This is not North Korea, there is no "Dear Leader." If this was North Korea, your stupid comic would not be published. Okay, so North Korea is better than the US in one way.
When people are bringing guns to the meetings, screaming Nazi at Jewish representatives, telling the government to keep their hands off of medicare...generally speaking that would be considered dangerous or at the very least a little crazy.
Remember the good ol' days? When the "liberal" media used words like "patriotic" to describe Yellow Elephants (suggesting that anti-war protesters weren't patriotic)? And how it was only really "liberal" in that it liberally undercut the crowd estimates of every war protest? Ah, memories.
People bitch for health care reform every single year right up to the point a Democrat offers it. Reagan cried "socialism," Gingrich unleashed "Harry & Louise," and the current pack of wolves is packing townhalls with people who are "well-informed" by FOX News in the same sense a Soviet citizen was "well-informed" by TASS.
Your boys had eight years and almost no resistance, Tinsley. What did they come up with?
the current pack of wolves is packing townhalls with people who are "well-informed" by FOX News in the same sense a Soviet citizen was "well-informed" by TASS.
I think you're giving Ivan Vodkavich** too little credit. At least he knew he had to read between the lines to get real news out of Izvestiya and/or actual truth out of Pravda.
* I admit it: I always want to read that as "TOGGG!"
"I have no desire to stop it. In fact, I might even stay on this long enough that people think I have a deadly disease", Rush Limbaugh on losing 90 pounds in 6 months.
Wait, doesn't he already HAVE a deadly disease? Assholitis Majorum??? Besides, I'm not sure he lost weight as quickly as he did on the 'O.C. Chewables' diet - side effects include hearing loss and rehabitis...
I would credit the redundancy of "Nightly Evening News Tonight" as humorous, but I'm sure Tinshley probably just blacked out in the middle of it, and couldn't be arsed to fix it later.
Oh please. The opposition to health care boils down to "we don't want to pay for it".* So the bulk of the opposition might as well get up at the meetings and say, "I'd rather let millions of my fellow countrymen live in fear of even the most minor of medical misfortunes, and yes even die, then pay a few hundred more in taxes a year." Sounds pretty crazy and dangerous to me.
*I am, of course, excluding the percent of them who think that giving people access to affordable drugs is the same thing as letting millions starve to death in the cold of winter. Or the ones who feel they need to bring guns to meetings, just in case their extremely well thought-out and masterfully vocalized position is somehow not headed, and they might need to start killing people. Or the people who think that the Government can't be trusted to be competent enough to pay for a sonogram, but should continue to spend billions a year on the most advanced tools of killing and warfare, that will be directly under the government's control.
Hey! Who knows, possibly one day soon you will see this banner in place of the Mallard Fillmore strip, which you all love to hate. But what would most of you do with your free time?
I'm relatively new to this blog, so maybe some of y'all can help me out here: How much did XAnon and all those other Deeply Cincerned Civil Libertarians complain when Obama's predecessor was tapping our phones and data-mining our e-mails.
I like how, in order not to defend the shitty cartoon that is the subject of this blog, he tries to substitue another shitty right-wing propaganda vehicle to spout the talking points du jour.
XAnon, I remember how you were out there every day for the eight years prior to 2009 complaining about the theory of Unitary Executive.
Do you really think it's likely that a President -- any President -- would halt all internet commerce, banking, and corporate communications, on a national and multinational basis, on a whim?
CW in LA muttered... "I'm relatively new to this blog, so maybe some of y'all can help me out here: How much did XAnon and all those other Deeply Cincerned Civil Libertarians complain when Obama's predecessor was tapping our phones and data-mining our e-mails.
I like how, in order not to defend the shitty cartoon that is the subject of this blog, he tries to substitue another shitty right-wing propaganda vehicle to spout the talking points du jour."
I should not waste my time because it is like talking to a stump. Apparently you are either lazy, ignorant or both.
The Obama Administration has quietly expanded Bush's legal defense of Warrantless Wiretapping. In other words he believes it to be a good thing in the fight against terrorism, understand? The Patriot Act is still in place.
If you are truly concerned about your views why not do some research on your own. No, it's much easier to say this is shitty or that is shitty. Very intelligent.
Ooo, bold font! I guess our anonytroll is serious.
