|
I'm the Shanghai tower featured in the Hong Kong skyline
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:15 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:05 |
|
I unbookmarked this thread in November and decided to come back to the new thread. Read 3 pages and I already can't take it. Jesus I don't know how you people can do this anymore.
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:17 |
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Are they flying up in the air from being shot? Blown by explosions, except there were no explosions in the Istanbul attack...
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:17 |
|
Pants Donkey posted:I wonder how much poo poo they got for including Palestine in that Not as much as they got for including Taiwan I imagine. escapegoat fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jan 2, 2017 |
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:18 |
|
"Drop your bombs between the minarets"
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:21 |
|
what is the goku loving the old guy in the op's title image from?
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:23 |
|
Carlos Latuff drew it.
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:33 |
|
Technowolf posted:
"Jupiterian" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. The correct adjective is "Jovian."
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:35 |
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm the Shanghai tower featured in the Hong Kong skyline
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:49 |
|
Xenoveritas posted:Bad lesson to learn from that. The polling wasn't that bad. Even before the election, the race was close enough that pollsters knew Trump could still win. Yeah, the issue wasn't the polls themselves. It was more that the people reporting on the polls couldn't believe Trump could win, so they spun them in a way that made Clinton seem inevitable. Silver and Co. got that mistake out of their system in the primaries, when they marked Trump's chance of getting the nomination somewhere between 2 and negative 10 percent, so they were chastened and more cautious in the general.
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:56 |
|
Memento posted:There was a suicide bombing
|
# ? Jan 2, 2017 23:58 |
|
Elysiume posted:There was a mass shooting in Istanbul on New Year's Day. Yeah I mixed it up with the suicide bombing in Baghdad from NYE.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 00:07 |
|
Jurgan posted:Yeah, the issue wasn't the polls themselves. It was more that the people reporting on the polls couldn't believe Trump could win, so they spun them in a way that made Clinton seem inevitable. Silver and Co. got that mistake out of their system in the primaries, when they marked Trump's chance of getting the nomination somewhere between 2 and negative 10 percent, so they were chastened and more cautious in the general. There's also the fact that under a functioning political system, Trump winning SHOULD have been impossible. The problem is that the people in gatekeeping this election (GOP leadership primarily, but later on the Electoral College) seem to have assumed that ~The Process~ magically screens out unacceptable candidates and they didn't have to do anything special. Ugh, there was a post on 538 about that back in the early days of the election, but I'm having trouble finding it.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 00:11 |
|
So, the first Gorrell of the new year is a re-run? That's rather fitting.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 00:20 |
|
Abyssal Squid posted:There's also the fact that under a functioning political system, Trump winning SHOULD have been impossible. The problem is that the people in gatekeeping this election (GOP leadership primarily, but later on the Electoral College) seem to have assumed that ~The Process~ magically screens out unacceptable candidates and they didn't have to do anything special.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 00:36 |
|
the_steve posted:So, the first Gorrell of the new year is a re-run? That's rather fitting. Second, actually, the one before this was a repeat as well. Gorrell should teach a master's course on how to be a lazy shitheel. He could record the first 2 minutes of the first lesson, leave the other 88 minutes blank ("and here's what the lesson would be like If I wasn't here"), and then just replay that recording for his students for all remaining lessons. It's gotta be more lucrative than cartooning.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 00:42 |
|
Starving Wolf posted:Gorrell should teach a master's course on how to be a lazy shitheel. He would, but he unwittingly signed a non-compete agreement with Kirschen because he was too lazy to read the fine prints.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 00:45 |
|
What a thoughtful cartoon that I'm sure had a lot of reflection and contemplation put into it to perfectly sculpt its message to these trying times. Oh hold on, I'm getting an email from an alternate, better, timeline:
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 01:18 |
|
You could insert literally anyone other than Ted Rall and he would have made it.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 01:26 |
|
U.T. Raptor posted:The problem is that the Republicans don't want a functional political system, and since no one (especially the voters) is ever willing to hold them accountable for their actions they're getting exactly what they want. Don't get me wrong, they've been chipping at the country's democratic institutions for decades now, but they still want a functional Republican Party. They didn't want Trump to win, but they decided to go all-in against Cruz instead of Trump, and they didn't pivot fast enough (if it was even possible to pivot at all). Here's the article I was looking for, says it a lot better than my half-rememberings of it.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 01:35 |
|
Duke Igthorn posted:What a thoughtful cartoon that I'm sure had a lot of reflection and contemplation put into it to perfectly sculpt its message to these trying times. No, that's his cartoon from before the election.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 01:42 |
|
This starts off with a good message, discouraging people from screaming "burn in hell" at the recently deceased in judgment and spite, and maybe even that bit about praying in the public square to flaunt one's faith, but then it ends up being that whole "deeds will not save you" Jack Chick thing again, instead.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 01:42 |
|
Vib Rib posted:This starts off with a good message, discouraging people from screaming "burn in hell" at the recently deceased in judgment and spite, and maybe even that bit about praying in the public square to flaunt one's faith, but then it ends up being that whole "deeds will not save you" Jack Chick thing again, instead. Yeah it's all magical words with these motherfuckers, isn't it.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 01:44 |
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Angus got kidnapped and sent to a coffee plantation. I think he's okay with it. Ah, he's one of these insufferable fuckers who fawns over coffee. That explains so much.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 01:50 |
|
Isn't his name like Weed Potman and coffee is a fig leaf for drug use?
