spoon0042 posted:

I fell a few... eight months behind in the last thread. Is Ramirez still an awful hack?

Discendo Vox posted:

I haven't heard anything about McMillan in almost a year now. What happened to her?

prefect posted:

"'One World Trade Center' says it all. Nothing about America."

Did the previous World Trade Center have America in its name, and I missed it?

change my name posted:

Also the name "one world" implies, you know, going beyond identity and self-aggrandizing, uniting for the common good. Where is he even getting this "me generation" stuff from?

Abyssal Squid posted:

I was going back and looking for all the "hurr global warming boat? but ice????" cartoons and I noticed that every single one of them has the ship in the exact same orientation: 3/4 perspective, facing right. I know the left-to-right orientation of English writing affects how you'd want to compose an image, but there's plenty of cartoons with vehicles in them that don't have the exact same composition. Plante's wagon just a few posts up is a good example. Ramirez doesn't count because even though he has vehicles going every which way, his composition is utterly wretched and he does everything wrong.Also, for some reason the ship is surrounded my mountains.

Just thought that was a bit of laziness frosting on the cliché cake.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

Captain_Maclaine posted:

It does that for periods, only to return to abuse once Kelley's mind inevitably wanders back to those goddamn lazy kids these days!

Trent posted:

Real men pay for their own medical care. Get a better job you deadbeat insurance-having poors.

Quantum Mechanic posted:

If you go off solely land temperature measurements, there's been no statistically significant warming in 17 years.

Because all the heat's been going into the ocean.

Radish posted:

I am curious if when it REALLY becomes a serious problem if the interests that heavily fought regulations will be remembered for the villains that they are or if it will just be "who could have known who was right?? Also they sincerely BELIEVED in their hearts it wasn't an issue so we can't judge" type bullshit.

Autumncomet posted:

Aug 19, 2011
You probably know Haudenosaunee as the Iroquois League. I think this is referring to an incident where the passports of the members of the Iroquois Nationals (best lacrosse team, imo ) weren't accepted, but it was England that did the not-accepting, not Canada. As for the cartoon itself, no idea.

quote:

The Iroquois passport is not accepted for entry into Canada. In early 2010, a delegation from Kahnawake to an environmental conference in Bolivia was unable to return to Canada on the passport, stranding the group in El Salvador for several weeks before they were allowed, under escort, to transit via the United States.[15] On June 18, 2011, yet another incident has occurred at the Cornwall, Ontario, port-of-entry into Canada where an Akwesasne Mohawk woman's Haudenosaunee passport was confiscated and a Certificate of Indian Status card had to be used to cross the border.[8] When asked about this incident, a spokesman for the Canada Border Services Agency confirmed that the Iroquois passport is not on Canada's list of acceptable identification.[16]

zoux posted:

So rather than the 1930's arguments, we go to arguments based in 19th century tsarist Russia.

Jurgan posted:

No, that would violate the Equal Protection provision of the 14th amendment (which was basically created because of laws exactly as ridiculous as that, but with "negro" in place of "redhead"). The Commerce Clause basically says that if it's an activity that involves economic interactions between two or more states, the federal government has a duty to regulate it for the well-being of the citizens. Something like sales of marijuana would be a legitimate sphere of federal power because it's often grown in one area and shipped across state lines to be sold. You could make an argument that the federal government has no right to prohibit people from growing and using marijuana in their own back yards, but I'm not sure how that would shake out. However, it would definitely be unconstitutional to restrict it based on inherent characteristics of the user (sex, race, hair color, etc.).

Autumncomet posted:

14
Sept 1
The title of this one is "Pat Rogers: Don't Dis on my Man Custer". I have no idea.

quote:

A progressive group called on Republican National Committee leader Pat Rogers to step down on Friday after emails showed him telling New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez's staff that meeting with a group of American Indians "dishonored" Gen. George Armstrong Custer, the 19th century commander who killed scores of American Indians.

"The state is going to hell," Rogers, who is a member of the GOP executive committee and is currently in Tampa for the RNC convention, wrote in a June 8 email released by Progress Now New Mexico. Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Col. Allen Weh "would not have dishonored Col Custer in this manner," he wrote.

Rorus Raz posted:

Chris Matthews probably.

quote:

What's the importance of the president's amazing display of leadership tonight?

