Tell me about it Michael. After Oklahoma City we had McVeigh and Nichols in custody within a week. Seven years and three months later OSB is still on the loose.
Oh who the hell am I kidding, Tinsley probably thinks the OKC bombing doesn't count because it wasn't carried out by Muslims.
The really annoying part about this is that it makes me think of an argument that was making rounds in the right wing circles after Bush said "Bring em on" to the terrorists. That kind of bravado is reckless when it comes to our soldiers but it gets funnier, pundits were saying that it was actually a calculated way to bring more terrorists out of hiding in Iraq. So apparently the goal of having our troops there was to use them as bait.
But on the main thing, this isn't necessarily provable of anything. Given that most criticisms have been that domestically we aren't ready for another attack and thanks to the situation in Iraq many units aren't ready for deployment (a start contrast from the clinton years). Not to mention that I can also prove that the presidency has stopped alien invasions, the apocalypse, etc. You can't really use lack of something to make a case for something causal. Yes, sometimes they are related but they aren't necessarily.
Liberals can't win here. By not advertising successes, they are "keeping the conservative man down".
But suppose they did. We'd see far more successful attacks since terrorists are generally very intelligent. And then the liberal media would take a beating for revealing secret intelligence.
They should really just do as they already do: expose the abuses.
But regarding home-grown terrorism: McVeigh is someone with a security background and combat abilities from military training. He hated taxes, anti-gun laws, and pro-black movements. And his IQ was above normal. He was usually very angry.
Sadly, this is all they've got. The only positive thing that Bush and Bush-lovers can point at after eight years - something didn't happen. Well, let's say we give him that. Do you really expect the media to put a lot of effort into publicising something that didn't happen? Front-page stories every week? Nightline-style TV shows: "Day 976, Nothing Happened"?
How many terrorist attacks were there on US soil in the 8 years prior to 9/11? How many should we have expected in the 8 years since? The Bush-lovers want us to believe that 9/11 was just the opening salvo in a planned jihad on US soil, but there is no evidence of that.
Worldwide, terrorism is way up since 9/11, fueled in large part by the actions of the Bush/Cheney cabal. If stopping terrorism is what they want to be remembered for, EPIC FAIL.
Yeah, Tinsley. We should be grateful that President Bush kept us free from attacks on American soil for 2921 out of his 2922 days in office. And that one day was a statistical anomaly, right? Right?
Too bad our civil rights didn't have the same percentage of success.
Yes, golly, President Bush, it's sure great that you only allowed ONE massive domestic terror attack to happen on your watch! How many Presidents can say that? The anthrax attacks don't count as "acts of terror" because SHUT UP SHUT UP CUT HIS MIKE. Also, it doesn't matter that the London, Madrid, and Bali attacks were almost certainly the direct result of our dimwitted little warrior-king's mideast crusade, because those are just furriners. And it's likewise ENTIRELY BESIDE THE POINT that he let an ENTIRE FUCKING CITY drown with his incompetence and cronyism and apathy, because, a., the weather isn't useful for whipping people up into a bloodthirsty, xenophobic froth; and b., that mainly affected those people if you know what I'm talking about and I think you do.
In conclusion, shove it up your ass, Tinsley. Or at least that's what I WOULD say, but to do that, he'd have to wrench his head out of there first, and I really don't see that happening.
Fareed Zakaria was recently on the Daily Show talking about the response to Mumbai. Remember that? Remember how the news about it dropped off suddenly? That was intentional. There was a conscious, coordinated effort to get back to business and shrug the whole thing off as quickly as possible to send a big message of "You know what you were trying to do? Terrify us and disrupt our lives? Well it DIDN'T WORK."
It made me think that maybe marinating ourselves in 9/11, reveling in the Day We Were Attacked, is counter-productive. Maybe we can remember without reminding everyone of it constantly.
Anon - Oh god, I was in love with Fareed Zakaria that night, and even more in love with India.
Browsing through the Bollywood various summaries on the wikipedia, terrorism and terrorists have popped up. Sometimes as LOVE INTERESTS.
I seriously want to read that book on Al Jazeera, any book, really, that's not SCARY MUSLIMS ON THE TEEVEE look! I love foreign news. In the run up to the election 04, I made a conscious decision to watch the only foriegn-ish news I got on the teevee, which was 30 minutes of the beeb on PBS. Other countries had elections! And problems! What nonsense!
Anyways, the comic, the comic reminds me of the anti-immigrant episode of the Simpsons and the old joke Lisa tells and Homer falls for. "This [whatever] keeps away tigers." "You're right! It's working! How much do you want for it?" She was smart, she took the money.
The local base put up a terrorist prevention system in the form of a fence and actually sitting at the entrances. (Before, everyone just used it as a short cut.)
Though we had a Memphis City Council member try to nobly prevent one by trying to stop members of an Iraqi delegation from coming here and by showing just how dumb a southerner could be.
it makes me think of an argument that was making rounds in the right wing circles after Bush said "Bring em on" to the terrorists. That kind of bravado is reckless when it comes to our soldiers but it gets funnier, pundits were saying that it was actually a calculated way to bring more terrorists out of hiding in Iraq.
"Bring em on" is exactly what you'd expect from a guy like Bush -- someone whose family connections got him out of military service, someone who sits on the sidelines and cons other peopel to fight his battles for him.
Since y'all have thoroughly eviscerated the mind-numbing dishonesty of today's "comic", let me point out that Mallard is supposed to be a TV commentator.
Let me also compare today's Mallard to the other rightwing comic, "Prickly City".
Both are badly drawn, and I usually disagree with Prickly's politics, but this week Prickly has acknowledged the excitement over the change, having its characters go to DC. Today, they're celebrating MLK Day.
In otherwords: not hateful. Not my cuppa tea artistically, and usually wrongheaded politically, but worth reading.
Structurally, the difference may be that Prickly has TWO main characters, representing left- and right-, that have real conversations. Although they rarely agree, they hardly ever shout at each other
As I said, I don't usually agree with Prickly's conclusions but it's worth reading because, ya know, when you talk with each other instead of yelling at each other, you can learn something and usually you can have a good time.
Let us hope Mallard brings back Chantel or some other foil, with which he can have an extended relationship that goes beyond yelling at each other.
I'd even settle for Mallard logging on to this blog and having a real conversation.
I've got to agree with Rewinn on that. Prickly City is a much better comic strip when compared to Mallard Fillmore. PC has everything that Mallard doesn't: Recurrent Cast, Plots and Continuity, Likable Characters, and its actually funny, and not some rant 365/52. Though sometime its kinda hackish its notto the extent of the Drunk Duck.
21 comments:
"Ooops, I forgot to tell a joke!"
This reminds me of those "Kelly" political cartoons the Onion runs, minus the crying Statue of Liberty.
By the way... not only was 9/11 caused by Bush's lack of vigilance, by Mallard's logic, but Clinton had kept us much safer!
Tell me about it Michael. After Oklahoma City we had McVeigh and Nichols in custody within a week. Seven years and three months later OSB is still on the loose.
Oh who the hell am I kidding, Tinsley probably thinks the OKC bombing doesn't count because it wasn't carried out by Muslims.
"President Bush, I want to buy your rock."
The really annoying part about this is that it makes me think of an argument that was making rounds in the right wing circles after Bush said "Bring em on" to the terrorists. That kind of bravado is reckless when it comes to our soldiers but it gets funnier, pundits were saying that it was actually a calculated way to bring more terrorists out of hiding in Iraq. So apparently the goal of having our troops there was to use them as bait.
But on the main thing, this isn't necessarily provable of anything. Given that most criticisms have been that domestically we aren't ready for another attack and thanks to the situation in Iraq many units aren't ready for deployment (a start contrast from the clinton years). Not to mention that I can also prove that the presidency has stopped alien invasions, the apocalypse, etc. You can't really use lack of something to make a case for something causal. Yes, sometimes they are related but they aren't necessarily.
Liberals can't win here. By not advertising successes, they are "keeping the conservative man down".
But suppose they did. We'd see far more successful attacks since terrorists are generally very intelligent. And then the liberal media would take a beating for revealing secret intelligence.
They should really just do as they already do: expose the abuses.
But regarding home-grown terrorism: McVeigh is someone with a security background and combat abilities from military training. He hated taxes, anti-gun laws, and pro-black movements. And his IQ was above normal. He was usually very angry.
Sadly, this is all they've got. The only positive thing that Bush and Bush-lovers can point at after eight years - something didn't happen. Well, let's say we give him that. Do you really expect the media to put a lot of effort into publicising something that didn't happen? Front-page stories every week? Nightline-style TV shows: "Day 976, Nothing Happened"?
How many terrorist attacks were there on US soil in the 8 years prior to 9/11? How many should we have expected in the 8 years since? The Bush-lovers want us to believe that 9/11 was just the opening salvo in a planned jihad on US soil, but there is no evidence of that.
Worldwide, terrorism is way up since 9/11, fueled in large part by the actions of the Bush/Cheney cabal. If stopping terrorism is what they want to be remembered for, EPIC FAIL.
Yeah, Tinsley. We should be grateful that President Bush kept us free from attacks on American soil for 2921 out of his 2922 days in office. And that one day was a statistical anomaly, right? Right?
Too bad our civil rights didn't have the same percentage of success.
I'll just copy and paste from my blog:
Yes, golly, President Bush, it's sure great that you only allowed ONE massive domestic terror attack to happen on your watch! How many Presidents can say that? The anthrax attacks don't count as "acts of terror" because SHUT UP SHUT UP CUT HIS MIKE. Also, it doesn't matter that the London, Madrid, and Bali attacks were almost certainly the direct result of our dimwitted little warrior-king's mideast crusade, because those are just furriners. And it's likewise ENTIRELY BESIDE THE POINT that he let an ENTIRE FUCKING CITY drown with his incompetence and cronyism and apathy, because, a., the weather isn't useful for whipping people up into a bloodthirsty, xenophobic froth; and b., that mainly affected those people if you know what I'm talking about and I think you do.
In conclusion, shove it up your ass, Tinsley. Or at least that's what I WOULD say, but to do that, he'd have to wrench his head out of there first, and I really don't see that happening.
Fareed Zakaria was recently on the Daily Show talking about the response to Mumbai. Remember that? Remember how the news about it dropped off suddenly? That was intentional. There was a conscious, coordinated effort to get back to business and shrug the whole thing off as quickly as possible to send a big message of "You know what you were trying to do? Terrify us and disrupt our lives? Well it DIDN'T WORK."
It made me think that maybe marinating ourselves in 9/11, reveling in the Day We Were Attacked, is counter-productive. Maybe we can remember without reminding everyone of it constantly.
Anon - Oh god, I was in love with Fareed Zakaria that night, and even more in love with India.
Browsing through the Bollywood various summaries on the wikipedia, terrorism and terrorists have popped up. Sometimes as LOVE INTERESTS.
I seriously want to read that book on Al Jazeera, any book, really, that's not SCARY MUSLIMS ON THE TEEVEE look! I love foreign news. In the run up to the election 04, I made a conscious decision to watch the only foriegn-ish news I got on the teevee, which was 30 minutes of the beeb on PBS. Other countries had elections! And problems! What nonsense!
Anyways, the comic, the comic reminds me of the anti-immigrant episode of the Simpsons and the old joke Lisa tells and Homer falls for. "This [whatever] keeps away tigers." "You're right! It's working! How much do you want for it?" She was smart, she took the money.
The local base put up a terrorist prevention system in the form of a fence and actually sitting at the entrances. (Before, everyone just used it as a short cut.)
And we've never had a terrorist attack!
Though we had a Memphis City Council member try to nobly prevent one by trying to stop members of an Iraqi delegation from coming here and by showing just how dumb a southerner could be.
it makes me think of an argument that was making rounds in the right wing circles after Bush said "Bring em on" to the terrorists. That kind of bravado is reckless when it comes to our soldiers but it gets funnier, pundits were saying that it was actually a calculated way to bring more terrorists out of hiding in Iraq.
"Bring em on" is exactly what you'd expect from a guy like Bush -- someone whose family connections got him out of military service, someone who sits on the sidelines and cons other peopel to fight his battles for him.
Since y'all have thoroughly eviscerated the mind-numbing dishonesty of today's "comic", let me point out that Mallard is supposed to be a TV commentator.
So what is the "Q" and the "A" for?
Is he actually saying "Q" ... "A"?
Let me also compare today's Mallard to the other rightwing comic, "Prickly City".
Both are badly drawn, and I usually disagree with Prickly's politics, but this week Prickly has acknowledged the excitement over the change, having its characters go to DC. Today, they're celebrating MLK Day.
In otherwords: not hateful. Not my cuppa tea artistically, and usually wrongheaded politically, but worth reading.
Structurally, the difference may be that Prickly has TWO main characters, representing left- and right-, that have real conversations. Although they rarely agree, they hardly ever shout at each other
As I said, I don't usually agree with Prickly's conclusions but it's worth reading because, ya know, when you talk with each other instead of yelling at each other, you can learn something and usually you can have a good time.
Let us hope Mallard brings back Chantel or some other foil, with which he can have an extended relationship that goes beyond yelling at each other.
I'd even settle for Mallard logging on to this blog and having a real conversation.
I've got to agree with Rewinn on that. Prickly City is a much better comic strip when compared to Mallard Fillmore. PC has everything that Mallard doesn't: Recurrent Cast, Plots and Continuity, Likable Characters, and its actually funny, and not some rant 365/52. Though sometime its kinda hackish its notto the extent of the Drunk Duck.
Johaely, rewinn - it sounds like Prickly City is a comic first, and a political screed second. If it's not about the story, chuck it!
This?
This is garbage. He doesn't even try, he never even did.
I've never read PC, but I read the description, and the description alone was more ambitious than all of Mallard Fillmore.
"...a comic first, and a political screed second..."
Kaitlyn makes a good point.
Comics have to be comics FIRST and political SECOND.
Otherwise you just have Party Propaganda, which usually sux ... as Tinkley so amply demonstrates.
GWB was a uniter after all: 72% of Americans think he sucked.
Actually, we were attacked after 9/11. Anyone remember the Anthrax attacks? Tinsley is a freaking idiot with no grasp of reality.
"...Anyone remember the Anthrax attacks?...
I'm sorry, but the Ministry of Truth has edited that out of history. It never happened.
Please report to the Ministry of Love for rectification.
and people forget the attack in LAX, but the victims were not American, so you can't blame Bush.
Post a Comment