DEVELOPING: SECRET SERVICE CONCERN AFTER LOS ANGELES TIMES COMIC DEPICTS 'BUSH ASSASSINATION'

drudge

[ConservativeMan55]

DEVELOPING: SECRET SERVICE CONCERN AFTER LOS ANGELES TIMES COMIC DEPICTS 'BUSH ASSASSINATION'

[Guenevere]

#103...I am now!
That so called 'cartoon' gave me a jolt!

[freedumb2003]

L.A. Daily News (it used to be "and Greensheet")

[RonDog]

"This cartoon is sympathetic to Bush."

ANOTHER intellectual!

Please, please, PLEASE explan to us ignorant savages how threatening the life of the President is "sympathetic" to him.

And, for extra credit, please explain to us what you would consider to be an "UN-sympathetic" cartoon.

I am awaiting your erudition.

[b4its2late]

We don't need Drudge. He gets his info from FR.

[StupidQuestions]

There is no threat to the life of the President in that cartoon. It is a play on an historic event ... a picture of the Sheriff of Saigon ... that changed the nature of that war.

It is a comment. It is not a threat. It is not a suggestion. It is a political comment.

Jeez --- have a little perspective!

[hellinahandcart]

This cartoon is sympathetic to Bush.

I agree. BUT, if a cartoon has to be explained, it's not that effective as a statement, is it? He probably should have kept this one to himself, because it's too easily misunderstood.

[jack gillis]

Again, read posts #44 and #45, and Miss Marple in post #88 has an excellent take, too.

As I pointed out a little bit above, the sheer emotional punch of the image can be seen as part of the artist's message.

In other words, he WANTS so Bush supporters to mis-interpret it and he WANTS some Bush critics to mis-interpret it AT FIRST.

[TheOtherOne]

Want me to walk through it?

Sadly, with this crowd it will require baby steps. Many here are attacking a political cartoonist because of their own stupidity in undertanding it. This thread alone, is why no group should be able to ban things they don't like. Half of the people evidently don't understand what they read. Some even claim it doesn't matter what the author meant, since they think it is a threat so that is that.

Stupidity scares me.

[BCrago66]

The 1st Amendment does not protect all political speech, it only protects all exclusively political speech.

If I give a speech spouting a political ideology and giving the reasons arising from that ideology why we should go down next week and assassinate political figures - I would (and should) get get some extra special federal attention.

[MattAMiller]

I think you miss the point. Threatening the life of the president in any way, shape or form will create great stress in your life.

Is this the way we want it to be? Obviously threats must be taken seriously, but do we want to extend this to anything that could be conceivably seen as a threat?

[Howlin]

[b4its2late]

LOL. Me too. Drudge too.

(Though I may be Drudge. Ya never know.)

[veronica]

Ah. I think of that as a "Valley" paper, but it's a good one, more conservative. The Herald was super. A black day when it died...

[breakem]

Dillon or Drudge?

[justshe]

(shhhhhh......you're giving me a headache.)

[freedumb2003]

>>Please, please, PLEASE explan to us ignorant savages how threatening the life of the President is "sympathetic" to him.<<

Right now, Politics is trying to destroy President Bush, since facts and actions can't.

There.


If Bush was holding the gun, it would appear he is trying to do something bad. This has to do with his enemies' desparation.

SO GET A GRIP! Jeeze, what a bunch of idiots.

[Steel Wolf]

Some of us believe so much in the absolute nature of that Amendment that even crying "Fire!" in a non-burning theater should be protected.

Should people be allowed to post classified information on the internet? Not letting them violates their free speech.

Should people be allowed to threated to kill others?

Should people be allowed to pass out NAMBLA pamphlets at playgrounds?

I'm pretty libertarian leaning as far as government intrusion goes, but you've got to be kidding if you think that totally unrestricted speech is a good thing.

[Misterioso]

And I and anyone else can say "Shut it down!" just as easily as you and anyone cane say "1st Amendment!" That's the beauty of the 1st Amendment- it goes both ways.

He didn't say you can't say "Shut it down!" He said it is un-American to say it--not against the law. Do you get it now?

[Mo1]

I agree, it really is a shot at the Media!!!!

If so .. he didn't do a good job at it

[BCrago66]

Pretentiousness - well it doesn't scare me, but it irritates me.