Hateful Religious Bigots Attack Doonesbury

[Procrustes Stretched]

I didn't label anyone as a criminal.

I said Doonesbury (and therefore, Trudeau) is an anti-american piece of shit, and so he is.

I'm not the only person who has observed this about him. And that doesn't make me "just like the Taliban", you hysteric.

Doonsebury's criticisms are not anti-American, you moron

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, yes, they are, you wingnut fascist.

 

[daveman]

Yes indeed.

you are seriously demented.

criticism of the nation is good when a conservative like Glenn Beck trashes everything under the guise of education, but criticism in a comic strip is anti-American?

You are so much like the Taliban it's frightening.

Once again a leftist spits on the victims of the Taliban to score cheap political points.

The Taliban appreciates your support, but would kill you if they could. Luckily for you there are men and women better than you working to keep you safe.

Shithead.

 

[Dot Com]

Actually, yes, they are, you wingnut fascist.

I don't know the answer to your assertion but link?

 

[LockeJaw]

It seems than an angry racist bigot named Trudeau once drew hateful cartoons depicting Dr. Condie Rice in grotesque slave costumes because he hated president Bush. It isn't surprising that he thinks the manslaughter of the unborn is a hilarious subject for a cartoon.

It's a cartoon, a political commentary,

If I drew a cartoon of Obama eating watermelon or a bucket of KFC, would you feel the same way? Not that I would. Just curious.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't know that I would call it censorship.

A newspaper has the right to print what they want in their paper. If they choose not carry this particular cartoon while it deals with this subject, they have that right. They should not be forced to buy it nor print it, just as a pharmacy should not be forced to sell Plan B or another drug that causes an abortion.

True.

But it does bring into question the paper’s willingness to engage in honest debate about such a topic, or in this case a paper’s lack of courage to entertain opposing views.

From what I have seen none of them have called for the discontinuation of printing Trudeau's works in the future. They are only saying that they are uncomfortable with this particular issue as addressed by Doonesberry. Printing that comic strip could in fact cost them readership and lord knows they can't afford that.

True again.

But is the concern over profits or ideas that conflict with the paper’s conservative editorial stance? And what does this say about the integrity of a paper making editorial decisions based on such criteria?

Two well-known Washington political analysts, Thomas Mann, of the bipartisan Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agree. In a forthcoming book about Washington dysfunction, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” they write, “One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

The proof of this can be found in this very forum, this very thread.

And the research above is confirmation, rather than information; any astute political observer of the last 20 years has already detected the shift to the radical right by the GOP.

Am I supposed to backtrack because he is a conservative idiot and not a liberal one? Idiots will be idiots, even if they are conservatives.

You’re supposed to provide evidence to counter that provided in the article, not attack the messenger.

 

[Liability]

Leave my comic strip ALONE!

But serially, folks: remember. There is a GIANT wall separating comic strip and State!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

True.

But it does bring into question the paper’s willingness to engage in honest debate about such a topic, or in this case a paper’s lack of courage to entertain opposing views.

So, because a newspaper chooses not to run a strip with the word slut on the comics page, which is supposedly aimed at children, they aren't open to entertaining opposing views. Still not sure why you think the LA Times suddenly became a right wing paper, even while running the strip on the editorial page. Does the fact that the SF Chronicle runs Dilbert on the business page make them pro business?

True again.

But is the concern over profits or ideas that conflict with the paper’s conservative editorial stance? And what does this say about the integrity of a paper making editorial decisions based on such criteria?

What does it say about your views and your integrity that, despite me pointing this out more than once, some of the papers that made this decision have a liberal editorial staff?

The proof of this can be found in this very forum, this very thread.

And the research above is confirmation, rather than information; any astute political observer of the last 20 years has already detected the shift to the radical right by the GOP.

Actually, as I have just pointed out in this post, that is nothing but BS. The papers made the decision based on all sorts of criteria, the vast majority of which had nothing to do with the political viewpoints of the staff. The only shift has been that the Democrats are so far out of touch they perceive themselves to be moderates when they are actually virulent left wingers. It is pretty easy to blame something you disagree with on the other side by not actually asking about motives. isn't it?

If the LA Times editorial board thought the strip belonged on the editorial page you can be pretty sure that it actually belonged there. You can also be positive it had nothing to do with the right wing since they routinely attack Republicans and their policies on the front page.

You’re supposed to provide evidence to counter that provided in the article, not attack the messenger.

I didn't attack the messenger, I expressed my opinion of the message.

 

[Unkotare]

But it does bring into question the paper’s willingness to engage in honest debate about such a topic, or in this case a paper’s lack of courage to entertain opposing views.

It doesn't take "courage" to push something your customers don't want, it takes stupidity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Leave my comic strip ALONE!

But serially, folks: remember. There is a GIANT wall separating comic strip and State!

but, where in the text of the US Constitution does it say 'comic strip'

 

[Unkotare]

And still the OPs claims remain unsupported.

 

[FA_Q2]

True.

But it does bring into question the paper’s willingness to engage in honest debate about such a topic, or in this case a paper’s lack of courage to entertain opposing views.

So, because a newspaper chooses not to run a strip with the word slut on the comics page, which is supposedly aimed at children, they aren't open to entertaining opposing views. Still not sure why you think the LA Times suddenly became a right wing paper, even while running the strip on the editorial page. Does the fact that the SF Chronicle runs Dilbert on the business page make them pro business?

Don't worry, it is because Clay has nothing else other than to blame every single damn woe on some unidentified right wing source. There is a right wing conspirator SOMEWHERE in this process, I am sure....

And still the OPs claims remain unsupported.

And in all Clay's intelligence, it seems that he has ignored this fact. All the left wingers here seem to have ignored this fact.

Can even ONE of you on the left that are foaming at the mouth here actually SUPPORT the asinine claims that you have put forth.

 

[AmericanFirst]

True.

But it does bring into question the paper’s willingness to engage in honest debate about such a topic, or in this case a paper’s lack of courage to entertain opposing views.

So, because a newspaper chooses not to run a strip with the word slut on the comics page, which is supposedly aimed at children, they aren't open to entertaining opposing views. Still not sure why you think the LA Times suddenly became a right wing paper, even while running the strip on the editorial page. Does the fact that the SF Chronicle runs Dilbert on the business page make them pro business?

Don't worry, it is because Clay has nothing else other than to blame every single damn woe on some unidentified right wing source. There is a right wing conspirator SOMEWHERE in this process, I am sure....

And still the OPs claims remain unsupported.

And in all Clay's intelligence, it seems that he has ignored this fact. All the left wingers here seem to have ignored this fact.

Can even ONE of you on the left that are foaming at the mouth here actually SUPPORT the asinine claims that you have put forth.

No, they can't, as usual.

 

[Liability]

Leave my comic strip ALONE!

But serially, folks: remember. There is a GIANT wall separating comic strip and State!

but, where in the text of the US Constitution does it say 'comic strip'

Text?

Text?

We don't needs no steeenkeen text!

We got penumbras!