You're acute or right about the metonymical crap from both sides here. No doubt about that. I'm just saying it's not right for one side to engage in less than civil, misleading, dishonest, or whatever debate-- just because the other side does. Why would you disagree?
If the majority can't abide by the rules, why should I care if the minority doesn't either? In fact, I encourage it because it maintains a semblence of balance. I fully expect addabox to chime in the next time ones of the usual suspects makes a slight comment or fifty.
I don't know whether I regisrer as a ?liberal? to you or not but never mind that.
The abvementioned cartoon is not only devoid of talent (in the art as well as in the writing departments) it also displays utter ignorance of the issue it pretends to treat and its only point seems to present the people it targets as freakishly inhumane as well as un-human.
The author would feel right at home in such hallmark of political journalism as La Vieille Taupe.
You're acute or right about the metonymical crap from both sides here. No doubt about that. I'm just saying it's not right for one side to engage in less than civil, misleading, dishonest, or whatever debate-- just because the other side does. Why would you disagree?
Five times, and still no mention of whether you believe the comic right, wrong, hateful, sad, nothing.
I would really appreciate it if no one else address Shawn's points until he addresses the actual content of the comic.
My problem with the whole Pat Tillman story is that the media has no problem in devoting a lot of time to his 'sacrifice' but won't stand up to the administration to tell the stories of all the other men and women who have also died in combat. Pat Tillman gave up a big NFL contract to go fight the terrorists in Afghanistan and ended up paying the ultimate price in service to our country and he is a hero, but so are the other men and women who have also paid that ultimate price.
Tillman's funeral was televised, and not just by 24 hour news networks (ESPN comes to mind), his flag drapped coffin was shown coming back to this country, he has full military honors in a public memorial at which there is a big turnout, etc.
Here's my problem. While such a big deal is made about the Pat Tillman story, we aren't allowed to see the story of everyone else who has died in the service of this country in either Afghanistan or Iraq and it makes me sick.
Ted Koppel was called a traitor for reading off the names of our fallen soldiers in Iraq on Nightline. We are told we can't see the caskets coming back to Dover AFB out of 'respect for the fallen' (yet there was no issue in showing people being pulled out of Ground Zero). The media is ordered to not cover any funerals for the fallen and the public is intentionally being kept in the dark about casualties from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Pat Tillman was a hero for volunteering to fight for our nation after 9/11, but so was every other young man and woman who signed up to fight. Yes, he made the ultimate sacrifice for this nation, but many other men and women have made the same sacrifice and they are not receiving the same type of 'hero' recognition that they also deserve.
Five times, and still no mention of whether you believe the comic right, wrong, hateful, sad, nothing.
I would really appreciate it if no one else address Shawn's points until he addresses the actual content of the comic.
Nick
Nick,
What's the difference between this...and me starting a thread called "What some conservatives *really* think about Whoopi Goldberg".... quoting some freeper post about how whoopi supposedly resembles "an abortion gone wrong" and then demanding no one address my logic until they comment on the thing in question? (The cartoon you linked to, like the post I linked to, is both strident and insensitive-- but does not necessarily indicate "conservative" or "liberal" thought.)
Five times, and still no mention of whether you believe the comic right, wrong, hateful, sad, nothing.
I would really appreciate it if no one else address Shawn's points until he addresses the actual content of the comic.
Nick
Maybe no one is addressing the cartoon per se because according to your thread name and subsequent posts, you are more interested in how the cartoon is emblematic of liberal failings in general than the cartoon itself.
As in:
Quote:
I made it quite clear that it goes beyond what he things because it uses the same tactics some liberals use to discredit conservative thought instead of debate it. Don't like affirmative action for example, it's just easier to cry racist than debate the merits.
Don't believe what I do, it is because you are ignorant and uninformed. If you know what I know and you still believe different, well you are just stupid then.
We see these same tactics applied frequently through the media and also in this forum as well. They are not exclusive to this comic author or this particular comic. The combination here is just particularly hateful, that's all.
You'll have to explain how that invites analysis of the cartoon. You can't have it both ways-- either the cartoon is the particular expression of the artist and bears discussion as a thing in itself, or it is a symbol of a larger system of thought, in which case the larger system of thought is the obvious topic at hand.
If the majority can't abide by the rules, why should I care if the minority doesn't either? In fact, I encourage it because it maintains a semblence of balance. I fully expect addabox to chime in the next time ones of the usual suspects makes a slight comment or fifty.
