All the toons are great, but this is my fave. today. :)
Posted on 08/16/2006 1:14:50 AM PDT by pookie18
Edited on 08/16/2006 8:08:56 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Thanks for the ping, Pookie! I LOVED the Cox and Forkum one, DayByDay, and the airline ones. Thanks for all you do in bringing us smiles!
Your opinion that something is "inappropriate" is your opinion. However, "inappropriate" is a weasel word. In complaining to the moderators it seems that what you MEAN to say is that you think it is WRONG. If that's what you think, why don't you say so?
"Inappropriate" is too vague a word to discuss. Your being upset is as indisputable as it is irrelevant and incompetent to show any thing. Your being upset MIGHT be because there's something wrong with you -- like an affective disorder. (I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just mentioning this to give an example of how your being upset is a morally neutral fact.)
You are retreating to an argumentative tactic beloved of liberals: You claim emotional distress and expect somebody else to do something ab out it; you call something inappropriate as though "appropriateness" were a mystical and undefined virtue, and expect on those grounds that others change their behavior to suit your desires.
That is morally wrong.
All the toons are great, but this is my fave. today. :)
Good batch today, Pookie. Thanks for the much-needed laughs!
Pookie, you do a terrific job!!! I read you every day as part of my morning routine. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!!!
Great job, Pookie!
Al Gore has body odor, Pook.
May I offer another perspective?
Some of the 'toons, but more often the photoshops, have made me uncomfortable. I have FReepmailed Pookie privately to express my particular objections. The ones with which I have the most difficulty are the ones that put sHrillary's head on Jabba the Hut's body or a witch's body, or similar themes. The reason I don't like those is because for those who vote based on emotion rather than logic (a good percentage of the left and some of the center), we can then be portrayed as "mean" or "insensitive", or some other balderdash as that, and She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Elected will garner instant sympathy (and votes) from those responding to that type of plea. Make no mistake, it is a cudgel that is used with great effectiveness against the right. Think of the excoriation of Rick Lazio for simply walking over to SWMNBE in a debate. It was decried as "mean", "brutish", etc., ad nauseum. So, even if some of those kinds of "jokes" are funny to some, I am disturbed by the backlash they could create, as I sense you were in voicing your original objection.
But as to the photo of the fleeing children with the added photoshop, I have to disagree. With the watershed revelation that current "war" photos posted as truth by the LSM are being exposed by bloggers from Little Green Footballs to the good folks at FR for the frauds they are, we have to stop and ponder: how many of the photos from VietNam were equally fake? We all know that the leftist's zenith was the VietNam era, which is perhaps why they cannot move past it in their approach. It was when the media ruled the hearts and minds of Americans. It turned military victories into defeats. It turned honorable soldiers and heros into people who were spat upon when they returned to this country. But what if it was a similar fraud to the current war photoshops? You really should visit the two sites Pookie posted yesterday (or the day before) about the fake photos: Malkin's rant and the other short movie. They show how the media still tries, clumsily now that their methods have been exposed, to fake an agenda. "Props" such as clean children's toys or wedding mannequins, or even relief workers are being posed into shots of devastation, all in the name of furthering a fraud. So, the photoshop of the fleeing children for me, was more a matter of "Hmmmm, I wonder how many VietNam pictures were faked, too, in order to turn public opinion against the war." How many times were frightened children or other tragedies used as "props" in furtherance of their goals?
As has been pointed out above, political cartoons are meant to be thought-provoking, not always funny. There will be some that are offensive to some, but I would rather have that than engage in the kind of self-censoring of political thought that the leftist PC crowd would impose on us (Please read Tammy Bruce's "The New Thought Police".) The question is do we want to be perpetually indignant, like the Muslim extremists who chose to be "offended" by "inappropriate" cartoons of Mohammed, or do we want the light and grace of humor to show the robustness and diversity of our political thought? I know which I prefer, so when I see one I don't particularly like, I either tell Pookie privately or ignore it and hope ones like it don't continue to dilute the really great political commentary of the rest of the 'toons. My personal sensitivities are just that: personal, and are part of the fabric of FR, but not the whole cloth.
Just my .02 worth.
Good morning and many thanks, Pookie!
Bird Flu killed the Peace Dove!?! (But the cause of death is correctly identified as a virus named Hez-bolla!)
thank you pookie! lots of laughs this morning! :)
LOL, good ones today pookster.
Thanks for the ping.
Great!
Gay Pornagrahpy on pookies toons.
I hope my (or anyone elses) boss wasn't behind my when the picture of the butt stretching guy popped up.
Damn. I am afraid to look at pookies toons now at work.
Otherwise thanks for the daily snickers.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.