Rall ridicules Major Gary Brickner, military, calls Bush ‘psycho fascist moron’
posted at 11:08 am on October 20, 2006 by Ian
Ted Rall insults this country and the men and women who serve it once again:
Ms. Underestimated reminds us about Ted’s infamous Pat Tillman bashing cartoon.
(via Newsbusters and Ms. U)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
This guy needs to go.
p0s3r on October 20, 2006 at 11:14 AM
He’s still around? I hadn’t heard anyone talk about him in ages, it seems.
frankj on October 20, 2006 at 11:15 AM
Shorter Rall: LOOK AT MEEEE!!!!!
Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Does the guy have 5th graders writing his stuff for him?
EnochCain on October 20, 2006 at 11:18 AM
*crickets*
SouthernGent on October 20, 2006 at 11:20 AM
What a disgusting piece of human excrement.
ReubenJCogburn on October 20, 2006 at 11:21 AM
I agree with slublog. I’m not particularly offended by the cartoon… I think it makes Rall look like a simpleton with a really bad sense of humor and bad taste. It’s the type of cartoon that is meant to appeal to other simpletons with bad taste and which seems to pop up now and then when everyone has stopped talking about Ted Rall.
The cartoon is neither profound nor clever. It makes me wonder what sort of fool editor would subscribe to Universal Press Syndicate cartoons when their most notorious cartoonist is a psycho leftist moron.
DaveS on October 20, 2006 at 11:23 AM
This might be free speech, but it’s stupid speech for sure.
Psycho Facist Moron… PLEASE! My 11 year old can come up with something more amuzing.
That’s like saying your a “Neomaxizoomdweebie“.
E L Frederick on October 20, 2006 at 11:25 AM
As offensive as it is, he’s merely articulating what a large segment of the Donkey Party believe. If they were all this honest, the election would be so much easier.
Coyote D. on October 20, 2006 at 11:26 AM
Isnt this an act of sedition ? If Dems are so caught up in enforcing laws then why not the sedetion acts ?
William Amos on October 20, 2006 at 11:27 AM
The Bush is a fascist, moron, stupid monkey, yet great evil mastermind leader thing gets old.
Be original, give us new insults. Better yet, go away and stop making stupid cartoons.
chilipequin on October 20, 2006 at 11:28 AM
You really want to lock up halfwits for drawing retarded cartoons that nobody reads?
DaveS on October 20, 2006 at 11:30 AM
I don’t think it’s inciting people to rebel against the authority, but it does pose doubts on how Americans feel about the war, their leader, and the servicemen.
GregH on October 20, 2006 at 11:31 AM
The sad part is this guy gets published in the L.A. Times. Know your audience and all that.
sockpuppet on October 20, 2006 at 11:33 AM
This Ted Rall, it vibrates?
blogRot on October 20, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Sedition, debateable. Stupidity, absolutely.
dementia unbound on October 20, 2006 at 11:36 AM
Does anyone even find this guy funny or entertaining in any way?
GregH, what about you?
Esthier on October 20, 2006 at 11:37 AM
It poses doubts on how liberals feel about the war, their leader, and the servicemen.
JackM on October 20, 2006 at 11:38 AM
Isn’t Ted Rall just a parody of himself these days? Why does anyone care what he writes, draws or thinks?
lorien1973 on October 20, 2006 at 11:39 AM
I don’t think it’s inciting people to rebel against the authority, but it does pose doubts on how Americans feel about the war, their leader, and the servicemen.
I (gulp) agree with GregH here – it’s not sedition.
To reword the second part of his post, though, this shows how Ted Rall feels about the war, their leader and the servicemen.
Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 11:40 AM
Since when are liberals americans?
lorien1973 on October 20, 2006 at 11:40 AM
What kind of fool insults the US Military and probably doesn’t have the guts to face Islam, publish or create a cartoon of Mohammad? Really easy to be radical when you are safe. Displaced frustration from a coward, who is protected by the US Military.
Hening on October 20, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Wish our military could draft this a-hole and use him as minesweeper.
Teddy on October 20, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Liberals love to excercise the freedoms of our great country, but they hate the men, women and rifles that protect those freedoms.