Excuse me, how is contributing to the thread "chiming in"? And how is it appropriate for a mod to be using that kind of pejorative language about a member for no better reason, apparently, than he disagrees with that members politics?
It's got all the liberal stereotypes about anyone with whom they disagree. Racist, ignorant, stupid and likely best of all in their eyes. Dead.
Hateful and sad.
Nick
The cartoon is poorly drawn and poorly written, sad, and possibly hateful. But it is social commentary and it leads to discussion. I don't find it offensive, just not that well done.
Your attempts to constantly categorize things as either A or B (in this case either liberal or conservative) is problematic. You fail to see the grey areas.
Quote:
t's not a necessarily "liberal" tactic you're describing-- it's not even a frequently "liberal" tactic. In fact- it has nothing to do with being "liberal" or not. Thanks for starting a thread based on a completely wrong premise with the sole intention of baiting people.
He's right. Why is it that a lot of people who consider themselves "conservative" have to constantly announce it? It really shows your lack of free thinking. Why not start a thread that merely states that the comic is hateful and sad and find out what other people think? Why do you have to attack a group (in this case the EVIL liberals)?
What's the difference between this...and me starting a thread called "What some conservatives *really* think about Whoopi Goldberg".... quoting some freeper post about how whoopi supposedly resembles "an abortion gone wrong" and then demanding no one address my logic until they comment on the thing in question? (The cartoon you linked to, like the post I linked to, is both strident and insensitive-- but does not necessarily indicate "conservative" or "liberal" thought.)
You are welcome to start and call threads whatever you want. I never quite understand this sentiment from you. You constantly complain about others not censoring their own perspectives and viewpoints. Why should anyone stop speaking their own view just because you don't like the presentation of it? Stop trying to be editor to the world. I have no deadlines, no word counts, no assignment and no obligation to please ShawnJ with my writing style.
Also I didn't demand, I requested. Big difference. Finally if you cannot see the difference between an actual syndicated comic and someone posting a reply about an abortion march, then I guess you can't see the difference between say Rush Limbaugh and you standing in your front yard with a megaphone.
Finally thanks for saying how you feel about the comic.
Nick
EDIT:
Even if you don't like my characterizing Rall as liberal, his own site and the agit site he links to are quite clear as to their ideology.
Maybe no one is addressing the cartoon per se because according to your thread name and subsequent posts, you are more interested in how the cartoon is emblematic of liberal failings in general than the cartoon itself.
As in:
You'll have to explain how that invites analysis of the cartoon. You can't have it both ways-- either the cartoon is the particular expression of the artist and bears discussion as a thing in itself, or it is a symbol of a larger system of thought, in which case the larger system of thought is the obvious topic at hand.
Actually plenty of people addressed the comic specifically. If they didn't like my characterization of it, they contributed their own thoughts.
Independent thought, you are allowed to contribute it with or without my permission I assure you. Plenty of people commented on Rall in a number of manners from the drawing style to his means of commenting. If they didn't think I was correct in my thoughts, they AND you are welcome to say why. I just hate it when people won't address the content because they don't like the originating site, person who posted it, etc.
The cartoon is poorly drawn and poorly written, sad, and possibly hateful. But it is social commentary and it leads to discussion. I don't find it offensive, just not that well done.
Your attempts to constantly categorize things as either A or B (in this case either liberal or conservative) is problematic. You fail to see the grey areas.
He's right. Why is it that a lot of people who consider themselves "conservative" have to constantly announce it? It really shows your lack of free thinking. Why not start a thread that merely states that the comic is hateful and sad and find out what other people think? Why do you have to attack a group (in this case the EVIL liberals)?
I see plenty of grey areas. I'm a teacher and a landlord. I belong to a union, and the Republican party. I'm not a free trader, but a fair trader. I could go on about the numerous "grey areas" in which my thought is not dogmatically one party or the other. However a quick search of the forums will show you that.
I would encourage you to do a search with my name and conservative. You will see others label me that often. I seldom call myself that. So it would appear that is others that need the strict A or B to fit their own thinking into. I've got plenty of independent thought of my own, thanks.
I think the cartoon is just fine. You have to be able to replace the name Tillman with [PFC] or something like that, and it's still basically the same. A number of people signed up to kill and have themselves been killing in the process. That's sad, more sad than a poorly drawn comic.
Comments
Originally posted by Eugene
You mean acute or right!
