Jump to content

Political Cartoons - The Politics Thread.


ROFL BOX

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

To be good, there has to be some connection to truth in a cartoon.

That cartoon is just gluing together two lies about what people who don't read want to believe about the Washington Post and the NY Times. 

The one on the right is absolutely true. On the left, I don’t think they called him homegrown terrorist, but the gist of the cartoon is that the initial coverage of Al Baghdadi was more positive than that of Covington Kid. Most normal people understand this. You on the other hand...

5-AD153-CC-957-C-4585-BBCF-EBFC0-F3-B700
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame the irony of you advising anyone about comedy is completely lost on you. Oh, and you're intellectually dishonest in your declaration of absolute truth regarding the cartoon.

The public knows Al Baghdadi as the leader of a malign, murderous movement. If someone adds that description the cartoon portrays, they're just adding information. I suppose you are hostile to that. Not good. Somebody do something. Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

It's a shame the irony of you advising anyone about comedy is completely lost on you. Oh, and you're intellectually dishonest in your declaration of absolute truth regarding the cartoon.

The public knows Al Baghdadi as the leader of a malign, murderous movement. If someone adds that description the cartoon portrays, they're just adding information. I suppose you are hostile to that. Not good. Somebody do something. Sad.


“Someone”= WaPo The initial headline for Baghdadi obit referred to him as Austere Religious Scholar. “Adding information” to the story. Got it. 
Not sure what you’re arguing here. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:


“Someone”= WaPo The initial headline for Baghdadi obit referred to him as Austere Religious Scholar. “Adding information” to the story. Got it. 
Not sure what you’re arguing here. 

Negged for obfuscation and lying. I looked up the Post's obit:

Headline:

Quote

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48

First paragraphs:

Quote

When Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took the reins of the Islamic State of Iraq in 2010, few had heard of the organization or its new leader, then an austere religious scholar with wire-frame glasses and no known aptitude for fighting and killing.

But just four years later, Mr. Baghdadi had helped transform his failing movement into one of the most notorious, vicious and — for a time — successful terrorist groups of modern times. Under his guidance, it would burst into the public consciousness as the Islamic State, an organization that would seize control of entire cities in Iraq and Syria and become a byword for shocking brutality.

Just because you like to lap up partisan vomit doesn't mean you can sell it as food to actual citizens. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Negged for obfuscation and lying. I looked up the Post's obit:

Headline:

First paragraphs:

Just because you like to lap up partisan vomit doesn't mean you can sell it as food to actual citizens. 

The WP changed the headline after blowback.  Austere Religious Scholar was the original,  you fucking prat.

Edited by Incredulity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

The WP changed the headline after blowback.  Austere Religious Scholar was the original,  you fucking prat.

I've never been called a prat. What is a prat?

The criticism of the Post is absurd. They clearly say he was the leader of a terrorist organization that he raised to brutal level not before seen.

Prat? Prat? No, you're the prat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Political cartoons don't have a message?

This explains so much.

Maybe you don't understand the message?  Its pretty easy to understand that the author is saying that as a result of Trump and the Ayatollah figuratively popping off at each other, innocent Canadians died.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TXSG8R said:

Maybe you don't understand the message?  Its pretty easy to understand that the author is saying that as a result of Trump and the Ayatollah figuratively popping off at each other, innocent Canadians died.  

Yep, that's why I said literally killed Canadians. Cause it doesn't show Trump killing a general of theirs and the Ayatollah killing the plane trying to kill Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

From the link:

Today Tehran said it had made several arrests as Hassan Rouhani vowed justice

 

If they hang the guys in the missile battery, the whole shit show will be complete. 

Who let planes fly in a war zone? What were the orders given to the battery? 

These deaths are an indirect consequence of Trump's action, but this is a long way from being collateral damage, IMHO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

The Branco cartoon illustrates irony deafness in its most ironic medium.

The anti-Trumpers have a Russia problem. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

Orwell was a genius.

I love it when the lefties go crazy...LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...