JackM on October 20, 2006 at 11:45 AM
Another case of confusing insulting Bush with insulting the troops. The ridicule is directed at Bush and at the sycophants who support him and are all for the sacrifice of others. I imagine if I insisted on clinging to a flawed policy that kept getting our young people killed I would be less than eager to look one of those young people in the eye as well.
I can see where it makes some people uncomfortable.
honora on October 20, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Uh, reread the comic, honora. Ted is literally insulting a member of our troops. The Bush part is just thrown in at the end.
And even the Bush part was insulting troops who are “idiotic” enought to serve under Bush. So you’re point is way off here.
Esthier on October 20, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Honora,
I reckon you get more voters with honey than you do with Vinegar. Try saying…
“We’re going to win, and this is how…”
As apposed to…
“We suck! Quagmire! Doom and Gloom!”
Stupid is as stupid does…
E L Frederick on October 20, 2006 at 11:52 AM
LOL Can you imagine the Ironic if Rall did a mohammed cartoon ?
He would be beheaded all the while protesting that it was his right to freedom of speech.
Honestly Ted do a mohammed cartoon. Prove to us that you really do practice what you preach and believe in what you say. Put your butt on the line before you critisize those that do.
William Amos on October 20, 2006 at 11:52 AM
honora, I too am confused at some of the reaction in the comments (I, for one, have a hard time being “outraged” at an idiot like Rall). But you are entirely misunderstanding Rall’s point, to the extent that he has one, if you don’t think this cartoon is meant to insult the troops.
The “punchline”, so to speak, is that the troops must be really stupid if they are lead by someone as moronic and fascist as Bush…. they must be less than fascist morons.
In the end, it doesn’t matter, though. This cartoon is akin to Michael Moore telling a joke that ends in “George Bush is fat!”
DaveS on October 20, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Ted only gets publicity when right-wing bloggers bring him up. He has one theme – hate. Ignore him. He won’t go away but it will help us to not remember he’s still around.
Hoodlumman on October 20, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Time for your pills, honora.
Ted is a no-talent douche. Cut.
As for the fun names the left uses, I still think “Chimpy McHalliBusHitler” is the funniest one I have ever heard.
Great stuff.
Jaibones on October 20, 2006 at 11:54 AM
The artwork STINKS! He is not an artist by any stretch of the imagination. Who reads him seriously?
CrimsonFisted on October 20, 2006 at 11:55 AM
My dogs liked the cartoon.
SPIFF1669 on October 20, 2006 at 11:55 AM
The artwork STINKS! He is not an artist by any stretch of the imagination. Who reads him seriously?
I can think of one person who probably finds him funny.
Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 11:57 AM
“We’re going to win, and this is how…”
==========================
Those words could prove to be fatal to a liberal.
JackM on October 20, 2006 at 11:57 AM
I was joking about Rall doing sedition.
But see that is the difference between me and Rall. My insults have a basis in reality. I made a joke and some believed it
No one believed Rall’s absured cartoon.
William Amos on October 20, 2006 at 11:59 AM
You may be right, but I don’t read it that way at all. The 4 folks talking are all clearly being made fun of–that dude was staring at me, I have a glass eye, troops are underpaid. I don’t know Rall from Adam so perhaps I go into this with less bias? Maybe not. Thanks for the adult reply in any case.
honora on October 20, 2006 at 12:01 PM
I was joking about Rall doing sedition.
=========================
Charging Rall would be fun though. Almost as much fun as when we impeached Fat Bill for lying about bopping the help.
JackM on October 20, 2006 at 12:03 PM
I’m Ted Rall and I still matter.
Really! I still matter!
Hey! Helloooooo!!!! I’m TED RALL!!!! I’M A LEFTIST MEDIA DARLING!
Why aren’t they talking about me 24/7?
Black Adam on October 20, 2006 at 12:03 PM
This is a lousy line of reasoning. Liberals ARE Americans. Anyone who’s a citizen of this country, as far as I’m concerned, is an American. To simply write off a huge chunk of the population as “not american” doesn’t help (although I can see where it might be cathartic to say so).
Farmer_Joe on October 20, 2006 at 12:03 PM
This attempt at a political cartoon shows how devoid of humour, intelligence, wit, or common sense the people on the left are these days.
There once was a time when you could expect a real debate with a leftist. Now all they do is call you childish names and run away. It’s pathetic.
