|
 The Sunday Prickly City is practically by a different goddamn person. I can only reconcile it by assuming that she's upset by BENGHAZI
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Sunday Benghazi Cities aren't political, apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
The Wizard of Oz posted:Sunday Benghazi Cities aren't political, apparently. Apparently the bottom of the Obamacare rabbit hole (HA! HA! HA!) is pretty nice?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
I guess that explains why I just remember it being a child and an animal wondering around desert landscapes, we only got the Sunday comics.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Agh god these own so hard. Please continue.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:Agh god these own so hard. Please continue. Agreed, I don't know where you're getting ideas for the text but they're pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Yeah, the Ye Fowl Herald is basically alchemy, please keep doing them they crack me up
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
The Wizard of Oz posted:Sunday Benghazi Cities aren't political, apparently. A lot of papers carry Sunday comics without the weeklies, so that you end up with an extra-large Sunday comics section. I figure Prickly City's are apolitical so that they can sell them to more papers.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Bill Watterson wrote about the challenge of writing Sunday strips that follow ongoing plots in the daily strips and making sure it still worked for readers who could only see one or the other.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
 It's really not a good comic but I don't think many of you know anything about this and my own understanding is only superficial so there we go. ...this means I have to go back through his backlog and post all of the ones on the Cherokee freedmen issue huh? 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Here's a couple   
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Maybe I didn't understand that comic...is he bitching that once their slaves were freed, the Cherokee had to treat them like anyone else in their community rather getting to just throw the freedmen out with the clothes on their backs now that they don't get to own them anymore? Because I thought TwoBulls usually had good opinions...am I A Bad Cartooning this? Someone help 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe I didn't understand that comic...is he bitching that once their slaves were freed, the Cherokee had to treat them like anyone else in their community rather getting to just throw the freedmen out with the clothes on their backs now that they don't get to own them anymore? I think the thing is that descendents of freedmen were formerly able to claim tribal membership, while the tribe itself wants to make membership based solely on blood relation, and that a forthcoming judicial decision will back the tribe's (and Marty's) opinion, or make it so non-blood-relations can remain in the tribe, thus reducing citizenship in value in their eyes to a wad of paperwork.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe I didn't understand that comic...is he bitching that once their slaves were freed, the Cherokee had to treat them like anyone else in their community rather getting to just throw the freedmen out with the clothes on their backs now that they don't get to own them anymore? I think he's expressing contempt that a federal judge gets to decide the meaning of tribal membership
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe I didn't understand that comic...is he bitching that once their slaves were freed, the Cherokee had to treat them like anyone else in their community rather getting to just throw the freedmen out with the clothes on their backs now that they don't get to own them anymore?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think Two Bulls is summarizing the issue and is implying this is an rear end in a top hat thing for the Cherokees to do, and that (in his opinion) they are in the wrong on the matter. I don't know the facts but it seems to be An Informative Cartoon. See, I took it as him backing the Cherokee stance.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Allen Wren posted:See, I took it as him backing the Cherokee stance. Same. There's really nothing in that cartoon to indicate that he disagrees with the Cherokee stance. And the little thing in the corner only seems to back that point.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Garrand posted:Same. There's really nothing in that cartoon to indicate that he disagrees with the Cherokee stance. And the little thing in the corner only seems to back that point.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I read it that he's criticizing the Cherokee for causing the problem, which led the freedmen's descendants to sue. I'm not sure where you're getting that. It seems to me he's throwing the freedmen under the bus. It any case it's crystal clear his support lies with the Cherokee.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
He's definitely critical of a federal judge making this decision, although I'm not clear on why exactly, beyond the general negative historic relationship between the native american peoples and the federal government. Textually, his use of the word "fact" under A suggests his support, particularly with B couched in negative terms. I'm not clear, though- the gopher commentary at the bottom is another confusing narrative I can't quite make mesh. My best reading of all the elements is this: Two Bulls supports the Cherokee and opposes the freedmen positions, but his real commentary is that by taking this position, the tribe is violating a treaty. As a result, the federal judge (who is evil, because gubmint) is ironically getting to say that the Cherokee violated a treaty, something the feds have been known to do in the past. At the same time, the ruling will diminish the meaning of what it is to be Cherokee. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:02 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
What's with the judge depiction, anyways? Is it just a generic "white people / government BAAAAAAAAD" or what?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Garrand posted:Same. There's really nothing in that cartoon to indicate that he disagrees with the Cherokee stance. And the little thing in the corner only seems to back that point. Yeah I can't read the corner thing as anything other than "Well now it's our turn to break a treaty and gently caress over people darker than we!"
