Welcome to PatsFans.com

This is beyond atrocious!

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by ELOrocks17, Feb 2, 2006.

  1. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2006
  2. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,727
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +160 / 4 / -4

    You righties are soft. No wonder you're so afraid all the time.
  4. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Oh please Patters--that is far beyond tastefull or appropriate, and you know it. How would you feel if a cartoonist potrayed Cindy Sheehan loaded into a cannon that was right in front of OBL..and the caption says "Killing 2 birds with 1 stone?
  5. JLC

    JLC Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Cartoonist Quote:

    In a story about the letter, the Post quoted Toles as saying he never intended the cartoon to be read as a personal attack or a derogatory comment on the service and sacrifice of US soldiers.

    He said that in thinking about Rumsfeld's remarks "what came soon to mind was the catastrophic level of injuries the Army and members of the armed services have sustained."

    "I thought my portrayal of it was a fair depiction of the reality of the situation," he said.


    What a coward. He couldn't even tell the truth afterwards about what he did and why. Anyone here really believe "he never intended the cartoon to be read as a personal attack or a derogatory comment on the service and sacrifice of US soldiers?" Or, ""I thought my portrayal of it was a fair depiction of the reality of the situation."

    I'd have a little bit respect for him if he at least stood up and took the heat for what he did. He must assume that his readers attribute to him the absolute lowest level of brain activity required to keep himself alive.

    He has the right. He just has no common sense.
  6. Gumby

    Gumby Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    #11 Jersey

    I disagree.

    I think he did tell the truth afterwards. The thing is that he still to this day probably doesnt think the cartoon is a personal attack on Soldier's service and sacrifice.

    the reason for that is that he as most of his ilk; doesnt respect the Soldier's sacrifice. He thinks Soldiers are the poor and stupid who had no other choice with their lives and that we only choose the military as a last option. Because that is his value system.

    So he naturally views the amputee as a victim and has no problem portraying a victim in his cartoon.

    It is entirely incomprehensible for him to understand the Soldier amputee who when asked at Walter Reed by a reporter ' Do you regret going to Iraq?' who responds; 'No, I only wish I could go back to finish what we started and if I can I will rehabilitate with a prostethic and go back.'
    (actual conversation - paraphrased from memory. Female reporter just couldnt make sense of the guys she interviewed and reported her befuddlement.) This guy is from same mindset.
  7. JLC

    JLC Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Maybe you're right. Which would place this guy's mental function at something less than that required for intelligent life.
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,727
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +160 / 4 / -4

    I think the point of the cartoon was to show the callousness of Rumsfeld, and the fact that they are taking more issue with the cartoon than the point of the cartoon only serves to confirm the point of the cartoon. To me, it sounds like you're simply parroting a point of view you haven't thought through, or you're truly unfamiliar with editorial cartoons and the nature lambasting someone. Some conservatives might accuse you of simply acting "politically correct" with your objections.
  9. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,059
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +328 / 1 / -9

    Another nail in the sore losing democrat coffin, (keep em coming) I hope they put Cindy Sh!than on Camera again.
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I don't see myself getting worked up over any cartoon. Except Family Guy, it's freeking hilarious!
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2006
  11. Gumby

    Gumby Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    #11 Jersey

    Patters, you are still not getting it either.

    Of course that was the cartoonist point; he thinks that is the way Rumsfeld actually thinks.

    Our point is that you guys are the gang who cant shoot straight. Every single attack you make on Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney etc. you think you are making great points.

    when from our point of view you are insulting the honorably serving Soldier in an inept misaimed effort at a political attack in a time of war.

    Sure the bubble text is aimed at Rumsfeld. But the whole use of the amputee as a prop / being portrayed as a victim instead of a hero and someone courageously sacrificing to protect other Americans is offensive.

    That you dont get that shows your blind spot.
  12. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Everybody gets it, we just know it's BS. According to what you say, any critisism of the war effort is a critisism of our soldiers, and that's just stupid. Any president could launch a completely unjust war, and according to you, the people should just be quiet about it. That's not what America is about. What about those of us who don't want our soldiers there because we don't want them losing their lives for what we see as a poor cause? If the intent is respectful, you can only take disrespect from it if that's what you were after in the first place.
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2006
  13. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    For once we are in agreement
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,727
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +160 / 4 / -4

    Gumby, I understand that, but it's a frickin' cartoon. The only reason people are getting worked up over is because they've been told to get worked up over it. It's a common political phenomenon. I'm positive I could find more offensive cartoons from both the left and the right, but this cartoon clearly offended Rumsfeld, so his allies (including casual ones, like those in this forum) are quickly rushing to his defense. The cartoon might not be a great way to win you over to the liberal way of thinking, but frankly you're a lost cause (just as I am one from your perspective).
  15. Gumby

    Gumby Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    #11 Jersey

    Patters & Pujo,

    with all due respect. If it was just folks getting upset because they were told to .... how do you explain the initial opening salvo - An open memo signed by GEN Pace and the entire JCS to the Wash Post. That is unprecedented that every service chief would complain about something like that. Are you trying to say someone told five 4 star generals to get upset???

    I could care less about the bubble and the slam at Rumsfeld; he is a political figure and open to attack. And a big boy who can take it.

    And this is not a matter of EVERY CRITICISM IS UNPATRIOTIC nor is it about ELIMINATING FREE SPEECH. It is about a matter of GOOD TASTE.

    You guys want to trot out the patriotism/free speech accusations to protect the most outrageous, disingenuous, libelous and sometimes treasonous criticisms. The same way yelling FIRE in a theater is not a First Amendment issue and same way you wouldnt use a SAMBO cartoon figure to represent Donovan McNabb in a sport cartoon about the Farve situation. You shouldn't be using Soldiers in a pathetic attempt to score political points.
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,727
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +160 / 4 / -4

    Gumby, I can assure you that if you do a search for anti-gay cartoons, you will find things that you would agree would upset anyone who is gay or has a gay family member or friend. If you do a search, I'm sure you can find cartoons that associate liberals with Al Qaida and other awful people. I haven't seen the actual Washington Post cartoon, and maybe there is something especially atrocious about it. I suppose I could imagine a design that was truly offensive, at least as offensive as ELOrocks mocking post about me and suicide:

    http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=30619

    But, by and large, I think most people are fairly thick skinned in this day and age, and I think the unprecedented letter from military brass to the Washington Post is nothing more than political posturing.

    Sure, it's not nice to make fun of wounded soldiers, gays, fat people, suicide victims, liberals, rural folk, gun owners, etc., and sometimes when we do it crosses the line and becomes bad taste. But, bad taste is purely subjective, and unless that cartoon is extremely realistic or gory, I don't think it's anything more than a cartoon. As far as using soldiers to score points, the fact is that the liberal opposition to the war is based on soldiers being killed and wounded, and based on the fact that many of those people became soldiers because they were from poor or troubled backgrounds, not because they are gung-ho soldiers ready to fight any war. Liberals really want the soldiers home, unless the war can be fully justified. Showing the price of war is a double-edged sword, I don't deny, but excesses on both sides are the nature of political battle.
  17. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    Change the name from Bush to Cindy Sheehan and you have got a liberal hero.
  18. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,059
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +328 / 1 / -9

    If it was a cartoon of Cindy Sh!than being beheaded by Ann Coulter Liberal Bush Haters across America would be setting themselves on fire. Another march on Washington with their little toy drums.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>