I kinda feel sorry for Rall. He’s not that bright, has no talent for anything, and has some sort of irrational phobia of the people who defend his right to make a royal monkeybutt out of himself in a major newspaper.
MoxArgon on October 20, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Since when are liberals americans?
===================
How about: Since when are liberals good americans?
JackM on October 20, 2006 at 12:08 PM
GregH wrote: “…but it does pose doubts on how Americans feel about the war, their leader, and the servicemen.”
Guffaw!
All it does, Greggy, is express that idiot Rall’s opinion.
georgej on October 20, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Now there’s a refreshing point of view!!
It’s interesting that so much of political “debate” has deteriorated to name-calling and laughable hyperbole. My theory is that it’s easy to call someone evil or stupid (which are purely value judgements) that it is to call them wrong (which has an objective reality and has to be proven).
Oh well.
honora on October 20, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Uh, honora, I’m one of those “fools” who enlisted during the administration of the “psycho fascist moron.” Actually, I re-enlisted: and I did so precisely because the “psycho fascist moron” is our commander in chief. I’d resigned my commission in 1995, I didn’t have to come back if I didn’t want to. And it’s an honor to be back under a president I respect.
And yes, Rall’s comic strip is a spit in the face. So try your apologetics somewhere with an audience dumb enough to fall for them, like DailyKos or DU or something. OK?
That being said, Rall has every right to spew his hate-filled drivel. What he says nothing about our military or our commander in chief; it speaks volumes about what a small man Rall is, as well as those who applaud him.
Bottom line: You know we have real freedom of speech in this great counttry – not the “liberal” version, i.e., what happens to conservative speakers on campus – when it’s the speech we don’t like that’s being freely expressed … and when guys in uniform like me are sworn to protect men like Rall – instead of hauling him off to a “re-education” camp somewhere in North Dakota.
Spurius Ligustinus on October 20, 2006 at 12:12 PM
I don’t think it’s funny, nor do I imagine the creator was really going for humor. I typically enjoy my humor a bit more sophmoric. However, I am glad that he did the cartoon – and not because of what it says, but the fact that something is being said. It is important to all of us that dissenting viewpoints are acknowledged and discussed – as we are now doing.
GregH on October 20, 2006 at 12:19 PM
Greg – you’d probably enjoy this list.
The Ten Best Borat Skits of All Time.
Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 12:20 PM
I disagree. I think Ted Rall is quantifiably stupid, but I agree with your larger point. The problem, however, is that arguing that the “other side” is merely wrong is great to a point, but after a while their stupid, “wrong” accusations and assertions begin to overwhelm the rational counter-arguments. Is it really productive to attempt to rationally counter leftists everytime they come out with a new …
“Bush made-it-happen-on-purpose”, or…
“Bush lied about WMDs”, or …
“Bush outed a covert CIA operative”, or …
“Bush wanted to get his oil buddies rich”, or …
“Bush wanted to build a pipeline”, or …
“Bush is in Israel’s backpocket”, or …
“Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam!”, or…
“We use WMDs in Iraq!” or …
blah blah blah…
??
I think that you reach a point where it is a waste of smart peoples’ energy to actually engage idiots in debate, and shaming them and exposing them as complete jackasses is more effective and productive. Ted Rall is such a jackass but is irrelevant, so either approach is a waste of energy.
DaveS on October 20, 2006 at 12:21 PM
You guys are totally oppressing him! (Disagreement and mockery = Oppression)
Jim Treacher on October 20, 2006 at 12:22 PM
Who’s apologizing?? I congratualate you on your service. Having been married to a career military man for over 20 years, I respectfully note that being in the military does not make you any more or less capable of judging the abilities of the President. Sorry. And by the way, you’ll find it’s nicer to let people pat you on the back rather than twisting your arm doing it yourself. Try it.
(Note to Farmer_Joe: note the venacular here; “dumb”, “small man”, “re-education camp”. )
honora on October 20, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Ted Rall thinks he is “cutting edge” and believes his “cartoons” will stir things up.
Apparently he has done his job–like it or not.
robblefarian on October 20, 2006 at 12:27 PM
If Ted Rall can disparage our troops for serving then I say its fair game to disparge Rall and other Amerians who support his veiws.
