Favorite editorial cartoons: June 2011
- Thread starter Mike Ventrella
- Start date
- Status
Fearless Leader said:
hahahahahahaa.. i get it.. because people who don't believe that climate change is man made... must also believe climates don't change at all!!! man, that's witty... you libs sure know how to stick it to all those dumb uneducated gits with all of your amazing science that proves all your points for you... oh... you don't have that either? crap in a hat..
I had a paul ryan pop once.. i unwrapped it, saw the stick and thought.. wow, that's not as much savings as I would have liked... so i tried an obama pop... but a government worker jsut grabbed it right out of my hands as soon as I unwrapped it, then stole 40 bucks from my wallet and the media called me racist for being upset about it.. crazy obamapops.Fearless Leader said:
Duke Frost
Baron
I hate obamapops, especially since I'm forced to buy them at like $40 a pop, but other people get them for free and still others are paid to eat them.
I heard that he stole the recipe and that they were once called marxpops.
I heard that he stole the recipe and that they were once called marxpops.
Please be mindful when posting, you can disgree but be aware and not resort to name calling.
Happy Posting
Happy Posting
Paladin of Earth said:
Not in this type of thread. It is disrespectful and inflammatory for Mike to post these on the board. It would be the same as making a thread containing nothing but jokes about someone's religion, religious leaders, race, racial leaders, and so on. He himself began the name calling by posting these. It may be subtle but it is there... implied for all to see.. Therefore, If I cannot express my views about these posts, then HE should not be posting them. End of story.
In short... You will have to strip me of my admin powers, and ban me from this board to stop me from calling him out on this. I will send you instructions on how to do this if you see fit.
Duke Frost
Baron
I gotta agree with Robb here.
Political cartoons by nature are polarizing and insulting. Reacting to them/discussing them needs to be open to all ends of the political spectrum and be open to rebuttal in kind.
Many years of these cartoons on these boards should be removed (not what I'm going for) OR other strong opinions must be allowed to be posted.
You can't have politics on these off topic boards without expecting strong opinions. And strong opinions are almost always going to offend someone. Personally, I'm offended by a lot of Mike's political cartoons, but I actually discuss them with Mike and tell him he's mean and he hurt my feelings and I'm gonna run him over with the tractor at Faire Play if he keeps it up.
But seriously. It's politics. If you don't want to be offended, you really need to stay away from the political postings. They're quite well marked.
Scott
Political cartoons by nature are polarizing and insulting. Reacting to them/discussing them needs to be open to all ends of the political spectrum and be open to rebuttal in kind.
Many years of these cartoons on these boards should be removed (not what I'm going for) OR other strong opinions must be allowed to be posted.
You can't have politics on these off topic boards without expecting strong opinions. And strong opinions are almost always going to offend someone. Personally, I'm offended by a lot of Mike's political cartoons, but I actually discuss them with Mike and tell him he's mean and he hurt my feelings and I'm gonna run him over with the tractor at Faire Play if he keeps it up.
But seriously. It's politics. If you don't want to be offended, you really need to stay away from the political postings. They're quite well marked.
Scott
SkollWolfrun
Squire
Duke Frost said:
Guess I should shop were you do, my obamapops are quite a bit higher...
Duke Frost
Baron
MKing said:
Um, the cartoons are obviously political commentary, why can't someone with an opposing opinion comment on them without having to take the time to go track down political cartoons?
Either we can discuss politics (which the cartoons obviously are) or we can't. I'm thinking since Mike is the ultimately the owner of the board, he wants to discuss them. And knowing Mike, he'd defend people's rights to their opinion and speech even if he disagrees.
It's always been said you don't talk about religion or politics in polite company, very akin to your Irish Bar Law. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. So if it's not the case, peope need to have equal rights to post their opinions whether they offend or not.
Scott
Duke Frost
Baron
SkollWolfrun said:
I also have to buy NewJerseyPropertyPops, so it probably evens out.
wowy319
Artisan
Just throwing three major things out there:
1. You can have a civil political discussion that doesn't involve accusations or name-calling. Political discussions aren't that negative by nature
2. Nothing is stopping you from posting your own political cartoons or starting a separate political discussion thread.
3. Taxes under Obama are lower than taxes under Reagan. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-fe ... ual-1.html That's what's making the claims of the administration stealing from you seem more like name-calling than actual debate.
I'm all for political discussions, but have something to back up claims of communism and overtaxing before saying that's the case.
Okay, a few more things:
- Nobody is calling you racist for disagreeing with Obama's policies. Things like this:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/oba ... r-muck.jpg
or signs saying Obama's economic plan is "white slavery" are what get accusations of racism, and rightfully so. We're mature enough here to know nobody on this board is going to call you racist for disagreeing with the level of government involvement in the economy.
- I am perfectly happy to have a civil political discussion based in fact, but I have no patience for people on either side throwing out talking points or baseless accusations. I don't have time for vitriol either. If we're going to talk, I'm game if we keep it civil.
1. You can have a civil political discussion that doesn't involve accusations or name-calling. Political discussions aren't that negative by nature
2. Nothing is stopping you from posting your own political cartoons or starting a separate political discussion thread.
3. Taxes under Obama are lower than taxes under Reagan. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-fe ... ual-1.html That's what's making the claims of the administration stealing from you seem more like name-calling than actual debate.
I'm all for political discussions, but have something to back up claims of communism and overtaxing before saying that's the case.
Okay, a few more things:
- Nobody is calling you racist for disagreeing with Obama's policies. Things like this:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/oba ... r-muck.jpg
or signs saying Obama's economic plan is "white slavery" are what get accusations of racism, and rightfully so. We're mature enough here to know nobody on this board is going to call you racist for disagreeing with the level of government involvement in the economy.
