What's Mallard raving about today?
At a guess this is Mallard saying that the liberal argument is that change is only needed when the opposition party is in power (IE we only called for the status quo to change when they were the status quo). It seems sort of like a tautology.If he means that politicians campaign heavily on saying that things are bad and need to be changed, then either do the same things in office etc. well that's true of both sides.
Dear Wingnuts,You REALLY need to decide whether Obama is a radical marxislamocommie who's turning the country into Stalinist Russia on his insane, power-mad whims; or whether he's an ineffective, change-averse milquetoast. I know you want it to be BOTH because you have the idea that both of these scenarios annoy teh libruls, and that's all your politlcal "philosophy" amounts to, but you're looking even stupider than you usually do. Which is quite a thing.
Once again, he draws a caveman for no reason. The fact that he's a caveman contributes nothing to the joke. Why not just have Obama saying that himself?
Because he ran out of room for the chin?And, yes, this makes no sense. If Obama has established a different status quo, then he has brought about change. Specifically of the status quo. Which isn't a bad thing.See, once upon a time the status quo was that a colony existed under British law with no representation. I believe there was some big noise in 1776 and now it's changed and we established a new status quo that was better. Which is why that study of younger generations not identifying as republicans is interesting. Yes, many of them will grow up, and enough will aquire wealth and settle comfortably that they'll eventually become conservative. But that status quo that they decide they need to maintain as a conservative will be more progressive than the what conservatives want now.
I think Tinsley just doesn't understand what "status quo" actually means. The "I don't think that word means what you think it means" theory does go a long, long way towards explaining a lot of Tinsley's strips...
Again, a badly editted text.Tinkley (like many others) puts "only" in the wrong place. "only bad before X" means "it was nothing except bad until X happened, whereafter it may or may not be bad". You could, logically, say, "it was only bad before X, now it is only partly bad bad".So Tinkley's caveman is saying that the status quo is better now, which is an unintentional truth!What Drinkley is trying to have his caveman say is "bad only before X", meaning, "it was bad before, but only before, X; now it is not bad".So the balloons (dropping the functionless 1st balloon) would better read :"The status quo was bad ...""...ONLY before I became the status quo".Tinshley would still suffer from logical incoherence (Obama is a radical/Obama does nothing) and lazy drawing (decent cartoonists put three balloons in three panels, necessitating three drawings) but at least the words would express his "thought".
Status Quo, smatus quo. All this about cavemen without penis chins and change is only a coverup for Mallard refusing to release his birth certificate!
Wooo.... Bruce Tinsley has no fucking idea what the term "status quo" actually means....
I'll believe the status quo has changed when the administration stops watering every necessary change down in hopes of nonexistent bipartisan support for things most Americans want.
The Status Quo was the 60s band who recorded "Pictures of Matchstick Men." Knowing that makes me a cross-eyed Poindexter with a ponytail.
I'm lost here. Is he saying that liberals hated the president until there was a different president? That's all I can get, but that's retarded even by the pathetic standards of Dullard Failmore.WV: bounder; which means--hey wait, that's an actual word! Maybe the next time I'll get "cad" or "rapscallion."
I am sorry for my mental breakdown. I think I have calmed down enough to present a rational argument. Tinsley believes that liberals, only, want change when the current state of affairs is inconvenient. He ignores the fact that Republicans want change until the world become John Galt's island, covered in pale white. He uses a caveman as a strawman, because he believes that liberals and Black guys are inferior and what we would call poorly evolved--I am not sure how Tinsley would describe them; since he does not believe in the proved fact of evolution. Tinsley fails to understand irony, thus he will not notice the paradoxes in this paragraph.I, recently, read the classics Crime and Punishment and Romeo and Juliet, and noticed that writers used double hyphens, rather than ellipses, to indicate pauses. Tinsley should do the same--it would not be much of an improvement, but, at least, it would be a change from the endless flood of ellipses. I have a scary Halloween message for you, Tinsley: My parents and I are working on a charity that will provide jobs for the disenfranchised. I have been performing work, some of it unselfish, for the charity. One of our potential clients is a poor Latino. I am, also, working on a theory, and, if it is correct and the necessary technology and funding can be procured, it will advance, both, science and medicine. Assuming the ideal result is achieved, it will cause a substantial leap in both. You do not know who I am, so you have no way to stop my work! Pleasant dreams (maniacal laughter!)!Word Verification: Clesclon, the cyclone of destruction that will tear apart the world if Tinsley's ideas become law.Second Verification, after the first one failed: Dismorti, after reading Mallard Fillmore, I do not, just, want to die, I want to become dismorti.
Davey K:It is what it is.
In Tinsley's defense, he has his real readers - not us - conditioned to either see dinosaurs or cavemen as having an implied banner title "LIBERALS - THE EARLY YEARS" or somesuch.
It is what it isDidn't get that until I saw Friday's strip.Speaking of which: even without his political or racial mean streaks (Friday's strip is basically a "Lockhorns" that somehow wandered into Mallard's spot), Tinsley simply cannot evoke laughs.
On the one hand, the bromide "It is what it is" has long been a pet peeve of mine. I mean, what the hell else would it be?On the other hand, the czar czrap is an extravagantly silly talking point. Not quite as dumb as the teleprompter perhaps, but close.
"I mean, what the hell else would it be?"Well, CW, it could be something that it isn't. For example, on Faux Sports, there is a current promotional campaign describing the baseball playoffs as "beyond baseball". Seriously.So, baseball isn't baseball, it's beyond baseball; it isn't what it is. Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.Then again, logic has never been a strong point for the wingnut crowd.
Streams of ellipses... sign of disorganized mind... can't use punctuation... particularly prevalent in pathetic and funerary poetry... found in cheaply reproduced periodicals... handed out free... full of classified ads...
@Kip W - thanks! I just looked them up on Youtube and they are pretty awesome. Best result of reading Mallard EVER!
Post a Comment