Its not a one sided debate here. Rall and others of his Ilk cant rant about the need for free speech then get upset when that free speech is aimed back at him.
I have alwasy found that those screaming “Facism is a threat” the loudest are usually the most facist of thinkers.
William Amos on October 20, 2006 at 12:29 PM
In the last frame he criticizes those who sign up under this president. that is a direct insult.
pullingmyhairout on October 20, 2006 at 12:32 PM
…shaming them and exposing them as complete jackasses is more effective and productive.
=======================
And, more fun.
JackM on October 20, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Not all Americans GregH. Don’t speak for me.
I repeat what I said to you in a post yesterday…..When Libs cannot argue the merits of a position rationally, they just call people names. Rall’s cartoon is a perfect example.
Even if you disagree with Bush he’s certainly not a moron, a fascist or psycho.
Here’s some definitions:
fascist – somebody who supports or advocates a system of government characterized by dictatorship, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism.
Moron – A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
psycho – a deranged or psychopathic individual
Clearly, GWB is none of the above. Rall, and folks like him, have to resort to childlike name calling because they cannot argue a point on its merits.
Don’t fall into that trap GregH, as we really do welcome you here.
You ought to see some of the vitrol spewed at me when I go to KO’s or ThinkProgress and stir things up. It’s simply amazing.
BacaDog on October 20, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Gosh, I wonder how THAT feels??? ;^)
honora on October 20, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Yeah, the last frame is gratuitous, though I took it as an (awkward) way to get an insult hurled at Bush. Good point though.
honora on October 20, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Honora, the level of “abuse” you get here isn’t what the left directs at dissenters, even liberal ones. Have you been called “rape gurney honora” lately on Hotair?
Come on, dude… “take your pills” is the worst I’ve seen on this thread, and (as a bonus) it can be a helpful reminder if you actually have any pills that you’ve forgotten to take.
DaveS on October 20, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Did anyone else find it interesting that Rall had to interpolate the word “military” into the letter before the word “service” — as if his readers wouldn’t know what thanking someone for his service meant?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 20, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Ted Rall thinks he is “cutting edge” and believes his “cartoons” will stir things up. Apparently he has done his job–like it or not.
It’s unfortunate, because Rall is boring. His columns and cartoons are never cutting edge – you always know what he’s going to say. He tries so hard to be shocking that he comes across as contrived.
It’s the same sort of ‘Look how shocking I am’ nonsense that keeps me from being a fan of Ann Coulter. She’s not nearly as foul as Rall, but is certainly as predictable.
Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 12:49 PM
First, I am a dudette; second, I have been called all manner of things on this blog, no worries, I’m a grown up’ three, HEY, did I take my pills or not……oh dementia….
honora on October 20, 2006 at 12:52 PM
…as if his readers wouldn’t know what thanking someone for his service meant?
=====================
Liberals would normally assume you meant abortion services if they were not prompted otherwise.
JackM on October 20, 2006 at 12:53 PM
LOL. Honora, I wasn’t complaining, just stating a fact. I’ll be the first to say that there are some here who also resort to simple name calling instead of explaining their point. I don’t like it when that happens here either.
As a rule however, I think you will admit that the possibility of you getting your point across and generating some useful debate here at HotAir is much more likely than me doint the same over at KO’s or ThinkProgress.
Hell, I’ve been called names there even when I do agree with a point someone makes. It doesn’t hurt me, it simply makes me think that noone could possible take those people serious.
Unlike here, it also says that you’re not welcome there if you have an opinion different from the “pack”.
Glad to have you, GregH and others of your political leanings here. I would hope you will show respect to us, and be shown respect in return.
BacaDog on October 20, 2006 at 12:54 PM
It has something to do with the fact that he’s from Cambridge, Mass. I think there is something in the water there… runoff from the academic sewers around Harvard and MIT, I’m sure. Too much incidental exposure to Chomsky, et al.
DaveS on October 20, 2006 at 12:58 PM
How nice, I appreciate it.
I must say I don’t see a great deal of difference between the extremos here versus KOS for instance. When you have time, take a look at how freely and often the term “douche” is used on this blog (how junior high…) And I have been threatened with being expelled (yet again, how junior high…) at least twice.
