Sometimes yes.Do you really think politics or anything should be debated that way?
I found that cartoon absolutely hilarious when Bell produced it, and he was skewering a guy who's foreign policy I believed was on the money. I think the cartoon is still hilarious, and is a great vehicle to poke the same kind of crap back at the other side. I would have used it regardless of which Dem was elected... I was expecting to have Hillary's head on there. Might have changed the suit to a pantsuit with a flap in the back.That two sides should make imaging like that, use that kind of language?
Steve Bell has made a fine living from being immature I guess. The Guardian must be an immature lot too. Perhaps they are. I don't think Bell is; the remainder I can't speak for as I don't know them.People should be more mature than that, much much more mature, that is not what the word "debate" means.
If you believe Libs here engage in honest debate... think again. It's another reason I left the left. I learned it was one lie stacked upon another. I have little tolerance for liars, and skewering them and their idiotic leadership is part of debate and debating. Not that Obama would ever sink to the level of demeaning his opposition. No... he would never do that.
SURE and ABSOLUTELY!!! Though nothing comes without blame or criticism... that's life! And check out Bell's toons. He made a fine living skewering Bush43. His Bush era stuff is priceless... and Ramirez is another master of his craft.Im assuming you would agree that anyone has the right to do it without blame or criticism too? I mean if you can use an image of Obama, or any of the other stuff on that link, like that surely I or anyone else could use the same kind against Bush or Palin or any future or past Republican figure?
You have got to be joking. We have a President that bribed to pass ObamaKare, called a Cop a racist, hires tax cheats, refers to its citizens as "bitter clingers" and "tea baggers"... and you think this is the lower reaches of political discourse? Puh-lease. Interesting you hold a poster on DP to far higher standards than POTUS.Is that really what you want politics to be?
It's funny... it was funny when Bell skewered Bush, and it's funny and more fitting because Obama is literally up to his neck in it. Not everyone will laugh, and some might even be offended. C'est la vie.How is that productive at all?
Here is productive debate... just in the nick of time a Lib comes through with deep insight that is both hilarious and original to boot!
It skewers The One, it juxtaposes Mr. Brilliant with the Crap-o-matic governance he's blessed us with. That's the contribution. I understand Libs won't like it, and that's part of the fun too. You see, I enjoy having fun... another reason for leaving the brain dead, uptight, overwrought Left.How does that kind of stuff contribute to anything other than someone's ego?
I was going to post this one first, but wasn't sure it hit on all the cylinders of this thread; the other had done precisely that, much to your dismay I have come to understand.
Last edited by zimmer; 03-19-11 at 01:58 PM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
The mods can deal with it as they see fit. I did my part.
Last edited by Michael418; 03-19-11 at 02:33 PM.
Last edited by zimmer; 03-19-11 at 04:57 PM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
Comparing the dates from the article linked in the OP and this article from Newsvine dated March 2, 2011, it would appear Palin's mention of a no-fly zone was made (domestically atleast) approximately one-week before SoS Clinton or SecDef Gates mentioned it during an interview with British journalist abroad.
While March 2nd is the earliest evidence I've found suggesting that the Obama Administration had been considering a no-fly zone for some time, admittedly I could find no evidence to suggest it was talked about publically before February 23rd, the date of Sarah Palin's interview with Sean Hannity. However, that doesn't mean that the Obama Administration didn't have this strategy on the table beforehand. It just means they didn't go public about it before Palin did. Nonetheless, since I couldn't find any evidence to suggest the Obama Administration had discussed the matter publically before Palin, I'm willing to concede she discussed it publically first. Doesn't mean she was smarter than the Joint Chiefs, just means as a civilian she has the liberty of discussing issues of military strategy whereas the President can't go about tipping his hand as she can.
Moreover, as we now know, a UN resolution for a no-fly zone was passed 10-0 w/5 abstaning, AND among those member nations who voted in favor of same included members of the Arab League. So, even if Sarah Palin had mentioned a no-fly zone first, it would appear that her recommendation was a U.S. led-only no-fly zone which certainly wouldn't have been nearly as effective militarily nor politically as part of our foreign policy agenda as a unilateral coalition of U.N. forces surely will be.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-19-11 at 05:59 PM.
Also I wasn't comparing you to Obama, I was comparing you to yourself, I'd bet my bottom dollar that liberal zimmer was just as much of an arrogant egotistical ass as conservative one is.