If posting here is "like talking to a stump", you are entirely free not to do so. But first, go ahead and explain why your injection of right-wing talking points into an unrelated discussion demands a more respectful reception on anyone's part.
But hey, since you want me to do "research", I found this on a Media Matters thread (Specifically: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908280043, although clearly I'm not as good at linking stuff as our anonytrolls):
"This is not new. It stems back to the findings... of a commission of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, presented as a prompting for then President-Elect Obama to create a new office, one that would specifically oversee "cybersecurity". Legislation was proposed in March by both Democratic and Republican members of Congress.... I don't recall any specific Republican criticism at the time, but it wouldn't surprise me. Still, bringing out the scary headlines now seems more of a recent theme than an honest reaction."
I further recall a major disruption of the internet by hackers in, I believe, May. No doubt if Obama had not acted at all, the Deeply Concerned Right would now be hyperventilating about his failure to "keep us safe".
PS - Your stuff is still shitty, truly and profoundly shitty. Have a nice day.
Oh, and another thing: If President Obama were to go to congress first thing upon their reconvening and ask them to repeal the Patriot Act, I'd be the first to applaud. But we all know what would happen next:
-Dick Cheney would be on our TVs 24/7, snarling about the imminent destruction of our country by Al Qaida. He wouldn't bother explaining why, if he's so worried about Al Qaida, he was a leading advocate for the previous administration's abanment of the pursuit of bin Laden and his organization to invade Iraq. And the "librul" media certainly wouldn't bother asking him.
-Glenn Beck would start blubbering about how "frightened for our country" he is.
-The lard-assed, oxycontin-addicted kiddie-diddler would lead the fulminating over how this "proves" Obama's secret Muslimness.
-Finally, about a month later, Tinshley would run a week or so of strips regurgitating the aformentioned.
So, before opening that can of sludge, let's get health care addressed well first.
Besides, when the Patriot Act and its attendant intrusions were enacted, a lot of us on the left predicted that the Republicans would find it distinctly less swell once an administration they didn't like was in place. And like clockwork, here they are.
And I'll confess, more than once I've thought how awesome it would be if its measures were in fact applied against Teabagger Nation. We can repeal the fucker on Jan. 19, 2017.
I'm sorry, Xanon, but President Obama has informed me that, as chief commissar of the intertubes, you are no longer permitted to post on this or any other blog until you've sobered up and get your driver's license back. Now get back to drawing a duck badly, will you?
Word verification: cringer (n.) one who comes across screeds posted by defenders of Bruce Tinshley.
Uhm, how is this "comic" "great timing in response to a column" written the day before?
Is Tinkley submitting his "comics" overnightly now? Or is he just eight years late in his concern for government control of public access to the news?
=====
As to the substance of the CNET report which repeats concerns ACTUAL Civil Libertarians raised in March ... to which Tinkley made what response??? ... the facts are that the Unitary Executive has always had the power to mess with ANY privately owned resources, including private networks, in an emergency. If your house is on fire and imperiling the neighborhood, the fireman need not knock on your door. The article itself refers to Bush's grounding of aircraft post-9/11, which you will note Tinkley objected to as an unreasonable seizure of Executive power. Not.
Certainly Civil Libertarians must keep a sharp eye on an Executive Branch that has lied us into war more than once, but the idea that Tinshley really cares about this ... or even understands the issue ... is the best punch line he's had all year.
That's the thing, rewinn; XAnonyshitty wasn't saying Mallard had a great cartoon; he was linking to a different shitty right-wing cartoon with a talking point more to his liking. Basically, he was using this blog to promote some other shitty product he's shilling for.
24 comments:
This is not North Korea, there is no "Dear Leader." If this was North Korea, your stupid comic would not be published. Okay, so North Korea is better than the US in one way.
You know, if you don't want to be labeled dangerous, you probably shouldn't cart around an assault rifle at a health care debate.
And if you don't want to be labeled crazy, you probably shouldn't tell the gov't to leave your medicare alone.
And if you don't want to be labeled a pawn, you probably shouldn't be so easily mislead by anger.
When people are bringing guns to the meetings, screaming Nazi at Jewish representatives, telling the government to keep their hands off of medicare...generally speaking that would be considered dangerous or at the very least a little crazy.
Remember the good ol' days? When the "liberal" media used words like "patriotic" to describe Yellow Elephants (suggesting that anti-war protesters weren't patriotic)? And how it was only really "liberal" in that it liberally undercut the crowd estimates of every war protest? Ah, memories.