I’m not complaining either. Find it really rather astonishing that people can muster such rage almost on cue. I guess a lot of postal workers????
;^)
honora on October 20, 2006 at 1:04 PM
I may be way off point here but there is something that I find interesting about liberal satire. In general, it is given a pass as free speech and humor. Most of the time it is based solely on the opinion of the writer/cartoonist.
On the other hand, if it would have been a conservative cartoonist opining about factual topics which may relate to a certain sex, race, disability or other characteristic the same people would want him drawn and quartered for hate speech.
As a Marine veteran, the spouse of a current active duty Marine and an uncle of a Iraq war Marine (soon to return), I am bothered by the illustration. But in the end, consider the source.
jarhead05 on October 20, 2006 at 1:06 PM
I have to say, as irritated as I get at times, I do appreciate having the liberal viewpoint represented here with a lack of rancor. I have yet to be called a wingnut, a Nazi or any of the other names that get tossed at conservatives from time to time.
Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 1:12 PM
Honora, I’m with you on that last point. I gave up on being outraged a long time ago. It gets tiring. That’s why I turned to those bloggers who typically approach these things from a more intellectual or humorous perspective… Allah, Ace, Insty, etc.
Besides, I see outrage/emotionalism as a key component of the left’s inferiority.
DaveS on October 20, 2006 at 1:12 PM
This is a lousy line of reasoning. Liberals ARE Americans. Anyone who’s a citizen of this country, as far as I’m concerned, is an American. To simply write off a huge chunk of the population as “not american” doesn’t help (although I can see where it might be cathartic to say so).
Farmer_Joe on October 20, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Now there’s a refreshing point of view!!
It’s interesting that so much of political “debate” has deteriorated to name-calling and laughable hyperbole. My theory is that it’s easy to call someone evil or stupid (which are purely value judgements) that it is to call them wrong (which has an objective reality and has to be proven).
Oh well.
honora on October 20, 2006 at 12:11 PM
honora,
Is this why you post on HA? I’ve tried to present adult, reasoned arguments on dkos and DU and a few others. On the rare occasion they get past the screeners I have yet to get a reasoned answer. The name calling starts as soon as I’m posted. I don’t have that much time on line but would love a reasonable debate. So few are capable of it. If your party would take a cue from KP and the few others like her we would be much better off. I don’t deny that there are those on the right that degenertae into name calling and such but by and large it seems to be more prevelant on the laft.
conservativecaveman on October 20, 2006 at 1:13 PM
I don’t understand it. Why did free speach become hate speach against the President?
Ted Rall is a traitor, and Ted, “ I pray” that you will get your comeupance.
accdat on October 20, 2006 at 1:17 PM
Calling Ted a traitor gives him far too much credit. He’s simply a guy who thrives on the outrage he generates. Starve him of the attention he craves, and he’ll fade away.
Like Madonna.
Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 1:19 PM
Honora sees this cartoon as an attack on Bush. Most people here see it as an attack on the military.
Really, it’s both.
What I have noticed is that those on the left seem willing or able to excuse all manner of statements by saying either “well, this isn’t attacking the troops, it’s just making a political point.”
Or the ever popular “we support the troops, but…” Or some varient there of.
Sometimes the contortions that the left will put themselves in seem unbelieveable.
I know a dance teacher. She’s a lefty. In the course of a brief conversation, she tried to get me to go to a theatrical play that was about driving out Bush. Then she mentioned that she was trying to get the military kicked off of campus, and that she was a volunteer that helped advise troops on how to desert to Canada. A companion of her’s added that there were lots of good reason for kicking the military off campus and that it was going to happen.
This dance teacher says she “supports the troops.” Yet to me, this support seems kinda…thin. Nuanced.
I didn’t think of it at the time, but if I see her again, I think I’ll bring this up.
I am working to get the dance department kicked out of the college. I am working to get it defunded. I also have a committe that attempts to persuade dance students that they should drop out of the dance classes and programs.
If she objects to this, I’ll just respond…
Hey, I support the dance teachers and dance students. It’s just the dance program I’m opposed to.
Do you think she’ll appreciate my support?
Discuss.
