|
Jonas Albrecht posted:In what loving universe. I think this might be a cartoon that is not labeled enough.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
KillerJunglist posted:Confession time: I'm into old-timey shoot sports. I've done traditional archery for a few years now and plan on moving into black powder firearms maybe next year or so. 4. It's actually not for guns at all. Wayne is running an illegal firework stand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
How is this comic in anyway supported by reality?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:How is this comic in anyway supported by reality? That's what makes it so perfect!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:How is this comic in anyway supported by reality? The Democrats are generally friendly, energetic, and colourful, whereas the Republicans are bland, hastily-assembled, and probably covered in pesticides. Republicans sell their poo poo as being healthy but there's a reason that they're selling their poo poo on the road and not in a store, while the Democrats are clearly giving out free samples of something much larger. Also, while Republicans cling to an affected rustic charm, Democrats are literally wizards and proud of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
The intersection of "they're stealing your money with taxes to pay for dumb poo poo" and "they're bribing you by giving you 'free' dumb poo poo" in a single party's rhetoric is perhaps one of the most infuriating things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
What the hell is this cartoon even trying to convey? Michelle Obama is practicing "the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis"? She'll restrict your diet if you don't stop being obese? The First Lady's child nutrition program is silly when compared to Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:The intersection of "they're stealing your money with taxes to pay for dumb poo poo" and "they're bribing you by giving you 'free' dumb poo poo" in a single party's rhetoric is perhaps one of the most infuriating things. Not really. The line is that the Democrats are giving It's total garbage, of course, but it is at least consistent garbage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
Why are taxes seen as such a great evil in conservative rehtoric? Paying relatively little for vital services instead of risking going bankrupt after dealing with ridiculously overpriced medical bills or crumbling infrastructure doesn't seem so bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:Why are taxes seen as such a great evil in conservative rehtoric? Paying relatively little for vital services instead of risking going bankrupt after dealing with ridiculously overpriced medical bills or crumbling infrastructure doesn't seem so bad. Basically: wealthy people pay more, and poor people benefit more. This is the exact inverse of the society they want to live in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Not really. The line is that the Democrats are giving Nah, you barely have to scratch the surface to reveal it's total horseshit, so I'm going to go ahead and stay mad. It's the same kind of crap as "which states take more than they give, and which ones are the most angry about people doing that, hmmmm." You didn't build that what difference does it make mission accomplished etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Meanwhile, back on the Pork Star If... 12-15 October     It now looks like Jeremy Corbyn will join the Privy Council, but without going through a formal ceremony where he kneels in front of the Queen and kisses her hand (yes, we still do this poo poo). Corbyn's also hit back at Cameron's conference speech, which described him as a "security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating" ideologue, saying that it shows that the Tories are "rattled". The Government's plans to reduce financial support for the working poor have come under fire including criticism from those who voted conservative in May. To be continued...
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Basically: wealthy people pay more, and poor people benefit more. This is the exact inverse of the society they want to live in. Even when it's benefitting the majority of them most of all? Is it the old "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" delusion or the proven false idea of trickle down economics?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
 Guardian:  "Martin Rowson on the political state of the EU – With a British referendum on membership, an escalating refugee crisis and delicate negotiations with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – the EU is going through an increasingly precarious period" Telegraph:  Independent:  Times:  Stephen Collins: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Basically: wealthy people pay more, and poor people benefit more. This is the exact inverse of the society they want to live in. I was going to say: It's the opposite of slavery, which they desire. But yours is always a good summation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
IF IF IF NO NUDE THEN THE TERRORISTS WIN
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Also, while Republicans cling to an affected rustic charm, Democrats are literally wizards and proud of it. Time to go develop the new Facebook game "Candy Wizard". Basically Playboy is becoming GQ? Not sure why this is a big deal given how long the Internet has been out-providing them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
I love it when McKee drops the pretense and just mindlessly cheerleads for the GOP.  e: Haha 
D.N. Nation fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:I love it when McKee drops the pretense and just mindlessly cheerleads for the GOP. Is he implying that Romney isn't a real Mormon, but is secretly gay?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Basically Playboy is becoming GQ? Not sure why this is a big deal given how long the Internet has been out-providing them. They took the nudity off their website and it increased their traffic by a lot, which is why they decided to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:Scott Adams, creator of "Dilbert", is on CNN right now saying Trump is going to be president. Why? Short version: Donald Trump is going to be president because he's using PUA techniques on the voters. ikanreed posted:More specifically, he's always been someone who thinks his insight of "people(other than me, and you reader) are stupid" can explain everything. Dr. Killjoy posted:I'm quite surprised that there's even a notion of "cheap loving whore bitches won't have sex with me unless I dedicate all my life savings to her" in Japan given their female labor participation rates and pretty high level of financial independence. Every politician has their facial features exaggerated and mocked, but with Obama it's gone to the point where my brain doesn't register it as a face at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:31
|
|
1
|
D.N. Nation posted:I love it when McKee drops the pretense and just mindlessly cheerleads for the GOP. But Obama is gay. He even wears that rainbow tie and makes all sorts of buttsex innuendo all the time! Just ask McCoy and Jarlsberg