People bitch for health care reform every single year right up to the point a Democrat offers it. Reagan cried "socialism," Gingrich unleashed "Harry & Louise," and the current pack of wolves is packing townhalls with people who are "well-informed" by FOX News in the same sense a Soviet citizen was "well-informed" by TASS.
Your boys had eight years and almost no resistance, Tinsley. What did they come up with?
I don't feel like commenting on this rubbish today, so I'll link to a good piece I heard on NPR about health care: Healing of America.
Tog* wrote:
the current pack of wolves is packing townhalls with people who are "well-informed" by FOX News in the same sense a Soviet citizen was "well-informed" by TASS.
I think you're giving Ivan Vodkavich** too little credit. At least he knew he had to read between the lines to get real news out of Izvestiya and/or actual truth out of Pravda.
* I admit it: I always want to read that as "TOGGG!"
** Dog-Russian for "Joe Sixpack".
WV: subdoppi
(Imagine it all green and wavy....)
Nothing else to add today --what else is there to say-- but I thought this was too good to pass up.
On another note,
"I have no desire to stop it. In fact, I might even stay on this long enough that people think I have a deadly disease", Rush Limbaugh on losing 90 pounds in 6 months.
Wait, doesn't he already HAVE a deadly disease? Assholitis Majorum??? Besides, I'm not sure he lost weight as quickly as he did on the 'O.C. Chewables' diet - side effects include hearing loss and rehabitis...
I would credit the redundancy of "Nightly Evening News Tonight" as humorous, but I'm sure Tinshley probably just blacked out in the middle of it, and couldn't be arsed to fix it later.
Oh please.
The opposition to health care boils down to "we don't want to pay for it".*
So the bulk of the opposition might as well get up at the meetings and say, "I'd rather let millions of my fellow countrymen live in fear of even the most minor of medical misfortunes, and yes even die, then pay a few hundred more in taxes a year."
Sounds pretty crazy and dangerous to me.
*I am, of course, excluding the percent of them who think that giving people access to affordable drugs is the same thing as letting millions starve to death in the cold of winter. Or the ones who feel they need to bring guns to meetings, just in case their extremely well thought-out and masterfully vocalized position is somehow not headed, and they might need to start killing people.
Or the people who think that the Government can't be trusted to be competent enough to pay for a sonogram, but should continue to spend billions a year on the most advanced tools of killing and warfare, that will be directly under the government's control.
Good cartoon. Great timing! In response to the column of August 28, 2009. Bill would give president emergency control of Internet.
Hey! Who knows, possibly one day soon you will see this banner in place of the Mallard Fillmore strip, which you all love to hate. But what would most of you do with your free time?
I'm relatively new to this blog, so maybe some of y'all can help me out here: How much did XAnon and all those other Deeply Cincerned Civil Libertarians complain when Obama's predecessor was tapping our phones and data-mining our e-mails.
I like how, in order not to defend the shitty cartoon that is the subject of this blog, he tries to substitue another shitty right-wing propaganda vehicle to spout the talking points du jour.
vw: atiess - a female atier.
XAnon, I remember how you were out there every day for the eight years prior to 2009 complaining about the theory of Unitary Executive.
Do you really think it's likely that a President -- any President -- would halt all internet commerce, banking, and corporate communications, on a national and multinational basis, on a whim?
Really?
CW in LA muttered...
"I'm relatively new to this blog, so maybe some of y'all can help me out here: How much did XAnon and all those other Deeply Cincerned Civil Libertarians complain when Obama's predecessor was tapping our phones and data-mining our e-mails.
I like how, in order not to defend the shitty cartoon that is the subject of this blog, he tries to substitue another shitty right-wing propaganda vehicle to spout the talking points du jour."
I should not waste my time because it is like talking to a stump. Apparently you are either lazy, ignorant or both.
The Obama Administration has quietly expanded Bush's legal defense of Warrantless Wiretapping. In other words he believes it to be a good thing in the fight against terrorism, understand? The Patriot Act is still in place.
If you are truly concerned about your views why not do some research on your own. No, it's much easier to say this is shitty or that is shitty. Very intelligent.
Ooo, bold font! I guess our anonytroll is serious.
