democrats voted for Civil Rights Act of 1964. And while the Republicans did technically vote for the CRA at a higher rate than Democrats, it was mostly because most people in the South regarded themselves as Democrats because of the dislike of the Republican Party due to the Civil War. The descendants of these Dixiecrats still reside in the South today.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.29  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.28    3 weeks ago

In 1964 there was still such a thing as moderate or even liberal Republicans.  That explains the strong northern yes vote for the bill by Republicans. Even so , the yes vote by northern Democrats was stronger. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.28    3 weeks ago

Twist it any way you need to.

The facts are clear which party voted in higher percentage for passage, we know which party voted against passage in the largest percentage, and we all know which party filibustered.

I still find it freaking hilarious that today's Democrats like to pretend that Southern Democrats weren't really Democrats at all.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.30    3 weeks ago

No one is twisting anything.  You are the one who has to account for your inability to understand politics, not me.  There were very few if any conservatives who voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Democrat or Republican.  Today there are very few conservative Democrats and very few if any liberal Republicans. 

You can keep pretending that you discovered something important about the Civil Rights Act, but I dont think you understand. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.31    3 weeks ago

Spin it any way that allows you to pretend that Southern Democrats weren't real Democrats.

Funny that ONLY the Democratic Party tries to make distinctions based on geography.

I know the truth, and if you want to believe your version, feel free.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.33  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.32    3 weeks ago
Funny that ONLY the Democratic Party tries to make distinctions based on geography.

The vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act hinged on geography, not political party. If you dont understand that there is no point in discussing it. 

There were 11 southern Republicans in Congress in 1964. All 11 of them voted no on the Civil Rights Act. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.33    3 weeks ago

A higher percentage of Democrats voted against the act. Democrats filibustered it.

 
 
 
Phaedrus
Freshman Quiet
4.1.35  Phaedrus  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.11    3 weeks ago
But  Woodrow Wilson is a nice simple subject to get your feet wet.  Why don't you read up on him and then come back and tell us all how America's first progressive  democratic President was really a "conservative" 

No need to address your smug condescension. While he was the Democratic nominee, he beat out former President Theodore Roosevelt. You know, the guy that formed the Progressive Party. Wilson's racism and support of segregation were well documented. So I fail to see how you can label him a progressive.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.1.36  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.13    3 weeks ago
Everything Tom Scott said

More causal leftist racism.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.37  Sean Treacy  replied to  Phaedrus @4.1.35    3 weeks ago
Wilson's racism and support of segregation were well documented. So I fail to see how you can label him a progressive.

That's comedy right there.  Here's a hint. Racism and segregation went hand in hand with the progressive  movement. 

That Wilson was a progressive is basic level American history.   Here's the literal first line of his bio on The White House site: Woodrow Wilson, a leader of the Progressive Movement, was the 28th President of the United States.  There can be no better indicator of your ignorance of the topic than to try and claim Wilson, one of the most famous progressives in American history, wasn't a progressive.  It's like arguing  Calvin Coolidge was a socialist. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.38  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.36    3 weeks ago
More causal leftist racism.

It sure is. I notice that despite these almost daily racist attacks from a die hard democratic apologist,  loony leftists here still bizarrely  claim that racists are all republicans.  They also can't be bothered to stand up and try and criticize the racist attacks that happen right here on the site.  Everyone should remember these slurs. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.39  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.33    3 weeks ago
The vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act

After reading Shelby Steele's excellent Dec. 18 essay " American Conservatism: Of Race and Imagination " we felt compelled to respond to the popular misconception that "conservatism, for all its commitment to freedom, did not make itself the principled enemy of racism during the civil-rights era." With a little research, the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%). Thus, the no vote consisted of 78% Democrats. Further, the infamous 74-day filibuster was led by the Southern Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the act.

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%). The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans. As the online Wall Street Journal so aptly subtitled Mr. Steele's article, "Trent Lott jeopardizes the very productive ideas his party stands for."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago

Humor is up to each individual.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3    3 weeks ago

What humor?  There is no humor to be found in this trash.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.1    3 weeks ago

Some people have a sense of humor, others ...........................don't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.2    3 weeks ago

Those who find humor in this garbage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . don't

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.3    3 weeks ago

And some people can recognize satire, while....you can't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.4    3 weeks ago
sat·ire
/ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All Literature
Art
Roman History
noun
  1. The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
    "the crude satire seems to be directed at the fashionable protest singers of the time"
    Similar:
    mockery
    ridicule
    derision
    scorn
    caricature
    irony
    sarcasm
    • a play, novel, film, or other work which uses satire.
      plural noun: satires
      "a stinging satire on American politics"
      Similar:
      parody
      burlesque
      caricature
      lampoon
      skit
      takeoff
      squib
      travesty
      spoof
      sendup
      pasquinade
      pasticcio
      vulgar slang
      piss-take
    • a genre of literature characterized by the use of satire.
      "a number of articles on Elizabethan satire"

      SATIRE INVOLVES HUMOR, THERE IS NONE TO BE FOUND IN THIS ALLEGED 'SATIRE'
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.5    3 weeks ago

Well, all that does is prove you are capable of cutting and pasting, not that you are personally capable of recognizing satire.

Good job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
5  Sunshine    3 weeks ago

Babylon stings like a bee.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @5    3 weeks ago

No.  Not at all.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

devangelical
Kavika
shona1
1stwarrior
cjcold


45 visitors