You're acute or right about the metonymical crap from both sides here. No doubt about that. I'm just saying it's not right for one side to engage in less than civil, misleading, dishonest, or whatever debate-- just because the other side does. Why would you disagree?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Why would you disagree?
Because it's pointless.
If the majority can't abide by the rules, why should I care if the minority doesn't either? In fact, I encourage it because it maintains a semblence of balance. I fully expect addabox to chime in the next time ones of the usual suspects makes a slight comment or fifty.
The abvementioned cartoon is not only devoid of talent (in the art as well as in the writing departments) it also displays utter ignorance of the issue it pretends to treat and its only point seems to present the people it targets as freakishly inhumane as well as un-human.
The author would feel right at home in such hallmark of political journalism as La Vieille Taupe.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You're acute or right about the metonymical crap from both sides here. No doubt about that. I'm just saying it's not right for one side to engage in less than civil, misleading, dishonest, or whatever debate-- just because the other side does. Why would you disagree?
Five times, and still no mention of whether you believe the comic right, wrong, hateful, sad, nothing.
I would really appreciate it if no one else address Shawn's points until he addresses the actual content of the comic.
Nick
Tillman's funeral was televised, and not just by 24 hour news networks (ESPN comes to mind), his flag drapped coffin was shown coming back to this country, he has full military honors in a public memorial at which there is a big turnout, etc.
Here's my problem. While such a big deal is made about the Pat Tillman story, we aren't allowed to see the story of everyone else who has died in the service of this country in either Afghanistan or Iraq and it makes me sick.
Ted Koppel was called a traitor for reading off the names of our fallen soldiers in Iraq on Nightline. We are told we can't see the caskets coming back to Dover AFB out of 'respect for the fallen' (yet there was no issue in showing people being pulled out of Ground Zero). The media is ordered to not cover any funerals for the fallen and the public is intentionally being kept in the dark about casualties from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Pat Tillman was a hero for volunteering to fight for our nation after 9/11, but so was every other young man and woman who signed up to fight. Yes, he made the ultimate sacrifice for this nation, but many other men and women have made the same sacrifice and they are not receiving the same type of 'hero' recognition that they also deserve.
Anyway, since we're having fun today characterizing the extreme as the mainstream, what some conservatives think about black people.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by trumptman
Five times, and still no mention of whether you believe the comic right, wrong, hateful, sad, nothing.
I would really appreciate it if no one else address Shawn's points until he addresses the actual content of the comic.
Nick
Nick,
What's the difference between this...and me starting a thread called "What some conservatives *really* think about Whoopi Goldberg".... quoting some freeper post about how whoopi supposedly resembles "an abortion gone wrong" and then demanding no one address my logic until they comment on the thing in question? (The cartoon you linked to, like the post I linked to, is both strident and insensitive-- but does not necessarily indicate "conservative" or "liberal" thought.)
Originally posted by trumptman
Five times, and still no mention of whether you believe the comic right, wrong, hateful, sad, nothing.
I would really appreciate it if no one else address Shawn's points until he addresses the actual content of the comic.
Nick
Maybe no one is addressing the cartoon per se because according to your thread name and subsequent posts, you are more interested in how the cartoon is emblematic of liberal failings in general than the cartoon itself.
As in:
I made it quite clear that it goes beyond what he things because it uses the same tactics some liberals use to discredit conservative thought instead of debate it. Don't like affirmative action for example, it's just easier to cry racist than debate the merits.
Don't believe what I do, it is because you are ignorant and uninformed. If you know what I know and you still believe different, well you are just stupid then.
We see these same tactics applied frequently through the media and also in this forum as well. They are not exclusive to this comic author or this particular comic. The combination here is just particularly hateful, that's all.
You'll have to explain how that invites analysis of the cartoon. You can't have it both ways-- either the cartoon is the particular expression of the artist and bears discussion as a thing in itself, or it is a symbol of a larger system of thought, in which case the larger system of thought is the obvious topic at hand.
Originally posted by Eugene
Because it's pointless.
If the majority can't abide by the rules, why should I care if the minority doesn't either? In fact, I encourage it because it maintains a semblence of balance. I fully expect addabox to chime in the next time ones of the usual suspects makes a slight comment or fifty.
Excuse me, how is contributing to the thread "chiming in"? And how is it appropriate for a mod to be using that kind of pejorative language about a member for no better reason, apparently, than he disagrees with that members politics?
Originally posted by trumptman
Rall Comic
It's got all the liberal stereotypes about anyone with whom they disagree. Racist, ignorant, stupid and likely best of all in their eyes. Dead.
