Internet Webguy posted:

Yeah, he's doing a false equivalency between gun rights people and the plastic bag bans. Except he doesn't even mention guns, so it rings kind of hollow.

1

Action-Man posted:

Irony Be My Shield posted:

Oh god before long they will finish constructing that IRAN

Mister Beeg posted:

Since you brought it up....

Steve Breen was supposed to be the partner in Kelley's "Dustin". Long story short, Breen's newspaper, San Diego Union-Tribune forbade him from working with Kelley. This is because the newspaper used to employ Steve Kelley (in fact, Steve Breen is Kelley's replacement), but they fired him over a butt crack. (No Seriously).

Steve Kelley, as a result, tried to sue his former employer. The judge eventually threw the case out.

Shadowed Bacon posted:

the American Bible society is the group. "Bible-Minded" means a person reads the Bible every week and agrees strongly with the accuracy of the Bible. Most of the High Bible ares are in in the south, no surprise.

The least Bible minded included San Fransisco, Boston and Manchester. It boils down to: Bible belt = Bible and upper east coast and Cali= not Bible.

Mister Beeg posted:

Did you push the "submit" button the same second as I did?

Just so it's on this page...

quote:

A CARTOON SHOWING A BIT of bare buttocks starts a string of events that leads to the firing of San Diego Union-Tribune cartoonist Steve Kelley and criticism of the paper's failure to report it.
Kelley says the trouble began when he showed a penciled version of a cartoon to Editorial Page Editor Robert A. Kittle, who objected to the "butt cracks" Kelley had drawn on two teenagers with baggy, drooping pants. When Kelley returned the following day, April 6, with an inked, revised version, he says neither Kittle nor Senior Editor Bill Osborne were in their offices, so he left the cartoon with a third editor, a move that "was not unprecedented."
Kittle says the cartoon was never approved for publication and that he pulled it from the prepared page. Kelley says that on April 9, Osborne accused him of trying to sneak the cartoon into the paper and lying about it. He responded with an obscenity and, after a meeting with Editor Karin Winner, was suspended for two weeks "pending an investigation."
Osborne and Winner declined to discuss what happened, citing legal restrictions.
After weeks of what he calls "back and forth" with the paper over whether he would resign and accept severance in return for silence, Kelley was fired on May 25, with no severance, which he says would have been "hush money." Days later he told his story to a local television station that had contacted him, and a few days after that, the paper ran a news story about the incident, including a quote from Winner saying the paper should have reported on Kelley's departure the day he went on TV. The U-T's readers' representative, Gina Lubrano, chided the paper for being so slow to level with readers. The paper received about 150 letters and dozens of calls.
Kelley says he thinks his firing was partly about his political philosophy, which is "fairly right of center," on an editorial page staff so politically divided "it's like the Middle East."
"That's preposterous," Winner says.
"The whole thing has really concerned procedure, not philosophy," says Herb Klein, editor in chief of parent company Copley Newspapers. "It's not easy to let someone go after this many years.... You just have to enforce the same kind of rules for everybody."
Kelley, 42, a high-profile local figure who conducted part of the interview with AJR via cell phone while playing in a golf tournament, says he can afford to wait for a job he really wants. Meanwhile, he's asked the paper to apologize for its accusations. "This has been my life for 20 years," he says. "I'm proud of what I've done here. I would just like the record corrected."

Prokhor Zakharov posted:

Holy poo poo this is amazing


"Ya gotta give me the butt cracks!!

Ammat The Ankh posted:

7

Why does everyone think the shorthand for "Mexicans" is "moustaches"?

Action-Man posted:

Do people really still believe in the gateway drug theory?

Lycus posted:

Haha, using the "gateway drug" fallacy to combat the "legal weed = weaker cartels" argument.

I think a lot of people that are adamantly against legalization believe in it, but they don't bring it up unless pressed.

Lemming posted:

I'm not sure that predicting future textbooks will be full of lovely political cartoons is being optimistic.

Internet Webguy posted:

2

Action-Man posted:

That would be Bennett.

Jakcson posted:

Besides that, what's the point of importing stuff like heroin and cocaine when you can just make synthetic versions (fentanyl and meth)?

And I guess synthetic THC, but why bother when it's so easy to get marijuana?

Rigged Death Trap posted:

Fentanyl is not much safer than heroin and meth has a different mode(s) of action than cocaine.


alsoe what the hell is that guy on about? Is it jus more 'Gateway drug hurrr de harr' or something else entirely?

Action-Man posted:

Do people really still believe in the gateway drug theory?

Ammat The Ankh posted:

7

Why does everyone think the shorthand for "Mexicans" is "moustaches"?

Pit of Despair posted:

Man...I can totally see this thread causing the same thing to happen, but instead it's Ramirez getting his cartoons with lengthy left wing screeds pasted all over them. Or maybe just "see that big thing you drew? Label it debt. You know you want to."

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

3

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

2

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

PUGGERNAUT posted:

Hasn't Obama used a very low amount of executive orders, compared to other recent presidents? I swear I just saw a chart showing this the other day.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

Eponymouse posted:

What the gently caress is a "mask recording"??

tifosibella posted:

Presumably she's got an MP3 of Darth Vader's respirator on loop.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

XavierGenisi posted:

From now on I'm going imagine that Obama is always doing a Palpatine impression, and Hillary is always wearing a Vader mask. Thanks Muir, that's actually a pretty hilarious mental image.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

Discendo Vox posted:

Yes. The statistical evidence is that those using certain drugs are more likely to use certain others. In addition to marijuana, it's also been tentatively proposed for nicotine and alcohol, but causation is difficult to demonstrate because the mechanism of action is unclear- in some cases or with some drugs, as mentioned above, it may just be an effect of social factors. A 2011 study in mice found a potential priming effect for cocaine via nicotine, which if it is real/significant, and if it translates to a human model (not small issues), would provide the first potential for an etiological explanation. The problem is that politoonists and pundits overstate the theory's strength- like any other addictive substance research, getting strong evidence is borderline impossible. Gateway drug rationales are a poor basis for policy until stronger proof emerges.

StarMagician posted:

I'd always thought the idea wasn't that marijuana makes you more physically susceptible to addiction to harder drugs, but that the action barriers you have to clear in order to use marijuana illegally (finding dealers, risking arrest and imprisonment, buying and owning paraphernalia) are similar enough to those that stand in the way of use of other drugs that once you've cleared them it's not much of a jump to go from one to the other.

In other words, marijuana is a gateway drug because it is illegal.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

Dr. VooDoo posted:

A Monica Lewinsky reference and joke in the year 2014 careful now you might set the comic world on fire with such timely and biting commentary

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1