EFG on October 20, 2006 at 1:20 PM
Again, I don’t think the one necessarily impinges upon the other. I think, for example, that Kirsten Powers and Joe Lieberman are good Americans. They’re also liberals. These are people I can disagree with about the role of government in society, but I don’t have any doubts that what they advocate, they advocate out of a genuine belief that it’s the best thing for the country. Contrast that with someone like Rall, or, say, Michael Moore. I don’t think those guys are interested at all in what’s best for America.
Farmer_Joe on October 20, 2006 at 1:22 PM
CCaveman: I’m not sure I understand your question–do I post on HA because the debate has deteriorated to name-calling? No, I like to see what the other half is thinking. What I find is a lot of reasonable people who have differences with me that about half the time I can understand and give me pause for thought; the other half I don’t understand (in the sense of accepting). I also find a lot of people who I think are either seriously unhinged, or are probably in a place in their life where they have no status, no prospects, no hope, and are reduced to getting ugly on line to prop themselves up. (And yes, I know that psychobabble is silly).
Anyhow, hope that answers your question.
honora on October 20, 2006 at 1:22 PM
Honora, I would appreciate your views on my 1:20 comment.
Thank you.
EFG on October 20, 2006 at 1:26 PM
well, the entire cartoon is in very poor taste, to say the least.
EFG, you made a great analogy with the dance program, BTW. It’ll be interesting to hear how that dance teacher responds, if you run into her again.
pullingmyhairout on October 20, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Granted, both sides have folks who are rigid in their views. I mean, geez, every family has a nutty uncle or two. I have also seen you called names and it is juvenile behavior. Still, in my experience here, it is a small minority rather than the bulk of posters.
Anyway, enough of the lovefest!!! Back to Rawls….As a far-leftie he writes to his audience. They like calling Bush a moron and a war-monger, he concurs with that philosophy, so, that’s what he writes.
You just have to look beyond people like that, they add nothing new or useful to the debate.
BacaDog on October 20, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Hi EFG.
Well for what it’s worth, I think your analogy is flawed: the dance department is part of the college, it does not exist outside of the college. The military is recruiting on campus, a completely different thing.
You will be surprised that I agree with you in the main, if your point is that some of the left is anti-military (promoting desertion, kicking recruiters off campus) and hence it’s hard to believe they really support the troops. Which is a whole different thing than saying this war is a huge f&*@ up and we need a new strategy. That’s my POV and I heartily support the troops.
I believe the right does the same sort of intellectual contortions in some cases–if someone believes this war was ill conceived and that a new strategy is needed, they are unpatriotic. Huh? No being unpatriotic is sending our boys into an untenable situation and refusing to acknowledge there could be a better way.
So you have a thing for the dance teacher huh….
honora on October 20, 2006 at 1:41 PM
Honora, One more question. Is there a liberal site where one can have a somewhat civilized debate like you can here?
I’m not being a smarta$$, just curious to see what the rational faction of the other half is thinking.
BacaDog on October 20, 2006 at 1:43 PM
BacaDog: don’t know. When I post on those sites I am usually singing to the choir so I don’t really notice a lack of cordiality (It’s all about me, you understand ;^) ) I’ll try to keep your query in mind.
honora on October 20, 2006 at 1:45 PM
BacaDog: I like your direction in this argument. This people needs to be taught the definition of respect.
Ouabam on October 20, 2006 at 1:50 PM
EFG,
Good luck getting any Demicrat (see honora, I intentionally resisted the urge to use the terms dhimmicrat, demicrap, dumacrat, etc. – and just for you, to make you feel more welcome here than some previously have) to address your point logically, if at all.
You see, EFG, you have laid bare the DOUBLE STANDARD. What the Dems and other lefty liberals are doing their best to hide is that the single largest plank in their platform is Hipocracy.
For example, they can scream “Bush is a Nazi,” or “Israel is the source of the Middle East’s problems,” or “Madonna has a free speech right to crucify herself on national TV.” All of those are protected by free speech, you see.
However, woe be unto the first right winger who dare says that “Racial quotas have no place in a free market, everyone should be hired or granted admittance equally on their own merits” for they are sure to be labled a racist. Or how about this one, “Islam is NOT a religion of peace, but its very founder was a violent man and encouraged the destruction of all who would not follow the path.” Boy, there’s a person asking to be charged with a hate crime for saying something like that!
