DS/Tinsley City synchonicity today
Mike Beede
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080927&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2008/9/27&name=Prickly_City>
Apparently "hair plugs" is on the list of Publican
Party talking points for the campaign. I'm not
really looking forward to a week of gags on them,
but I guess we'll just have to lie back and think
of England.
Mike Beede
J.D. Baldwin
Some things will never stop being funny. Dropping a safe on someone's
head is on the list. Hair plugs are also on it. [Haven't looked at
the specific cartoons yet.]
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jym Dyer
> on someone's head is on the list. Hair plugs are also on
> it. [Haven't looked at the specific cartoons yet.]
=v= Well, when you see this one:
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080927&name=Mallard_Fillmore
You'll find that Tinsley hasn't lost his knack for making
anything and everything UNfunny.
=v= Seriously, is there anyone who could explain to Tinsley
(I lack the requisite monosyllabic vocabulary) that if your
punchline is that a black guy calls everything racist, well,
that's racist?
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Hair plugs are certainly funny when the first go in.
Berke Breathed did a pretty good Sunday strip about that.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> > Some things will never stop being funny. Dropping a safe
> > on someone's head is on the list. Hair plugs are also on
> > it. [Haven't looked at the specific cartoons yet.]
>
> =v= Well, when you see this one:
>
> http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080927&name=Mallard_Fillmore
>
> You'll find that Tinsley hasn't lost his knack for making
> anything and everything UNfunny.
I see I did indeed underestimate the man.
LNER...@juno.com
> =v= Seriously, is there anyone who could explain to Tinsley
> (I lack the requisite monosyllabic vocabulary) that if your
> punchline is that a black guy calls everything racist, well,
> that's racist?
You misspelled "Obama's campaign and supporters" as "a black guy".
Unfortunately, it's 100% true. We've seen essays and arguments all
over the place--most notably Jacob Weisburg's essay in Newsweek, "What
Will the Neighbors Think?": http://www.newsweek.com/id/155117/output/print
--that basically state that we are obligated, thanks to centuries of
past racism perpetuated by other people that weren't alive when I was
born, to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin.
In other words, because of racism that I had nothing to do with, I'm
supposed to practice it.
It is literally the first time in my life I have been reduced to
literal "F*#( YOU!" reaction to anything purporting to be a serious
political argument--as opposed to, say, the rantings of a La Rouche
supporter or an Archie Bunker clone.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> <http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080927&name=Ma...>
> <http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2008/9/27&name=Pr...>
>
> Apparently "hair plugs" is on the list of Publican
> Party talking points for the campaign. I'm not
> really looking forward to a week of gags on them,
> but I guess we'll just have to lie back and think
> of England.
>
> Mike Beede
What I don't understand is that the hair plugs were put in years ago.
I would understand if Biden mysteriously sprouted a full head of hair
in the middle of the campaign. What is the shelf life for jokes about
changes in appearence?
LNER...@juno.com
> What I don't understand is that the hair plugs were put in years ago.
> I would understand if Biden mysteriously sprouted a full head of hair
> in the middle of the campaign. What is the shelf life for jokes about
> changes in appearence?
Burt Reynolds' toupee?
Oprah's short-term slender look?
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Two examples which further illustrate my point.
racs...@gmail.com
He didn't say "vote for Obama because he's black." What he said was
that Obama is clearly superior to old, confused McSame and that the
only reason Obama isn't walking away with this vote is because there
is a substantial white population that won't vote for a black man even
if he's the most qualified candidate.
He was quite articulate about those "Archie Bunker clones" who come up
with nonsensical reasons not to vote for Obama when they are simply
among the 26% of white whiners who claim to have suffered
"discrimination" but don't have the cojones to admit that they just
won't vote for a black man. Read what he wrote.
And, hey, if you want to really set off an Archie Bunker clone,
suggest to him that someone might oppose a candidate because of his
race. He'll come roaring back with the accusation that you said that
everybody has to vote for a minority. Bet on it.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org
<racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He didn't say "vote for Obama because he's black." What he said was
> that Obama is clearly superior to old, confused McSame and that the
> only reason Obama isn't walking away with this vote is because there
> is a substantial white population that won't vote for a black man
> even if he's the most qualified candidate.
Gosh, if only those pesky proles would quit voting the way *they* see
the parties, issues and individuals in the contest, and just do what
the liberal intelligentsia tell them is "clearly superior," things
would be so much simpler.
Detox
wrote:
> On Sep 28, 10:16 am, LNER4...@juno.com wrote:
> > Unfortunately, it's 100% true. We've seen essays and arguments all
> > over the place--most notably Jacob Weisburg's essay in Newsweek, "What
> > Will the Neighbors Think?":http://www.newsweek.com/id/155117/output/print
> > --that basically state that we are obligated, thanks to centuries of
> > past racism perpetuated by other people that weren't alive when I was
> > born, to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin.
> He didn't say "vote for Obama because he's black." What he said was
> that Obama is clearly superior to old, confused McSame and that the
> only reason Obama isn't walking away with this vote is because there
> is a substantial white population that won't vote for a black man even
> if he's the most qualified candidate.