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
The two options being "Uphold the fact that you must be born a Native American to be one" and "Allow Native American citizenship to be just another application process" shows pretty clearly what he thinks of the issue.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
It's a good likeness of Hogan, though. Hogan might have a negative reputation with the tribe already?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Garrand posted:The two options being "Uphold the fact that you must be born a Native American to be one" and "Allow Native American citizenship to be just another application process" shows pretty clearly what he thinks of the issue.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
You're making fun of a woman who pleaded for 250+ small children not to be raped, mutilated, sold into slavery or murdered. That is what you are making fun of, Muir.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Well that's dick by day done for this comic, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Oh my god the first panel doesn't even need editing for penis by penis
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
I now know what Muir says to his body pillow 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:Oh my god the first panel doesn't even need editing for penis by penis Isn't that the joke?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
An awkward dick joke, or one man who is slowly drinking himself to death alone in a trailer who cries himself to sleep that he will never know the embrace of a family and crying for help?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
50 million "vacay" cash, coming from the guy who lives off of $12,000 in donations a year to avoid paying taxes or losing government financial support.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I didn't read it as either or - my parsing was that he's saying, thanks to the Cherokee breaching the terms of that treaty, now the government will have precedent to further define who gets to be a Native American citizen. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that I'm not reading "gently caress the freedmen" into this, I'm reading it as "thanks a lot, Cherokees! We Lakota really appreciate your fuckup!" - if he was focusing on the freedmen, uh, wouldn't be a white judge there in the center. I guess I can see it read that way, but that option B still belies the fact that he doesn't believe that freedmen should be considered Native Americans. I don't really know enough about Marty to say what are his opinions on what it takes to actually be a Native American. I don't think he cares that much about the freedmen, and that's why the depiction is on the evil judge who will rule against Native Americans (for the freedman) as opposed to just being about the freedmen themselves. On the subject of Hogan, the only thing I can find about him that has to do with tribes is this ruling approving 3.4 billion dollars to be given to Native Americans so I don't think it's so much personal as just a general distrust when the US government makes rulings about Native Americans (for good reason, of course.) So...is that Muir hinting that he's enjoying the Dick edits? Garrand fucked around with this message at 04:26 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
It took me looking at that last panel like 6 times to realize that it says "Help paint my ex-ATF MRAP pink." Also you're calling someone petty for trying to make a government give a poo poo about a load of kidnapped people good job.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:You're making fun of a woman who pleaded for 250+ small children not to be raped, mutilated, sold into slavery or murdered. And people thought I was joking when I said that the right wing was up in arms about Michelle Obama trying to promote the message. Here's another example: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/10/blogger-jim-hoft-uses-nigerian-sex-slave-teens-hashtag-to-lol-at-non-sociopaths-concerns/
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Regardless of his opinion, it seems its more that the status of the freedmen has been kinda going back and forth for the past two decades as an internal Cherokee issue, and having the matter be decided by a white guy sets a bad precedent. Native membership issues can be a loving nightmare.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:And people thought I was joking when I said that the right wing was up in arms about Michelle Obama trying to promote the message. This is just loving despicable. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Has 'Thrillary' come up for Hillary 2016 yet? It seems like something that would be used.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:34
|
|
