Not my thread, topic or title
[quote]Moderator’s note:
[color=red]Please do not delete your posts, as doing so seriously harms the thread.
This thread was split off from some other thread as the discussion contained herein was off-topic to the original thread.[/color][/quote]
Closet Queen and Alien:
Guess what satire is funny because it simplifies a position to heighten inconsistencies to make it look ridiculous. You have both quoted from the same cartoonist. Is this now to become a Saturday morning Children’s cartoon hour? Is this all of the intellectual rigor that you can throw behind your arguments? Have you truly so little intellectual capability to argue these points from deepseated personal beliefs that you have to resort to teenage hijinks? (see what I mean about satire?) but I am still waiting for something from Alien other than liberal posturing about “concern for the poor” and “people need food” and “we should understand and help each other” kinds of empty jingoistic phraseology that is empty of thought regarding consequences of said actions. So to engage in similar thoughts…
We must take a tough stance against crime.
We must help the honest hardworking American family.
People need jobs not welfare.
Spare the rod and spoil the child or criminal or welfare mother.
We need both carrots and sticks.
Welfare should not just be a blank check.
We need to give people their dignity back.
(so is this how we are to continue this debate with cheap sloganeering). Fine, I’m up to it but would prefer to engage in some debate where some true personal convictions were involved.
fred
Not my thread topic or title
[quote]Moderator’s note:
[color=red]Please do not delete your posts, as doing so seriously harms the thread.
This thread was split off from some other thread as the discussion contained herein was off-topic to the original thread.[/color][/quote]
[quote=“Closet Queen”]I have true conviction that
[quote=“fred smith”]I am still waiting for something from Alien other than liberal posturing about “concern for the poor” and “people need food” and “we should understand and help each other” kinds of empty jingoistic phraseology that is empty of thought regarding consequences of said actions.
fred[/quote]
You’re such a dramaturgical sketch, Fred! “Concern for the poor” and “people need food” is a tremendous waste of time and energy, I know. I mean, if I lived off a trust fund, sat around all day ‘pretending’ to work, attended ex-pat balls with my ‘front self’, and fought the brave battlefield of the internet against illogical and misguided morons with my ‘back self’, I suppose I’d be supporting multi-billion dollar tax cuts for the rich and a chimp in the white house too.
Not my thread topic or title
[quote]Moderator’s note:
[color=red]Please do not delete your posts, as doing so seriously harms the thread.
This thread was split off from some other thread as the discussion contained herein was off-topic to the original thread.[/color][/quote]
Not my thread topic or title
[quote]Moderator’s note:
[color=red]Please do not delete your posts, as doing so seriously harms the thread.
This thread was split off from some other thread as the discussion contained herein was off-topic to the original thread.[/color][/quote]
[quote=“tigerman”]C’mon, CQ, you’re not really getting your ideas from silly comics, are you? I was just kidding about you and Alien getting your ideas from comics… is it really true? :shock:
Look, the satire you guys are posting is only funny if you overlook the falsehoods in the satire.[/quote]
Nonsense. The example I provided below is illustrative of your satire’s falsehood, not of any falsehood pushed by Bush. Prove me wrong on this point.
[quote=“Closet Queen”]Pussycat, with lines like these you show yourself to be trapped in the Republican Matrix! You must recognize yourself in the cartoon. What the satire demonstrates is that Republicans embrace Orwellian doublespeak and skillful semantic parsing to disabuse the electorate of any manifestation of notional mendacity.
In fact, there is a rumoured equivalence of doublespeak and Fleischerspeak.[/quote]
No, no CQ, I’m amazed that you, one so concerned with the facts, would post such drivel and then attempt to defend the same.
I was just reading an article in our very own Taipei Times and came across the following excerpt from an article commenting on Michael Moore’s “satire” and it made me think of the satire comics that you and Alien are recently so fond of posting:
[quote=“NYT News service”]The last image is of the airplanes smashing into the World Trade Center, accompanied by this text: “Sept. 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert C.I.A. training to murder 3,000 people.”
The idiocy of this statement is hardly worth engaging; it is exactly the kind of glib distortion of history that can be taken as a warrant to dismiss everything Moore has to say.
taipeitimes.com/News/feat/ar … 2003076754
[/quote]
I feel the same can be said of the “satire” you have been posting… because it distorts history, I am well warranted in dismissing it entirely, as so much drivel.
Surely you understand why it isn’t appropriate to distort history… or is it OK as long as the distortion suits your purposes?
Not my thread topic or title
[quote]Moderator’s note:
[color=red]Please do not delete your posts, as doing so seriously harms the thread.
This thread was split off from some other thread as the discussion contained herein was off-topic to the original thread.[/color][/quote]
Not the strongest argument against Hilarious Hillary, I have seen so far.
When will she get her divorce? After she loses in 2008?
[quote=“Mr He”]Not the strongest argument against Hilarious Hillary, I have seen so far.
When will she get her divorce? After she loses in 2008?[/quote]
What? Don’t you get it? Its satire, for goodness sake! 
Not my thread topic or title
[quote]Moderator’s note:
[color=red]Please do not delete your posts, as doing so seriously harms the thread.
This thread was split off from some other thread as the discussion contained herein was off-topic to the original thread.[/color][/quote]
Actually, Soddom, the “CIA Operative” crap died down because the woman . . . gasp . . . wasn’t a CIA operative any more. Her name being “exposed” wasn’t a crime.
It’s a lot like the Alien comment in another thread, about how Noelle Bush (Jeb’s daughter) oughta be tried under “three strikes” even though (a) she didn’t commit a violent felony, and (b) the law had been struck down by the courts before she was caught faking a prescription. You leftie fruitcakes seem to think that merely being a conservative is a crime deserving of punishment, no matter what the text of the law you’re referencing actually says.
Maybe this is part of what the leftist orthodoxy of “the Constitution is a ‘living document’” actually means – laws are meaningless, just target anyone whom the Left dislikes, and screw the facts and logic.
Tom Tomorrow is a shrill, predictable partisan hack.
Tom Tomorrow is astute, provocative, humorous entertainment.
One person’s silly comic is another person’s editorial cartoon.
Speaking of shrill, the only thing shrill about Tom Tomorrow is the reaction to him. Kind of a squeal actually.
Fred wrote:
Fred, have you ever railed against the expression “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people yet?” It’s over there in the Gun Rights thread right now, just waiting for your astute mind to show it up. Come on buddy. Show us what you’re really made of.
[quote=“spook”]
Speaking of shrill, the only thing shrill about Tom Tomorrow is the reaction to him. Kind of a squeal actually.[/quote]
… it simplifies a position to heighten inconsistencies to make it look ridiculous…(squealll)… Is this now to become a Saturday morning Children’s cartoon hour?..(squeeeeallll)…
Yes, Tom Tomorrow makes the
This last Tom Tomorrow cartoon panel is an interesting object lesson. Suddenly we do get a whiff of the shrill partisanship we were warned about. What a disappointing transmogrification.
Note to myself: only listen to liberals when they’re critiquing conservatives; only listen to conservatives when they’re critiquing liberals. When either side begins to defend itself and its own pet policies, feet turn to clay, tongues fork, self-serving rationalizations crowd out clarity of viewpoint.