If posting here is "like talking to a stump", you are entirely free not to do so. But first, go ahead and explain why your injection of right-wing talking points into an unrelated discussion demands a more respectful reception on anyone's part.
But hey, since you want me to do "research", I found this on a Media Matters thread (Specifically: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908280043, although clearly I'm not as good at linking stuff as our anonytrolls):
"This is not new. It stems back to the findings... of a commission of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, presented as a prompting for then President-Elect Obama to create a new office, one that would specifically oversee "cybersecurity". Legislation was proposed in March by both Democratic and Republican members of Congress.... I don't recall any specific Republican criticism at the time, but it wouldn't surprise me. Still, bringing out the scary headlines now seems more of a recent theme than an honest reaction."
I further recall a major disruption of the internet by hackers in, I believe, May. No doubt if Obama had not acted at all, the Deeply Concerned Right would now be hyperventilating about his failure to "keep us safe".
PS - Your stuff is still shitty, truly and profoundly shitty. Have a nice day.
Oh, and another thing: If President Obama were to go to congress first thing upon their reconvening and ask them to repeal the Patriot Act, I'd be the first to applaud. But we all know what would happen next:
-Dick Cheney would be on our TVs 24/7, snarling about the imminent destruction of our country by Al Qaida. He wouldn't bother explaining why, if he's so worried about Al Qaida, he was a leading advocate for the previous administration's abanment of the pursuit of bin Laden and his organization to invade Iraq. And the "librul" media certainly wouldn't bother asking him.
-Glenn Beck would start blubbering about how "frightened for our country" he is.
-The lard-assed, oxycontin-addicted kiddie-diddler would lead the fulminating over how this "proves" Obama's secret Muslimness.
-Finally, about a month later, Tinshley would run a week or so of strips regurgitating the aformentioned.
So, before opening that can of sludge, let's get health care addressed well first.
Besides, when the Patriot Act and its attendant intrusions were enacted, a lot of us on the left predicted that the Republicans would find it distinctly less swell once an administration they didn't like was in place. And like clockwork, here they are.
And I'll confess, more than once I've thought how awesome it would be if its measures were in fact applied against Teabagger Nation. We can repeal the fucker on Jan. 19, 2017.
vw: prola = pro-LA. That's me; Go Galaxy!
I LAHK TA TAWK TA STUMPES
YER LAZY
YALL SHUD SIT ON YER ARSES
AND REPEET MEGADITTERS
LAHK ME
I'S INTELIGINT
BUSH/PALIN FEREVER!
WULVEREENS!!!!!
I'm sorry, Xanon, but President Obama has informed me that, as chief commissar of the intertubes, you are no longer permitted to post on this or any other blog until you've sobered up and get your driver's license back. Now get back to drawing a duck badly, will you?
Word verification: cringer (n.) one who comes across screeds posted by defenders of Bruce Tinshley.
This delusional victimhood is truly remarkable.
Delusional victimhood is the mother's milk of contemporary American conservatism. It's about all they have left.
The latest grand fiction of the GOP against health care reform is the astonishing suggestion that Democrats are plotting to deny Republicans health care.
This time, however, their own bullshit may have blown up in their face.
This will not keep Tin from pounding the table about it at length in two weeks, however.
re: Tog's last post - It's finally happened. The Rethugs have told a lie that I wish were true.:p
Uhm, how is this "comic" "great timing in response to a column" written the day before?
Is Tinkley submitting his "comics" overnightly now? Or is he just eight years late in his concern for government control of public access to the news?
=====
As to the substance of the CNET report which repeats concerns ACTUAL Civil Libertarians raised in March ... to which Tinkley made what response??? ... the facts are that the Unitary Executive has always had the power to mess with ANY privately owned resources, including private networks, in an emergency. If your house is on fire and imperiling the neighborhood, the fireman need not knock on your door. The article itself refers to Bush's grounding of aircraft post-9/11, which you will note Tinkley objected to as an unreasonable seizure of Executive power. Not.
Certainly Civil Libertarians must keep a sharp eye on an Executive Branch that has lied us into war more than once, but the idea that Tinshley really cares about this ... or even understands the issue ... is the best punch line he's had all year.
That's the thing, rewinn; XAnonyshitty wasn't saying Mallard had a great cartoon; he was linking to a different shitty right-wing cartoon with a talking point more to his liking. Basically, he was using this blog to promote some other shitty product he's shilling for.
Post a Comment