What do you make of the actual visual that people will see on TV and probably, as you know, as well as I, will remember a lot longer than words spoken tonight? And that's the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a supersonic plane and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin like an actual jet pilot?

The president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.

Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell. Was that the best picture in the 2000 campaign?

The president's performance tonight, redolent of the best of Reagan -- what do you think?

He looks for real. What is it about the commander in chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him -- I mean, he seems like -- he didn't fight in a war, but he looks like he does.

Look at this guy!

We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

KimotaBoom posted:

Apparently it's a series of photoshopped images where the women are so thin that their hip bones stick out more than their stomach. So the cloth from hip bone to hip bone is like a bridge, because it doesn't touch the stomach flesh. Some people complained about it because there's a trend of people posting "thinspiration" photos on tumblr and such, and things like this can cause people with eating disorders to obsess over making their body thin enough for the bikini bridge. Same thing happened with the idea of a thigh gap.

Internet Webguy posted:

2
The best Branco's is when he draws too many things to label as scandals. BEER SUMMIT.

Lycus posted:

I think it was the first thing after inauguration that right raged about over Obama. Those were more innocent times.

colonel_korn posted:

You had me going there for a good long moment. I actually had to check Tinsley's site to see if it ran.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

2

Internet Webguy posted:

2
If they are going to vote democratic no matter what, how can you accuse Obama of bribing them?

Selachian posted:

You can do it now. The Senate Intelligence Committee just released the results of their Benghazi investigation yesterday. And, surprise surprise, they found the same things all the other investigators have: that the State Department did disregard requests for more security and that more could have been done to prevent the attack, but there was no "stand down" order or any of the other conspiracy theories that the GOP has been peddling for a year-plus now.

Taciturn Tactician posted:

Wait what? If the unemployment rate falls then how is that proof that government policy isn't helping the economy just because it's still high? Also, how does 6.7% total unemployment translate to 20% male unemployment? Are more than 100% of women employed?

majormonotone posted:

Pawns can't capture backwards.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

2

Zohar posted:

Could be a (misapplied) reference to the "leading from behind" thing from Libya?

Minrad posted:

It's just Ramirez caught in a catch-22 of "Obama is a bad president who can't do anything, hence why he isn't holding the flag" and "It's going to be Obama's fault when Iran nukes us after we surrender everything to them."

Rebochan posted:

11

Wow, still no gun comic from Bill Day. And we've had two shootings in a week!

TGLT posted:

Wait, what? Wasn't the Senate report basically "There's was no cover up or conspiracy. The attack might have been prevented by better intelligence and security funding, but by the time the attack happened it was too late." Am I missing something, or is McCoy, or what the gently caress?

Rorus Raz posted:

Yeah, you play Phoenix Wright thinking how ridiculous the whole thing is, but then go and read up on the Japanese court system and you'll see how the games are actually political satire. It might have made more sense to North American players if the English translation didn't have the game taking place in Los Angeles or something along those lines.

Mister Beeg posted:

This cartoon is



Paul Conrad was a LA Times cartoonist and a hardcore liberal. He won THREE Pulitzer Prize.

He was forced into retirement in 1993 by the new owners of the paper. The cartoonist that replaced Conrad? Michael Ramirez. You can figure out why Conrad was asked to leave. He continued to draw for syndication until his death in 2010.

loquacius posted:

I knew that comic was in horrible taste, and it definitely set off my bullshit detector; good to know it actually is complete and utter bullshit. Thanks for the link!

I think I've figured out why DbD makes me madder than other cartoonists like Ramirez or Lester who distribute just as vile a message to many more people. It's because not only is Muir's viewpoint reprehensible, and not only is his entire universe annoyingly juvenile, but he bases his viewpoint on things that are wrong, and wrong in dangerous ways. Blaming Democrats for mass shootings is one thing; blaming single moms (not absentee dads but single moms, for having the temerity to be left by absentee dads) for mass shootings is just vile, and he's doing it based on bad data. It's the whole "someone is wrong on the Internet " thing. People being wrong and making decisions based on that just gets under my skin.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

Samurai Sanders posted:

I've been staring at this for a few minutes now, and while I assume that the message is religious people = good, everyone else = bigots, I am not following the argument at all.