Oh, and I’ll save the best for last: “Yeah, yeah, we know…Madonna just crucified herself last night on our network while promoting her Kabala DVD, but there’s no way in heck that our management is gonna let your silly little tomato say ‘God made you special and He loves you very much!’ because that just might offend someone!
Freakin’ Ever-Lovin’ Double-Standard-Settin’ Wussies: The American (yes they’re Americans) Left
They dish it out, but are Constitutionally protected from havin’ to take it!
I’ll yield the balance of my time.
y2church on October 20, 2006 at 2:06 PM
Thanks for the link Slu – I spent the better part of an hour there…
GregH on October 20, 2006 at 2:23 PM
I thought it was pretty funny that you just disappeared for awhile.
Just call me the productivity killer.
Slublog on October 20, 2006 at 2:37 PM
The only “psycho fascist moron” is the NAZI that made that catroon!
Confederate on October 20, 2006 at 2:48 PM
Hi Honora
The military on campus includes more than just recruiters. It also includes the ROTC, which is a part of the college. And I’m pretty sure this dance teacher is advocating kicking ROTC off as well.
And as far as the dance department? Well, yes, it is a part of the college. But it certainly could exist off of the college as well. We have plenty of dance troupes and dance classes and dance theatres that could take up the slack.
Agreed.
For what it’s worth, I know people who actually do support the troops and America but oppose the war. It is a shame that there are those who attempt to parrot and mimic these people in order to hide amongst them and conceal their true motive.
No, not really. I’ve read enough of your posts to believe that. For what it’s worth, I think your motives are good. I also think that sometimes you find yourself making posts and taking positions that aren’t really yours. This Ted Rall being a good example. If we disected Ted’s Cartoon, and then looked at his past cartoons and statements, I think we could agree that Ted’s not really the most military friendly of guys. Well, some commentators here threw arround some pretty heated statements of their own, that you took exception with. And rightfully so. “Are liberals Americans?” comes to mind. But when you defended yourself from this slur, you made then tried to argue that Rall’s cartoon wasn’t really a slur at troops, but was really directed at Bush. And lets be honest. That cartoon wasn’t just about saying Bush is bad. Rall didn’t have to drag Major Brickner and the military in there to say he thinks Bush is a moron. Rall has issues with the military in general.
Yeah, it’s a regular Romeo and Juliet sort of thing…
Montagues and Capulets…
Sharks and Jets…
Spring and Winter romance…
Yeah, she’s my Mrs. Robinson. Only add about three decades to Mrs. Robinson’s age and you’ll have this dance teacher.
EFG on October 20, 2006 at 2:50 PM
I will say the language is much better here then at DU or Kos-guess we know more adjectives then they do-but back to the “cartoon”. I think it is an insult to the troops. It’s a view on the left that the only people in the military are those who are dead enders, people who couldn’t get a job at McDonald’s, kids from the ghettos or appalachia who have no future, or idiots who like to dress up and play Army. I seriously have my doubts that there are many on the left who do support the troops. They don’t really appreciate much because they live comfortable lives and aren’t touched by it.
As an Army vet, Army spouse (even though some have said that isn’t really an important consideration), I find it somewhat ironic the Ted Rall is so insecure with himself as a man that he has to mock those who decided to serve in the military while he draws “intellectual cartoons”. Oh well, one day he’ll be dead and won’t be able to draw anymore cartoons mocking people he doesn’t like.
Catie96706 on October 20, 2006 at 2:52 PM
However, it’s perfectly OK to mock disabled war veterans and mothers/wives who have lost sons/husbands in the war as “attention whores” and “harpies” simply because they disagree with you.
Constantine on October 20, 2006 at 2:53 PM
BTW the medical, dental and jag corps are groups that themselves say are not really part of the military for the most part. Every jag, doc and dentist I’ve come in contact with has told me that. Always telling us on the lines we’re the guts and I have always said they’re the glue that puts us back together and keeps our affairs in order in the worst case.
Catie96706 on October 20, 2006 at 2:55 PM
Try The New Republic site.
honora on October 20, 2006 at 2:55 PM
Is this the same Constantine from Expose the Left? Sounds like it. The only ones getting the press are not the quiet parents who believe their children’s death were for a noble cause or those who now accept their disablity. The “attention whore” you’re speaking of is a person who put herself out there for public display.