Hateful and sad.
Nick
The cartoon is poorly drawn and poorly written, sad, and possibly hateful. But it is social commentary and it leads to discussion. I don't find it offensive, just not that well done.
Your attempts to constantly categorize things as either A or B (in this case either liberal or conservative) is problematic. You fail to see the grey areas.
t's not a necessarily "liberal" tactic you're describing-- it's not even a frequently "liberal" tactic. In fact- it has nothing to do with being "liberal" or not. Thanks for starting a thread based on a completely wrong premise with the sole intention of baiting people.
He's right. Why is it that a lot of people who consider themselves "conservative" have to constantly announce it? It really shows your lack of free thinking. Why not start a thread that merely states that the comic is hateful and sad and find out what other people think? Why do you have to attack a group (in this case the EVIL liberals)?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Nick,
What's the difference between this...and me starting a thread called "What some conservatives *really* think about Whoopi Goldberg".... quoting some freeper post about how whoopi supposedly resembles "an abortion gone wrong" and then demanding no one address my logic until they comment on the thing in question? (The cartoon you linked to, like the post I linked to, is both strident and insensitive-- but does not necessarily indicate "conservative" or "liberal" thought.)
You are welcome to start and call threads whatever you want. I never quite understand this sentiment from you. You constantly complain about others not censoring their own perspectives and viewpoints. Why should anyone stop speaking their own view just because you don't like the presentation of it? Stop trying to be editor to the world. I have no deadlines, no word counts, no assignment and no obligation to please ShawnJ with my writing style.
Also I didn't demand, I requested. Big difference. Finally if you cannot see the difference between an actual syndicated comic and someone posting a reply about an abortion march, then I guess you can't see the difference between say Rush Limbaugh and you standing in your front yard with a megaphone.
Finally thanks for saying how you feel about the comic.
Nick
EDIT:
Even if you don't like my characterizing Rall as liberal, his own site and the agit site he links to are quite clear as to their ideology.
Rall merch
Agit Properties
Originally posted by addabox
Maybe no one is addressing the cartoon per se because according to your thread name and subsequent posts, you are more interested in how the cartoon is emblematic of liberal failings in general than the cartoon itself.
As in:
You'll have to explain how that invites analysis of the cartoon. You can't have it both ways-- either the cartoon is the particular expression of the artist and bears discussion as a thing in itself, or it is a symbol of a larger system of thought, in which case the larger system of thought is the obvious topic at hand.
Actually plenty of people addressed the comic specifically. If they didn't like my characterization of it, they contributed their own thoughts.
Independent thought, you are allowed to contribute it with or without my permission I assure you. Plenty of people commented on Rall in a number of manners from the drawing style to his means of commenting. If they didn't think I was correct in my thoughts, they AND you are welcome to say why. I just hate it when people won't address the content because they don't like the originating site, person who posted it, etc.
Nick
Originally posted by buckeye
The cartoon is poorly drawn and poorly written, sad, and possibly hateful. But it is social commentary and it leads to discussion. I don't find it offensive, just not that well done.
Your attempts to constantly categorize things as either A or B (in this case either liberal or conservative) is problematic. You fail to see the grey areas.
He's right. Why is it that a lot of people who consider themselves "conservative" have to constantly announce it? It really shows your lack of free thinking. Why not start a thread that merely states that the comic is hateful and sad and find out what other people think? Why do you have to attack a group (in this case the EVIL liberals)?
I see plenty of grey areas. I'm a teacher and a landlord. I belong to a union, and the Republican party. I'm not a free trader, but a fair trader. I could go on about the numerous "grey areas" in which my thought is not dogmatically one party or the other. However a quick search of the forums will show you that.
I would encourage you to do a search with my name and conservative. You will see others label me that often. I seldom call myself that. So it would appear that is others that need the strict A or B to fit their own thinking into. I've got plenty of independent thought of my own, thanks.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Five times, and still no mention of whether you believe the comic right, wrong, hateful, sad, nothing.
Posting a dishonest thread and you still can't defend the merits of it. Sad.
Originally posted by bunge
Posting a dishonest thread and you still can't defend the merits of it. Sad.
6000+ posts, half of them one liners complaining and attempting to discredit instead of discussing.
Much more sad,
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
6000+ posts, half of them one liners complaining and attempting to discredit instead of discussing.
Just keeping the topics focused for those here with attention deficit disorder.