That article only works if one accepts the premise that Mr. Obama's
"eloquence, vision, handsome[ness], brillian[ce], and cool" are enough
to overcome his dearth of experience and make him the "most qualified
candidate".
--
Regards,
Dann
LNER...@juno.com
>
> He didn't say "vote for Obama because he's black." What he said was
> that Obama is clearly superior to old, confused McSame and that the
> only reason Obama isn't walking away with this vote is because there
> is a substantial white population that won't vote for a black man even
> if he's the most qualified candidate.
Quote:
"Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America.
We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation and
racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of
prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would
embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does
it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If
Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity
as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity
to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In
this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: the
United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-
interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race."
I agree somewhat with the first part, although I feel strongly that
race-baiters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would continue to
use race and racism (as in, actually continuing to practice racism) to
further their financial and political agendas.
It's the second part that is a loaded bunch of bull. It claims--
indirectly--that "if you don't elect Obama, it will mandate regression
in the progress we have made against racism." I quote:"His defeat
would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part
of our history behind us, we chose not to."
He reduces the reason to vote for Obama to his skin color. Plain and
simple. That, in my book, is racism.
This writer does not accept any of several possibilities: A majority
of voters might feel that McCain was better qualified, or that McCain
& Co. represent a better future for our government than Obama & Co.,
or that they didn't care for the promises or policies of Obama & Co.
Yes, there are people who will not vote for Obama because of the color
of his skin. I am willing to wager that there are MORE people who
will reject McCain/Palin because of their perceived religious views.
There are folks who wouldn't vote for Hillary either, some because
she's a woman but far more because of her politics and the prospect of
"Billary" back in the White House.
It's pretty f*cking simple. I want people to vote for a candidate/
pair of candidates based on his qualifications, world view, policies,
track record, what they are likely to deliver/do, etc. That writer
wants me to pick Obama because of his skin color. If I made the same
argument for McCain, you'd tell me to go get my white hood.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, <LNER...@juno.com> wrote:
> [...]
Shame on you for quoting actual source material to make your
point!
> I am willing to wager that there are MORE people who will reject
> McCain/Palin because of their perceived religious views.
Hey, here's a cartoon about that:
http://www.attackcartoons.com/article.php?story=200809020731335
Antonio E. Gonzalez
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>In the previous article, <LNER...@juno.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>
>Shame on you for quoting actual source material to make your
>point!
>
>> I am willing to wager that there are MORE people who will reject
>> McCain/Palin because of their perceived religious views.
>
>Hey, here's a cartoon about that:
>
> http://www.attackcartoons.com/article.php?story=200809020731335
Still not even inked; talk about begging for a gong . . .
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Dann
news:89m4e45b4lb9iq1np...@4ax.com.
> Still not even inked; talk about begging for a gong . . .
Why? That guy isn't a professional. He does what he does and then posts
it for everyone else's consideration.
Why should it have to be inked?
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 30 Sep 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
>news:89m4e45b4lb9iq1np...@4ax.com.
>
>> Still not even inked; talk about begging for a gong . . .
>
>Why? That guy isn't a professional. He does what he does and then posts
>it for everyone else's consideration.
>
*GONG*
That should be enough consideration . . .
>Why should it have to be inked?
It doesn't have to be, but the absence shows an incredible lack of
polish . . .
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com>
wrote:
> >> Still not even inked; talk about begging for a gong . . .
> >
> >Why? That guy isn't a professional. He does what he does and then
> >posts it for everyone else's consideration.
> >
>
> *GONG*
>
> That should be enough consideration . . .
Sorry the inconvenience of it all made you uncomfortable. I'm glad
you have a defense mechanism that lets you avoid thinking about it at
all.
> >Why should it have to be inked?
>
> It doesn't have to be, but the absence shows an incredible lack
> of polish . . .
I find the "unpolished" drawing style amusing and kind of engaging,
myself, quite apart from the content. Some of his panels shock me,
some piss me off, some make me groan and roll my eyes ... but about
one in thirty makes me go "Huh. Hadn't thought of it quite that way."
The one under discussion is one of that latter category.
Mike Marshall
>Why? That guy isn't a professional. He does what he does and then posts
>it for everyone else's consideration.
>Why should it have to be inked?
I finally had to go look. I like the art in his comics. Why should anything
have to be inked?
-Mike
nickelshrink
Um, okay, just to clarify - you posted awhile ago a link to this
talented cartoonist who was just doing skilled but simple unpolished
drawings and posting them for everyone's consideration:
> http://insertmonikerhere.blogspot.com/
But this guy,
> http://www.attackcartoons.com/article.php?story=200809020731335
who does (IMO) skillful caricatures in a simple drawing, should
get gonged?
FWIW I agree that the *premise* is bull. But you were addressing
the lack of artisitic polish. Simple no-frills line drawings, talented
artists, what's the difference?
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Humor, I guess it could be called "heart," both lacking in the
other, hence less leeway . . .
Dann
news:31ade49jchkpo06cd...@4ax.com.
Oh, but the irony.....
Antonio E. Gonzalez
The point stands . . .