Project Wonderful Banner

Saturday, September 19, 2009

That damned Hate

What's Mallard raving about today?

Readers, Mallard Fillmore, Hate.

Mallard has published 195 different strips on President Obama, amply demonstrating, in public, his feelings, whether you want to call it hatred, unhinged pants-wetting fear, or something else.

People have sent him letters asking about his very public record on this particular matter.

Mallard's response: They hate everyone with whom they disagree.

Crazy much?

20 comments:

GeoX said...

Yes, whenever I think "conservative," I think "civil disagreement." That's what the teabaggers are all about. Well, that and calling the President an islamofascocommunokenyanegroantichrist. But hey, they have their definition of "hate"--we have ours. Who can say which is right? Someone call David Brooks!

Frank Stone said...

Hell hath no fury like a right-winger forced to look in a mirror.

exanonymous said...

Asking why someone else hates someone or something is not itself hate.

But I understand. Mallard the victim, the voice of the silent majority, your average man (*for a given value of average). Wouldn't want to take that away from him, it's all he has.

Tog said...

I find it interesting that Tinsley puts "hate" into quotation marks; is it perhaps a little slip that reveals he knows he's full of crap?

Otherwise, it's clockwork Tinsley:
Day One: he attacks someone in the most unconscionable manner possible.
Day Two: he bawls that he's the victim of everyone else's meanness.

Frank pegged it: if Tinsley had to face the man in the mirror sober and in factual honesty, he wouldn't be able to live with himself.

Meanwhile, look at what Obama's doing. I don't believe for a moment that Obama's such a naif that he really believes racism doesn't drive a large part of the anti-everything-Obama-does mouth-foaming insanity; but he's still taking the high road and, in doing so, is giving his opponents the opportunity to do so as well.

It must have Bruce absolutely weeping and gnashing his teeth.

Tog said...

Wow, I can't wait to see Bruce "I'm Not Racist! You're Racist!" Tinsley's take on the latest psychotic fit pitched by his great mentor.

Michael said...

This has been "Mallard Fillmore: a case study in projection."

exanonymous said...

One very interesting thing about this:

Mallard does not dispute the fact that he hates Obama. At all. He deflects in a very obvious manner with absolutely no proof for the assertion he makes that it's those asking the question who harbor hatred.

He doesn't even attempt to provide solid reasons as to why he might dislike the president's policies. If he had done that, even though readers might disagree, they wouldn't be left with the need to ask why.

So, not only is there hate, but it's irrational.

David B said...

I’m with exanonymous on this—i find it most interesting that Tinsley never answers the question.

Now, i’ll admit it’s a “how long have you been beating your wife” sort of question, but he doesn’t even refute it on those grounds—he just projects based on the evidence of…well, pretty much nothing.

So Tinsley—how about an answer, or at least a rebuttal that wouldn’t be called out as a logical fallacy by any rookie member of their high-school debate team?

Anonymous said...

Tog, view the video...

Brutal school bus beating caught on tape.

Can you imagine the outrage if the kid who was beaten had been black and his attackers white? A brutal beating that police say may be racially motivated?

Perhaps we do need segregated school buses. We have to keep the blacks and white liberals happy.

No one gives a rats ass about the kid who was beaten it was all about Rush Limbaugh, he is the racist. Not the blacks on the bus.

Ducky is Right said...

*Opens up the bag of Troll Kibble*

Yeah, could you IMAGINE what it would be like if a black person got assaulted by white people? Cause I sure can't.

GeoX said...

Anonyloser proves Tinsley's point! He's not about rage--he's nothin' but calm, cool-headed criticism. Good job, anonyloser!

Tog said...

A brutal beating that police say may be racially motivated?

Nice cherry-picking technique you have there, troll. Now go back and read the article I linked to, then come back here and try to pass off the subsequent retraction by police of racial motive as some sort of anti-white conspiracy. Good doggy.

Let's put this in perspective: because of a single incident, Rush is screaming for racial resegregation.

There's no "people say" nonsense there; that is the precise gist of what Limbaugh said. Fat draft-dodging drug addict Rush Limbaugh, terrified that whites might be subjected to the same treatment non-whites have suffered for decades, is crying for the return of "the defense of white rights," David Duke style.

Spin that, anon.

exanonymous said...

Even suppose that incident was racially motivated 100%, that those kids were for some reason part of an anti-white hate group, exactly why does that one single incident highlight a need for segregation to return?

I didn't realize the granting of equal rights came with special caveats for black people where their rights are lost if they act up even once while a president is black.

Anonymous said...

Even if the incident were racially motivated, what does that have to do with the occupant of the white house? Is this the first incident of black-on-white violence ever, caused by the election of a black President? Are all previous Presidents responsible for the action of every white person in America?

The issue is not pointing to the possibility of racial motivation in the incident. The issue is assigning blame/responsibility to a black president.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Anonymous said...

Liberals twist sarcastic Rush riff into a call for segregated buses. The conservative the liberals love to hate. But than again, most liberals do hate anyone who is conservative.

exanonymous said...

Sarcastic?

Yeah, I don't like people who are continually sarcastic about hot issues. Look up the meaning of sarcasm. It doesn't mean "good fun and jest".

Also, Rush brought up segregation first. It isn't parody if you're the first to suggest it, even as a joke.

Ducky is Right said...

Typical Republican tactics.

Repub: "liberals are evil and they need to be marched into camps and executed systematically! What, oh, someone outside our Cult heard me? Well, I was just kidding. Can't you people understand jokes? Geez."

Anonymous said...

Yeah, because Rush is just as much a true God-fearing Christian as he is brave, modest, patriotic, law-abiding, intelligent, and a firm beliver in family values.

Rush! The draft-dodging, veteran-maligning, pill-popping pedo that neoconservatives love to love!

Rootbeer said...

FUCKING VOLVO-DRIVING LIBERALS I HATE THEM SO MUCH

Another dynamic Mallard Fillmore strip, full of exciting sitting and thinking action!

Rootbeer said...

Also, to explore David B's point, what if people were emailing Mallard to ask him a classic gotcha question:

Panel 1: "I get a lot of mail asking me, 'How long have you been beating your wife?'".....

Panel 2: "......from readers who probably beat their wives, too......."

Panel 3: "........oops, I forgot to not beat my wife!"