- I am perfectly happy to have a civil political discussion based in fact, but I have no patience for people on either side throwing out talking points or baseless accusations. I don't have time for vitriol either. If we're going to talk, I'm game if we keep it civil.
wowy319
Artisan
1) Okay, to my knowledge, nobody was saying you couldn't respond to these posts and debate the points they were making. The only thing I saw in the mod post was a request that you keep responses civil. If nothing else, you'd look like the bigger man if you did.
2) I'm saying you're welcome to respond in kind (I'd much prefer we could just have a discussion) or to initiate discussions of your own. Neither of those are hypocritical.
3) I have honestly no idea what point you were making here. Please explain.
2) I'm saying you're welcome to respond in kind (I'd much prefer we could just have a discussion) or to initiate discussions of your own. Neither of those are hypocritical.
3) I have honestly no idea what point you were making here. Please explain.
1) I've done that countless times. And there was nothing uncivil about my reply to his cartoons that aren't said in his cartoons outright or implied.
2) no, you are telling me that instead of posting in this thread and calling out the fallacies in the cartoons he posts, I should go find slanderous cartoons that represent my views and post them. as I have said, I don't think this forum should allow this practice at all, doing so would make me a hypocrite.
3) your point about obama's taxes had nothing to do what I was saying, so I compared it to the price of fish in china. it is a common expression from my youth.
2) no, you are telling me that instead of posting in this thread and calling out the fallacies in the cartoons he posts, I should go find slanderous cartoons that represent my views and post them. as I have said, I don't think this forum should allow this practice at all, doing so would make me a hypocrite.
3) your point about obama's taxes had nothing to do what I was saying, so I compared it to the price of fish in china. it is a common expression from my youth.
wowy319
Artisan
It had more to do with your earlier comments saying Obama's policies were communist (The "Obama-pops" analogy), so it was related to the overall discussion, just a part that wasn't being mentioned. But we can move past that if that's no longer the point of the discussion now. Slander/libel isn't the same thing as satire by a long shot. While it's true that a lot of editorial cartoons are vitriolic, it doesn't make them libelous (there is no way to say that without sounding pretentious and I apologize). I think the argument rule applies to that kind of post as much as it does to any other: don't be offensive and/or needlessly vitriolic. You don't have to respond with cartoons, and I didn't say you -had- to post your own cartoons. I said you were welcome to do that -or- start a discussion. Nothing is stopping you from stating your own opinions in a civil way, same with anyone else. If you think that something posted in these threads is crossing the line, then tell the mods how you feel about it. They're surprisingly open to peoples' opinions.
The point of most satire, be it theater, movies, cartoons or TV, is to get people talking.
Let's just keep it civil, and make sure it's kept as friendly debate.
Thanks!
Let's just keep it civil, and make sure it's kept as friendly debate.
Thanks!
Duke Frost
Baron
I actually made the marxpops comment, not Robb. Since people can't even seem to attribute the correct comments to the right people, I suppose it's time to not waste time on this subject.
Scott
Scott
I never said anything about communists, you are confusing me with someone else.
I am well aware how forums and discussions on the internet work, as well as how the moderating committee works as well.
His posts are offensive to me. I'm not going to hide behind the moderators to let him know. You can call it satire, vitriolic, and say it isn't wrong, or libelous, but in the end there is a purpose to posting them. I can call a bunch of kittens in Nazi uniforms satire. I don't post pictures of kittens in Nazi uniforms because it might offend Jewish players.
IMO, the "Argument Rule" needs to extend to editorial cartoons, so as to stop him from posting them. It's not the ideal solution as Scott said, but I can see where this is headed, and it's the only way I know of where someday I might be able to come to this forum and NOT be offended every time he feels the need to bash my ideology by spreading his "Satirical" "Lies".
Otherwise let me post my comments on his crappy cartoons.
So I'll start my Kittens in Nazi uniform's thread then? See if we can debate how cute they are?
I am well aware how forums and discussions on the internet work, as well as how the moderating committee works as well.
His posts are offensive to me. I'm not going to hide behind the moderators to let him know. You can call it satire, vitriolic, and say it isn't wrong, or libelous, but in the end there is a purpose to posting them. I can call a bunch of kittens in Nazi uniforms satire. I don't post pictures of kittens in Nazi uniforms because it might offend Jewish players.
IMO, the "Argument Rule" needs to extend to editorial cartoons, so as to stop him from posting them. It's not the ideal solution as Scott said, but I can see where this is headed, and it's the only way I know of where someday I might be able to come to this forum and NOT be offended every time he feels the need to bash my ideology by spreading his "Satirical" "Lies".
Otherwise let me post my comments on his crappy cartoons.
So I'll start my Kittens in Nazi uniform's thread then? See if we can debate how cute they are?
OrcFighterFTW
Spellsword
Alright, let's see how this goes...
Which, whenever someone does "debate" them, it does. As proof from past threads. I'm tired of disregarding and debating the nature of them, when the root of posting them here is really the problem.
I am not misconstruing your meaning. For whatever reason the powers that be seem to think "Satirical" cartoon posting on this forum, regardless of it's nature or how offensive it might be to a vocal minority is ok. I put forth that these are not Satirical. These are not being posted to spark debate and discussion. These posts include attacks on both player ideology and political figureheads.
I can either report every post Mike V makes containing these, or I can bring it up here and now as I have.
Kittens in Nazi outfits, it's the same thing.
- Status