Catie96706 on October 20, 2006 at 2:58 PM
Hello, Catie. It’s good to engage you again.
The “attention whore” you’re speaking of is a person who put herself out there for public display.
…and many conservative pundits choose to question her motives without any factual basis to do so, rather than deal morally and intellectually with the opinions she expresses.
Constantine on October 20, 2006 at 3:09 PM
Sounds like a match made in heaven. I don’t think I take positions not my own, maybe? As I think I said, I have never heard of this guy before. I will take you at your word he is anti-military. It does seem to me odd that if that is the case, he would even give this guy any more exposure–after all, the significant part of the cartoon is the soldier’s statement re people not meeting his glance because they are guilty because they have not sacrificed a thing while others have made the ultimate sacrifice. Seems to me giving voice to that is anything but anti-troop.
We will never see eye to eye I fear. Say hi to Martha Graham/aka granny for me and have a nice weekend.
honora on October 20, 2006 at 3:17 PM
Constatine, I saw Cindy Sheehan in person and watched her and two others speak for a couple of hours.
I remember at the beggining, they said “nothing we say here should imply that we don’t support the troops.” Which certainly was a relief, because they spent the next couple of hours pile-driving the troops.
Nothing but attrocities, and rapes and what not. They were all duped into joining. Etc.
No kidding. I wish this was exageration.
She sure hates the military. And if she likes or supports the troops, I didn’t hear it.
You mentioned her motives. I’m not a mind reader. I don’t know. I suspect she didn’t like the military before her son joined. I think she probably resented the military, and thought it was beneath her son.
So yeah, Cindy “supports” the troops. The ones who joined because they were lied to, or duped into joining, or those who opposed the war, or who deserted to Canada.
But I thought to myself, “What about the ones who don’t desert? Or weren’t “lied” to when they joined? Or who, God Forbid, re-enlist? What about the ones who re-enlist while they are in Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you support them?”
I don’t think she does. She can protest all she wants, saying that she’s only doing this because she supports and loves the trooops.
Color me unconvinced.
EFG on October 20, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Thanks Honora, I’ll give it a look and let you know what I think.
BacaDog on October 20, 2006 at 3:43 PM
Anyone else find it ironic that the libs are upset about “Civility” and name calling when all we conservatives did was get upset over nasty Ted Rall being uncivil and spouting vile hatefulled speech ?
before any libs lecture me on being civil towards Ted Rall Id urge them to give Rall a lecture on being less of a moron
William Amos on October 20, 2006 at 3:53 PM
So after all this time – through the willful denial (claiming that others are taking a supposedly anti-Bush Rall strip and somehow wrongly conflating it with an anti-military meaning), through the ostensible-if-grudging enlightenment (“awkwardly” reading the strip and taking the anti-military slur as only “gratuitous”), through the invocation of the “But the right calls people unpatriotic!” slogan/canard, to the “I’ve never heard of Ted Rall” claim … we finally come full circle.
There’s a word for honora’s form of argument: “sophistry.” And while it’s a definite step up from name-calling-as-debate, it still leads to results that are ultimately about as satisfying as nailing jelly to a wall.
Spurius Ligustinus on October 20, 2006 at 4:03 PM
I can tell you with complete sincerity, sophistry will never, ever be something of which you will be accused. How’s that arm doing?
honora on October 20, 2006 at 4:10 PM
Constantine, we don’t call Sheehan an “attention whore” because we disagree with her. We call her such things (though I wouldn’t use that particular phrase) because she is much like Ted Rall in that everytime the media forgets about her for too long, she says or does something ridiculous or outrageous to try to get the spotlight back. It’s so blatant that I don’t think any remotely reasonable person can disagree with that.
And her motives aren’t questioned “without reason”… her motives are questioned because she has changed her story about meeting with Bush, because she has occasionally said some anti-semitic things and hangs out with anti-semitic groups (or openly anti-Israel, at the least), because she has publically fantasized about murdering the President, and any number of other things.
DaveS on October 20, 2006 at 4:33 PM
“How would the U.S. feel if it was carved up by it’s neighbors the way the poor Palestinians are?” -Ted Rall 10/2004
–Someday:Turnabout–
pathetic little man
SilverStar830 on October 20, 2006 at 5:09 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »