Project Wonderful Banner

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

That damned Identification

What's Mallard raving about today?

President Obama, Right Wing Extremists.

First of all, this study came from the Bush Administration.

Second, a similar study was commissioned about Left-Wing extremists. I don't recall such a hue and cry at that time, so you can keep your martyrdom.

Finally, given that you and your readers gleefully self-identify as Right-Wing extremists, I don't think we need to try hard to explain the current popularity of the Republican Party.

I am pretty sure I will be able to cut and paste this post every single day for the rest of this week.

19 comments:

Factinista said...

Mallard still hasn't caught on to the fact that his "loyal readers" happen to be us.

Anonymous said...

Ducky's right: if you ignore all the dangerous, hard-right extremist who have killed dozens of people in the last decade or so, then Obama sure is a paranoid moonbat!

White supremacists and gun-nuts killing cops? Why, nothing but figments of the media's imaginations, dear boy! Think nothing of it! Now quiet; Rush is explaining once again how Liberals are destroying America and hate life, and SOMEONE needs to do SOMETHING to stop them!

exanonymous said...

Dozens? McVeigh and Nichols managed 168 deaths all by themselves.

Funny how the duck is against profiling now.

But what is scary is that one of two things must be true:
Either Mallard knows he is lying and is just doing it to get victim status attention and attack the president in a illogical Glennbeckian manner

Or

He believes it because the right-wing party has their own members as afraid (in the weeping Glennbeckian way) of tyrannical governments and fascism as people who actually live in totalitarian states are.

Why my obsession with Glenn Beck in this post? Because his stunts with Nazis marching in the background made me laugh, and then cry when I realized that the right didn't realize it lost when it invoked Godwin's law.

jvwalt said...

Noooo, Bruce, sorry, you're just not that important. You might just be enough of a wackjob to warrant a security check, but if DHS knows anything, they know that "I and my loyal readers" (sic) are too dumb to pose a threat to anything more imposing than a case of PBR.

Mallard said...

Nonsense i have tons of loyal reader's, in an unrelated note id like to say hi and thanks to my immediate family.

Scanman said...

"Nonsense i have tons of loyal reader's" Yeah, but that's only if you measure your three readers by weight.

wavydavy said...

Massive FAIL in all aspects.

First, there is his mutilation of the English language. Mallard, sweetie, when listing a group, the first person pronoun is always given last. That would be "My readers and I" if you knew anything about grammar.

Second, every single balloon is just packed with bullshit:

1) It is the *US* Dept. of Homeland Security. It is not Obama's DHS any more than it was Chimpy's. And, as DaveyK pointed out, the study was commissioned by the previous administration; plus, there IS already a similar study of left-wing extremists.

2) Why the scare quotes around "right-wing extremists"? Is Mallard saying that this is a made-up phrase, while at the same time self-identifying with it? Talk about your cognitive dissonance. (And, of course, the grammar -- always with the grammar.)

3) Why is the phone talking about how "we" might be bugging his phone? The phone is going to bug itself? Besides, I thought Mallard was all for warrantless searches and domestic wiretaps. Or is that only when a "right-wing extremist" is president?

Seriously, why is this crap actually published anywhere besides Tinkley's mom's basement? It boggles the mind that there is anyone willing to actually PAY for this crap, let alone enough people to have this strip syndicated.

WV: jiveness. What Mallard is full of, as in "shuckin' and jivin'".

Rootbeer said...

"why is this crap actually published anywhere besides Tinkley's mom's basement?"

Because ever since most cities became one-newspaper towns, editors have felt an obligation to provide "balance"; if they publish a funny left-wing comic like Doonesbury, shouldn't they also be obligated to publish a not-funny right-wing comic?

That, and because the only competition for the spot is Chris Muir's atrocious "Day By Day". Tinkley's work is coherent and sober by comparison.

rewinn said...

And when it comes to balancing Doonesbury, let us quote Sen. Roman Hruska (R-NB) on Nixon's nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court of the admittedly mediocre Harrold Carswell :

"So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?"(asterisk)

Patrick said...

@Rootbeer:

I'll take Mallard Fillmore any day over "Day by Day." Fillmore at least has the virtue of brevity.

GeoX said...

The problem with Day by Day (one of them) is that Chris Muir is under the impression that he is in some way "cool" and "edgy." Also, although Tinsley's "I don't support the war but I'm too much of a coward to say anything against it" stance isn't exactly commendable, it's still a lot less bad than Muir's enthusiastic pro-war pro-torture platform.

rewinn said...

Exactly. Tinkley is may be a coward, but torture fans are both cowards AND sadists.

So let's give DT some credit for being relatively moderate ("relatively" being kind of comical in this context.)

Anonymous said...

Chris Muir said the New York Times were "Kantian relativists."

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about philosophy should find the term "Kantian relativism" so utterly bizarre that it causes them to weep uncontrollably.

WV: uzimic; NRA meetings like to spice up dull speeches with novelty microphones, like the uzimic.

Kyle said...

Chris Muir is a middle-aged white guy who uses a young, fictional black man to make his right wing talking points seem more hip. And he frequently drops in psuedo softcore porn. In other words, he's an even bigger hack than Tinsley. Scratch that -- he makes Tinsley look like Trudeau by comparison.

Anonymous said...

Mallard Fillmore by Bruce Tinsley and Day by Day by Chris Muir, both good strips.

Chris Muir also works three weeks in advance but is given the opportunity to produce a strip within a few days of an event he feels will be "old news" in three weeks. Muir is more cutting edge but I like them both.

My favorite editorial cartoonists is Michael Ramirez. Trudeau sucks and always has.

Kyle said...

Going strictly by artistic merit, Muir and Tinsley couldn't carry Trudeau's pencil in a suitcase. To say he "sucks ass" isn't to give credit where it's due and is basing your opinion strictly on politics. I don't care for Ramirez's opinion but I wouldn't say he "sucks" for the simple fact his artwork is top notch.

Muir and Tinsley, OTOH, are hacks. One draws amateurish cheesecake and the other scribbles a duck in one of three interchangable poses. I can replicate just about any Mallard strip in minutes, and I'm a terrible artist.

Buchholz Surfer said...

Just checking in periodically-- and nope, Mallard Fillmore still has never been funny on any level in any way.

Just stupid and full of crap, as always.

The sun rises, the sun sets, this comic is garbage.

Michael said...

"Kantian relativists"? I read that 20 minutes ago, and my brain still hurts.

rewinn said...

I'd like to thank Anonymous Coward for providing more evidence that only people who like Mallard and "Day by Day" are too cowardly to identify themselves.

Like Tinkley himself on Iraq: cowards.

Can you imagine a real conservative, like Goldwater or Churchill, being too cowardly even to venture an opinion on Iraq in a cartoon dedicated to politics, or on that cartoon in a blog?