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:They took the nudity off their website and it increased their traffic by a lot, which is why they decided to do it. More or less. Playboy realized that in an age when I can google 'big fat titties' and get just terabytes of videos and pictures for free 'nudie mags' are pointless relics, so now they're genuinely trying to appeal to the 'I read it for the articles' bit, which is actually pretty solid because they did poo poo like publish legit fiction (I think King got his start there?) and actual journalist poo poo. Of course, as pointed out, GQ has had the 'a gentleman's magazine, like playboy without the tits' market pretty well carved for a while so it'll be interesting to see that play out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Honestly, I feel like it's worth it for them just to be on the actual magazine rack instead of behind the counter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
The fact that porn mags are still a thing in TYOOL 2015 is kinda astonishing, really. 3 billion people have regular access to the internet now, so where the hell are they still selling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
I bought a porn mag when I traveled to Japan, which is super-ultra unnecessary from a utilitarian standpoint considering Japanese porn isn't exactly difficult to avail of for free, but it was for the novelty of the owning such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Thump! posted:The fact that porn mags are still a thing in TYOOL 2015 is kinda astonishing, really. 3 billion people have regular access to the internet now, so where the hell are they still selling? Playboy has a weirder position than Big Wet Asses Quarterly, with people having subscriptions and all to it because of it's branding more than genuinely going 'oh yea man I gotta find something to jerk off to, oh perfect a magazine!' Basically for this case Playboy is a lifestyle brand more than a porn mag, which is another good reason for the switch, because Hodgepodge posted:Honestly, I feel like it's worth it for them just to be on the actual magazine rack instead of behind the counter. Yea, this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:More or less. Playboy realized that in an age when I can google 'big fat titties' and get just terabytes of videos and pictures for free 'nudie mags' are pointless relics, so now they're genuinely trying to appeal to the 'I read it for the articles' bit, which is actually pretty solid because they did poo poo like publish legit fiction (I think King got his start there?) and actual journalist poo poo. Fahrenheit 451 was originally published in Playboy
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
  Let's just ignore the wildly popular frontrunner who got that status from hating all those groups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
While the Democrats pander to the masses by talking about flashy frivolous distractions like "student loans," "income inequality," and "global warming," the Republicans stick to what's really important even if it doesn't attract as many crowds: the spread of radical Islam. A Really Bad Cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:
Eric Allie keeps on loving that chicken.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
EndOfTheWorld posted:There's a lot to unpack here, but I have a simple question. Where's the biblical injunction against cussing? I don't mean "taking the Lord's name in vain", I mean something to the effect of "Thou shalt not never say a cuss, and if thou sayest the "effer" thou shalt be cast into perdition!" The other guy posted the excerpts about "don't say bad things," but the real question is, what are the "bad" things? The word "gently caress" was not around when the bible was written. It's loving absurd when people try to say God doesn't want you to say "gently caress," especially when it's okay to use a replacement word. Sorry this is just a thing that really pisses me off / boggles my mind. It's bad to say "oh poo poo." Why? Oh, because it has a nasty or hurtful meaning you say. But it's okay to say "oh crap" or "oh drat," which means exactly the same thing? And it's not okay to say "gently caress you" but it's okay to say something much more hurtful like "I hate you and I never want to see you again." So it's not the meaning then, but that "poo poo" is a magic voodoo word with evil powers somehow? And then people try to bring religion into it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
alnilam posted:The other guy posted the excerpts about "don't say bad things," but the real question is, what are the "bad" things? The word "gently caress" was not around when the bible was written. It's loving absurd when people try to say God doesn't want you to say "gently caress," especially when it's okay to use a replacement word. I mean, if you accept that the concept of profanity has existed throughout history, even though the set of terms that fall under that category shifts, this can be a consistent belief. Of course, these are also the same people that believe that historical context is some heretical liberal invention (unless it helps them explain away the defenses of slavery [while, of course, the original point of the hermeneutic was to defend slavery]).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:
Do any of them actually have a shot at the nomination? Is there any reason to believe Jeb! isn't guaranteed the spot unless Trump manages to stay relevant for a whole nother year? When was the last time a Republican presidential candidate wasn't a rich old white man?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Do any of them actually have a shot at the nomination? Is there any reason to believe Jeb! isn't guaranteed the spot unless Trump manages to stay relevant for a whole nother year? Jeb! is pretty much done, Rubio is becoming the new establishment pick but they aren't pushing him too hard yet because they're afraid Trump will shoot him down like Walker and Jeb! before him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
I'll never understand how "let's have the government pay off student loans" is considered free stuff but "let's literally mail a check for cash money to every citizen and call it a tax cut" isn't free stuff. Especially because we aren't running a surplus, we aren't "giving people their money back" we are giving them money that we borrow in the form of national debt. Like, how is "I'll build a wall and get mexico to pay for it," not promising free stuff?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Do any of them actually have a shot at the nomination? Is there any reason to believe Jeb! isn't guaranteed the spot unless Trump manages to stay relevant for a whole nother year? Rubio kinda sorta does, Carson and Fiorina emphatically do not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Oh hey it's the Politoons Thread. I remember enjoying reading (and sometimes hate-reading) this thread a few years back, let's see what's... ....oh right. That's why I stopped. The aneurysms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Do any of them actually have a shot at the nomination? Is there any reason to believe Jeb! isn't guaranteed the spot unless Trump manages to stay relevant for a whole nother year? This isn't the only reason Jeb won't be the nominee, but it's one of the most recent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfkYfPNckIM Basically he has the same policies as W, but without the intelligence, good looks or charisma.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 18:58
|
|
