“NOT the Whiteman’s Bitch”
Uhhhhh… OK.
State elections officials Wednesday narrowly rejected a Milwaukee Assembly candidate’s attempt to run with the slogan “NOT the ‘whiteman’s bitch’ ” under her name on the ballot.
Ieshuh Griffin, an independent candidate with a history of feuds with local officials, said in response she would sue the state Government Accountability Board for infringing on her freedom of speech.
For the record, this statement is almost as nonsensical as the slogan:
Board member Thomas Barland, who voted to allow Griffin to make the statement, disagreed.
“She says a lot in five words,” Barland said of Griffin. “It wasn’t pornographic. It wasn’t obscene, and I didn’t interpret it as racial.”
Not racial? Seriously? This man is voting on these things?
Her alternative slogan was “Won’t win an election.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0602 hrs
Awesome name for a band that would play something I’d like for rush hour driving.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0640 hrs
UN-FVCKING-BELIEVABLE!!!
This woman needs to be grabbed by her extensions and “b*tchslapped”. (Sarcasm)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0724 hrs
Actually, if she sues on 1st Amendment grounds, I hope she wins. I can’t wait for the next batch of candidate slogans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0756 hrs
Her 15 minute clock is now ticking…
I guess she deserves some credit for actually saying what she thinks. Beats the heck out of the usual politician crap-speak. Unfortunately, what she thinks is clearly racist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0855 hrs
If it’s clearly racist, you should be able to articulate very clearly the reasons why.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0913 hrs
Hat tip to a caller on sykes: “Can I run on the slogan not a black woman’s babby daddy?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0935 hrs
If the federal courts agree with her, then yes…“not a black woman’s baby daddy” would also be acceptable.
Her argument is based on what she is not, and thus, any statement of principle claiming what you are ‘not’ should be allowed, again if she wins.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1114 hrs
Actually, “not a black woman’s baby daddy” would not be allowed, as it’s more than five words.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1116 hrs
So, how’s it feel to ruled(as King Samir Shabbaz would say)by the Black man? Call it trickle down ghetto. Seems it all started when obama decided it’s appropriate to use the “kick some ass” comment, or was it biden’s “this is a big f’in deal”. In either case it’s inappropriate garbage.
This woman’s a shoe in. They voted for McGee didn’t they?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1126 hrs
Check out the Journal Sentinal comments, we look like choir boys compared to the verbage over there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1148 hrs
She’ll do well with that slogan… it’s sad, but she’ll go far on those five words.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 2135 hrs
1) NOT
2) the
3) whiteman’s
4) bitch
Looks like ASL and Mr Barland can use some remedial math.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1027 hrs
Whiteman isn’t a word—it is two words.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1219 hrs
On the other hand, “not a black woman’s baby daddy”, if using AAVE mockingly, could be considered racist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1300 hrs
So, how’s it feel to ruled(as King Samir Shabbaz would say)by the Black man? Call it trickle down ghetto. Seems it all started when obama decided it’s appropriate to use the “kick some ass” comment, or was it biden’s “this is a big f’in deal”. In either case it’s inappropriate garbage.
This woman’s a shoe in. They voted for McGee didn’t they?It definitely started with the many vulgarities Bush & Cheney spewed constantly.
Since we’re worried about what’s appropriate…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1305 hrs
“It all depends on what the meaning of is, is”! Ala, Clinton.
It started long before Bush, & Cheney, it’s just becoming all too often an occurrence nowadays.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1312 hrs
That “not racial” comment in the article really stood out to me too.
I assume that the Whiteman’s are a family in Milwaukee and that one of them is a real bitch, so this candidate is just trying to distinguish herself from that woman. Either that or Barland is a total clueless hack.
In any event, it’s divisive and offensive and it has no place on a ballot. You want to turn it into a bumper sticker or a yard sign, go nuts. But it’s not appropriate for a ballot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1402 hrs
Superid,
That is the way the candidate apparently has it on her literature, and the way the JS has it quoted. So let Me correct myself:
1) NOT
2) the
3) whiteman’s (sic)
4) bitch
Barland is still on the hook for not being able to count, because the candidate used 4 words, even igf they are incorrect….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1448 hrs
Who cares if it’s vulgar and racist? It’s political speech and it should be protected. I actually don’t even get what the board is relying on in saying they can’t allow racist speech, even if such a rule wouldn’t be unconstitutional. This chick is obviously a lunatic, but she’s absolutely right that her 1st Amendment rights are being violated.
Unless I’m missing something.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1459 hrs
Who cares if it’s vulgar and racist? It’s political speech and it should be protected. I actually don’t even get what the board is relying on in saying they can’t allow racist speech, even if such a rule wouldn’t be unconstitutional. This chick is obviously a lunatic, but she’s absolutely right that her 1st Amendment rights are being violated.
That would be a great written decision by a federal judge… The idea of having that in a law book somewhere just makes me smile…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 0647 hrs
jijawm:
Who cares if it’s vulgar and racist? It’s political speech and it should be protected. I actually don’t even get what the board is relying on in saying they can’t allow racist speech, even if such a rule wouldn’t be unconstitutional. This chick is obviously a lunatic, but she’s absolutely right that her 1st Amendment rights are being violated.
Unless I’m missing something.
Better check with the board’s speech police. Unless laker and his deputies are hypocrites there’s no mistaking this for blatant racism, by their standards. But then again, Liberals and double standards go hand in hand.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 0843 hrs
Better check with the board’s speech police. Unless laker and his deputies are hypocrites there’s no mistaking this for blatant racism, by their standards.
Wow Scott, I wasn’t even on the board this weekend and I was on your mind? I’m flattered. BTW, for the record, it is racism. Thanks for checking in.
Scott(I-C) = laker’s bitch
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0912 hrs
You were on my mind because of your propensity to label anything discussed regarding race as racist. Usually your stance is no Whites are allowed an opinion in your estimation, and their only option is they should just keep quiet about the issue.
Yes, I noticed you were absent on the issue, which led me to wonder if you were playing favorites. Not knowing (or caring) if you were on vacation, or just exercising your right to turn a blind eye to the discussion, seeing as how you are so vocal otherwise.I’m your b*tch, like your Mother is mine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0956 hrs
You were on my mind because of your propensity to label anything discussed regarding race as racist.
Well Scott, pretty much everything you spew here has an extreme slant. So, when YOU post about race, I’m usually responding to YOUR racism. Usually not other posters on the board (yes, there are some others). YOURS.
Now go get some Windex and clean that mirror, beeyotch!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1003 hrs
In your considered opinion perhaps, but as I’ve stated, you are quite selective in your assertions.
Your mother will get on that mirror when I’m good and ready for her to do so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1036 hrs
For the record Anon,
“Not the Whiteman’s bitch” has several clear racial inferences.1) A negative in this manner infers that the opponent is the white man’s bitch. Not anyone else’s bitch, only a white male’s bitch. Separating a specific class by color and gender is a pretty clear example of racism.
2) It clearly infers that the white man (and/or her opponent)has an agenda that is against non-white people while she promises an agenda that either favors (a racial slant) non-white men or will fight against anything that ‘the white man’ favors.
3) A ‘bitch’ is a derogatory term in virtually any usage except its denotative meaning and in certain black speech patterns where being a man’s bitch is considered somehow a positive. To use bitch in conjunctive reference to a specific race would be an example of racism in any vocabulary except for liberals and black people who often consider themselves immune to any definition of racism.
Keep up the racial hypocrite stereotype for liberals anon, good job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1611 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 111
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 11:21 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).