|
"Oh, this doesn't look good. It has to be at least 300 feet to the front door!"  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Yeah, Rip
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
seiferguy posted:Thanks! Was the content that someone mailed this to MLK with this note? I thought it was a letter to the editor but it doesn't seem like it. I'm not sure. I've seen that picture before, but only in the context of refuting people who try to use MLK to bash BLM.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Prism posted:I saw a guy wearing a Make America Great Again hat on the bus the week Trump won election (in central Alberta), so yeah, you can't help some people. I've seen my share of stars and bars vanity plates on rig rockets around town, just east of Calgary. Granted, Alberta does have the highest expat population iirc
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Yeah, there's a hefty fuckin' free.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzW2ybYFboQ
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Mewnie posted:I've seen my share of stars and bars vanity plates on rig rockets around town, just east of Calgary. Granted, Alberta does have the highest expat population iirc Also a giant population of massive idiots. I hate this city
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Mewnie posted:I've seen my share of stars and bars vanity plates on rig rockets around town, just east of Calgary. Granted, Alberta does have the highest expat population iirc It's that oil money, thank god it all burnt down
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:Herbert Block, (1909 - 2001)  Got my copy for twenty-five cents used at a Barnes and Noble about a year ago. You can probably grab it for one penny plus 3.99 shipping on Amazon.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
I chuckled at a Rall. Of course, that "Spicer" doesn't look remotely like the actual item.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:I know cursive but I can't understand what the hell the person is saying with that handwriting. How can you, a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, be such a deceitful hypocrite? You're not fooling anyone but yourself in your nauseating talk about non-violence. You demand a program to overcome poverty and "blow in" untold amount in your high living and running all over the world to feed your own egotism. I'm not entirely sure about "blow-in" and "amount", though.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:I chuckled at a Rall. Of course, that "Spicer" doesn't look remotely like the actual item. Wait, that's supposed to be SPICER?!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:I chuckled at a Rall. Of course, that "Spicer" doesn't look remotely like the actual item. I legit thought that was supposed to be Trump. Took me a couple seconds.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
While I admire your courage in closely examining Rall's cartoon, I'm worried about the effect it might have on your mental well being.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:Is there anyone more influential on the form than Herblock? Nast? Probably Nast. We wouldn't have elephants and donkeys without him. D.N. Nation posted:I chuckled at a Rall. Of course, that "Spicer" doesn't look remotely like the actual item. Yeah, I liked this one. Not for the art, of course, but it's a decent joke and doesn't have the juvenile "but Democrats also..." that I'm used to.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Not even Ted Rall can pull a BUT DEMOCRATS as easily these days. Maybe he'll demonize Hillary just to remember what it was like before Trump, but even he can't fight reality that much when the biggest thing that is in the way of his grand revolution is spelled G.O.P.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:How can you, a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, be such a deceitful hypocrite? You're not fooling anyone but yourself in your nauseating talk about non-violence. You demand a program to overcome poverty and "blow in" untold amount in your high living and running all over the world to feed your own egotism. I think it says "flow in." (Someone on the last page said that also but it may have gotten lost)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Technowolf posted:Lucy Bellwood and Sarah Mirk on what Wonder Woman means. This is a pretty rosy picture of Marston and Wonder Woman's origins. Marston was a creep and a huckster whose other great claim to fame was inventing a "lie detector" that later got supplanted by the polygraph and helped legitimize the idea that you could accurately detect deceit through bullshit like heart rate. That idea, the inspiration for Wonder Woman's lasso, has perverted our justice systems for generations and put thousands of innocent people in jail. Most of his other contributions to psychology were similarly dubious and, in most cases, long discredited. Marston's polyamorous relationship is also a lot less inspiring than they present it as. He was essentially a secret bigamist, but what they don't say is one woman, the lawyer, got to be his official wife and have her children acknowledged, while the other was just "the housekeeper" -- a poor single mother they took in -- and even her children didn't know they were living with their biological father all along. You can blame a lot of this on "society" but the power dynamic is still pretty unsettling. Also, Marston's attitude toward women may be feminist, but it's also weird. He put his amazons on a mile high pedastal and seemed to genuinely think society would be better if men were subordinate to women or just absent entirely. The constant bondage and coded lesbianism really does feel like he's inserting his sexual kinks into a children's comic. He fetishised strong, gorgeous, dominant, assertive, liberated, sensitive, morally perfect, pin-up ready women in a way that completely divorces them from normal female humans and exalted an idealized femininity that's every bit as sexist as the passive, submissive gender norms he was fighting. Wonder Woman is amazing and groundbreaking, but Marston was still an rear end and doesn't deserve to be lionized the way he has been. As an aside, I feel like the nib is very hit and miss. There some good art and cogent points, but this is one of several pieces that have felt poorly researched and devoid of nuance. I'm starting to find the whole site annoying.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Trogdos! posted:and here's his new cartoon hot off the press Kurtofan posted:ah yes opposite of reality like seriously, this is ridiculous even for Garrison.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:like seriously, this is ridiculous even for Garrison. It's Macron's broken hand that really makes this one. "No! Trump didn't lose the handshake! Macron let go first and his fingers were broken and he was crying because he's such a wimp and Trump is so big and manly! Everything that makes Trump look bad is a lie and I'll stick my fingers in my ears and scream until I'm right!"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Not even Ted Rall can pull a BUT DEMOCRATS as easily these days. Maybe he'll demonize Hillary just to remember what it was like before Trump, but even he can't fight reality that much when the biggest thing that is in the way of his grand revolution is spelled G.O.P. That's ok he'll demonize her again when she runs in 2020... oh god she's gonna do it 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:That's ok he'll demonize her again when she runs in 2020... oh god she's gonna do it
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:This is a pretty rosy picture of Marston and Wonder Woman's origins. Marston was a creep and a huckster whose other great claim to fame was inventing a "lie detector" that later got supplanted by the polygraph and helped legitimize the idea that you could accurately detect deceit through bullshit like heart rate. That idea, the inspiration for Wonder Woman's lasso, has perverted our justice systems for generations and put thousands of innocent people in jail. Most of his other contributions to psychology were similarly dubious and, in most cases, long discredited. He sounds like Paul Feig
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:06
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:She'd absolutely lose the primary. Like, I wouldn't put entirely out of the realm of possibility that the DNC/voters would be incompetent enough to put her up again, but you don't win a presidential campaign by having a candidate who has already lost once to their opponent. Nixon pulled it off.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Nixon pulled it off. Andrew Jackson as well...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Yeah, it was brazen of them to try again after she lost to Obama and they'd be complete fools to go for round three. Of course, granted a lot of them are complete fools, but I think Clinton herself is probably to wise/weary to run again. Presidential campaigns are loving nightmares and I'm not sure she'll have any interest in stepping back into the meat grinder when she's Bernie's age. More likely, next primary will be something of a proxy war between the Clintonites and the Berniecrats with people like Warren and Booker taking the mantle from the septuagenarians.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
The reason she won't run again is because she lost to what should've been, by all conventional wisdom, the easiest candidate to defeat in the history of presidential elections.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:She'd absolutely lose the primary. Like, I wouldn't put entirely out of the realm of possibility that the DNC/voters would be incompetent enough to put her up again, but you don't win a presidential campaign by having a candidate who has already lost once to their opponent. That is literally the only way anyone has ever beaten someone who lost the popular vote. Lurdiak posted:The reason she won't run again is because she lost to what should've been, by all conventional wisdom, the easiest candidate to defeat in the history of presidential elections. In an election Russia wasn't rigging, yeah, but what does that have to do with anything? Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 04:22 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:She'd absolutely lose the primary. Like, I wouldn't put entirely out of the realm of possibility that the DNC/voters would be incompetent enough to put her up again, but you don't win a presidential campaign by having a candidate who has already lost once to their opponent. Yep! Sweeping the primary will be a breeze for Mark Zuckerberg  
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Lol if Zuck runs as a democrat, he'll just be another in a long line of inexperienced rich white guys who get crushed. You can run against the left wing, labor, or the civil rights/identity/populist bloc, but not all three.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Nixon pulled it off. Spiffster posted:Andrew Jackson as well...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Nixon won because the sixties were insane, Vietnam and Civil Rights broke the Democratic base, RFK died suddenly, and Humphrey was a really bad candidate. The Southern strategy and the hardhat vs. hippies dynamic only worked because the democrats were so dysfunctional that it alienated moderates. Something like that could absolutely happen in this era (and may be happening to the Republicans now), but Nixon had also chosen not to run in '64 and thus had been out of the limelight for a while. Clinton running four years after an embarrassing defeat would be very different.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Yeah, it was brazen of them to try again after she lost to Obama and they'd be complete fools to go for round three. Of course, granted a lot of them are complete fools, but I think Clinton herself is probably to wise/weary to run again. Presidential campaigns are loving nightmares and I'm not sure she'll have any interest in stepping back into the meat grinder when she's Bernie's age. Warren will be a septuagenarian in 2020.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Really? Huh, I thought she was a little younger than that. I knew she and Clinton were the same generation, but I didn't realize they were only two years apart. I should have known. The weird Boomer gerontocracy in modern politics is really obvious if you look for it. Trump, Biden, Gore, the Clintons, Sanders, W, Perry, Kerry, Romney, and Warren were all born between 1941 and 1950. Jeb! was born in '53, so no wonder he lost.
Duckbox fucked around with this message at 06:00 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
 that's pretty fuckin ballsy to publish in a newspaper.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
I have to respect how utterly lazy this is. It goes beyond the call of duty. quote:7 drat. That's solid.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
Stantis literally already did this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
stantis might as well be a blur
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 07:16
|
|