Project Wonderful Banner

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

That damned Logo

What's Mallard raving about today?

President Obama

Is Mallard Fillmore really complaining that President Obama appears on TV? I mean, he is the leader of the free world, but that's no reason for News outlets to cover him.


NickE said...

And how many televised Republican debates have there been so far?

So far this week?

Tog said...

Oh, for God's sake.

If anyone wants a REAL laugh, bop on over to Doonesbury (main site) and check out the "Blowback" section. Hoo boy, some people just don't get jokes.

They are Batshit's audience.

dlauthor said...

But if he wasn't on TV, how would Tinshley ever find out about him?

Toots McGee said...

Next thing you know, Obama's going to want to come on television and monopolize network airtime to make a speech about the state of the nation!!

The nerve of that guy!

Anonymous said...

It's literally dumb luck that Obama will be on TV today, as Tinshley has thoroughly demonstrated a lack of being able to plan ahead. And there will be a new campaign slogan this year, but definitely not that one.

Rootbeer said...

President Obama...

...will cram his lower body into a small reddish-black box and fly around magically while doing a Nixon impersonation.

CW in LA said...

Wait, it's January 24 and he's still doing these ridiculous New Year's predictions?

Lemme guess: He also believes poor kids lack a work ethic.

Anonymous said...

"Leader of the Free World" - Isn't this a somewhat ironic title in light of the reality of Obama's extra-legal targeting of American citizens for death, the Defense Appropriations Act's provisions for the indefinite detention without charges of American citizens, and the on-going Patriot Act? Maybe "free" means something different to you?
Sorry, I forgot that mentioning such things makes me an unwelcome troll. I'll just whistle a happy tune and go along quietly. "4 more years!"

Frank Stone said...

No one here said "leader of the free world". Your faux outrage is getting a bit ahead of you. And it's "concern troll", not "unwelcome troll".

CW in LA said...

Sure, Anonyconcerntroll, and your doddering old guy would make everything sooooooo much better. If you're a white guy who owns property or at least likes his weed, that is.

Fredyy said...

Right, because it's not like "leader of the free world" is a standard epithet applied to the President of the United States, regardless of their policies meant to reflect his importance on the world stage (and thus his propensity to be on TV). I mean, that explanation would be far too simple.

It's use must signal that anyone who voted for President Obama mindlessly supports every single thing that he has ever done.

Thanks for helping us see that. Now take off the foil hat.

Bill the Splut said...

The timing is great! Today, the same day that we found out Romney gets (not makes) $20 million a year just for breathing, Mitt gave a SOTU "prebuttal" on TV from a closed factory, decrying Obama's terrible economy.

The factory closed when Dubya was president.

rewinn said...

"As seem on TV" will never be said of Mallard Fillmore.

rewinn said...

BTW did Anonymous Coward just criticize the Republican-controlled House for refusing to repeal the Patriot Act? And for inserting disgusting provisions into the latest "Defense" Department appropriations bill?

Obama has executive authority not to use those provisions, and he has stated that that is how he will act, but our Constitution does not permit him to amend statutes. Is Anonymous Coward suggesting that Obama is to blame for not suspending Congress?

David in NYC said...

@Frank Stone --

You might want to read what DaveyK said:

"I mean, he is the leader of the free world, but that's no reason for News outlets to cover him."

Sounds exactly like someone called him "the leader of the free world" to me.

@rewinn --

Obama also has "executive authority" to veto any bill that Congress passes. You may have noticed that he didn't do that.

President Hopey-Changey may be much, much better than the collection of assclowns the Rethugs are sorting through to be the losing candidate in 2012, but let's not pretend he's anything close to perfect.

rewinn said...

@David in NYK - thank you for getting a ID. It's really helpful to have a conversation with a real person.

Certainly, Obama had the option of vetoing the Defense Appropriations Bill. Is that what you wanted - please say yes or no?

It was a classic poison pill. Obama's political opponents stuck something disgusting into a bill that had to pass. If he vetoed it, they'd make political hay; if he signed it, they'd make political hay.

You may criticize Obama for not vetoing it, but only if you criticize Boehner for putting the pill in there in the first place.

Kip W said...

David in NYC: Welcome. Pull up a chair and feel free to disagree. The GOP's been playing this game a while, and they like sticking important bills to pet issues. For his part, Obama knows when a veto is likely to be overridden and makes his choice depending on how he wants to come out looking (when he can't change the outcome of the bill). Also, he's far from the left-wing caricature Tinsley features, being somewhat to the right of one Richard Milhous Nixon. So he's bound to do stuff many of us here don't agree with, even though those on the right wouldn't be willing to thank him if he passed a bill specifically giving ten grand to everyone in the GOP.

On the other hand, this is actually not a web site for detailed political discussions. We're really here to jeer at Tinsley's incompetent attempts at cartooning and clumsy regurgitation of daily talking points. With that in mind:

Goofus continues to stare at his empty orb, though his own empty orbs have become completely opaque and he's starting to smell like road kill.

Gallant tries to distract attention from his nine-inch chin with the two letters that have been proven able to completely derail the thought processes of a bit under half the voters in the country.

Oh, and I predict: more predictions! Pretty safe one, eh?

Frank Stone said...

>>You might want to read what DaveyK said:
"I mean, he is the leader of the free world, but that's no reason for News outlets to cover him."<<

D'oh! I was only focusing on the commenters. My bad. Which is more of an acknowledgement of error than anyone will ever get from Mallard/Brucie.

David in NYC said...

@rewinn --

Yes, I understand that Obama's options were basically "bad" or "worse". I just wanted to emphasize that he DID have an option.

And, yes, I do think he should have vetoed it.

@Kip W --

See above re the "detailed political discussion".

Yes, I agree that Obama is certainly to the right of Nixon; I've suggested that he should run for the Republican nomination since he's the closest thing to a "Republican" candidate (i.e., not insane, lives in the "reality-based community", etc.) out there.

As for Ducky, well, yeah. There will be more "predictions", they will be as "clever" as they always are, and the strip will continue to reflect all the "research" he does before writing.

@Frank Stone --

No problem. And, yes, that is one of the most significant differences between Ducky and the commenters here: the ability to recognize and ackowledge mistakes. Because, you know, no wingnut -- especially Brewski -- has ever made a mistake in the history of mankind.