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 02:07 |
|
Bloodnose posted:Isn't his name like Weed Potman and coffee is a fig leaf for drug use? Yes but also I think he does sell his own line of coffee
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 02:17 |
|
1 "I'd give it a few minutes, kid." 2 3 4
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 02:28 |
|
Can we, as a society, agree to fast forward a week to bypass any remaining "Trump in a diaper as Baby New Year" cartoons
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 02:40 |
|
A HUNGRY MOUTH posted:Can we, as a society, agree to fast forward a week to bypass any remaining "Trump in a diaper as Baby New Year" cartoons
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 02:41 |
|
A HUNGRY MOUTH posted:Can we, as a society, agree to fast forward a week to bypass any remaining "Trump in a diaper as Baby New Year" cartoons How is anyone supposed to tell the difference between that and any given photograph of him?
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 02:46 |
|
Bloodnose posted:Isn't his name like Weed Potman and coffee is a fig leaf for drug use? Weed is the rear end in a top hat conservative guy who makes the Weed Whack rants. Angus is the chill coffee-obsessed guy.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 02:48 |
|
Bloodnose posted:Isn't his name like Weed Potman and coffee is a fig leaf for drug use? No, Weed is the mad scientist guy who does the weird rants all the time. The coffee guy is Angus, and I think it's just about how much the author loving loves coffee.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 02:51 |
|
neongrey posted:How is anyone supposed to tell the difference between that and any given photograph of him? The top hat and the sash.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 03:10 |
|
Shouldn't this be an old man? Or is it baby 2017 wearing an "I survived 2016" T-shirt for some reason?
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 03:13 |
|
Cathy Wilcox:
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 03:51 |
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:Ah, he's one of these insufferable fuckers who fawns over coffee. That explains so much.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 04:04 |
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Yeah, please only post them if they're erotic. How can you tell the difference?
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 04:22 |
|
I'm usually gung-ho as gently caress about the Gaybies, but I'm not sure my heart can take reading through comics from the latter half of last year.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 04:30 |
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:Ah, he's one of these insufferable fuckers who fawns over coffee. That explains so much. Mahmoud Darwish posted:
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 04:54 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:05 |
|
Not that this sentiment really breaks new ground but I'm really loving sick of the "boy 2016 sure sucked!" excuse for a joke being so endlessly regurgitated. There was a rant to this effect on The Worst Things for Sale -- it got a little too into the topic but expressed a similar sentiment.quote:It’s not that this calendar year was unarguably wonderful, taken overall or as a collection of independent events. It’s just that repeating something over and over causes it to become worthless, in the way that saying “newspaper” a hundred times in a row will leave you wondering if you’re saying the syllables in the right order, concentrating on the movements of your throat and tongue rather than the meaning of the word. Everyone's been hopping on this train, from random YouTube commenters to Twitter personalities, but just for the sake of relevancy, let's assume you're a nationally syndicated cartoonist. You have the power to reach, with your words, an audience so vast that an uncountable many people would envy your voice. You could say something profound, but instead let's just go with "gosh 2016 was so bad!!" Nailed that one. Great job.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2017 05:56 |