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'

[Joe Brower]

Of course, I don't have to tell any of you how utterly over the top it is. It doesn't even make a very persuasive metaphorical statement. It's just this "artist" venting his inner fantasies from his ivory tower. Unfortunately for him, we who still live on mother Earth see his hyperbole for what it is -- simple, clear, bitter hatred. If a *conservative* cartoonist had ever depicted Clinton in such a manner, he'd have been imprisoned or worse. We can expect to see Ramirez' leftmedia comrades come galloping to his rescue in a NY second -- no surprise there.

But, but, I thought that the left was the party of *love*, *peace*, and *understanding*. Sigh... I feel so disillusioned right now... (Not!).

[Quick1]

Any potrayal of assasination of the president is illegal and the offending party will be notified.

Are you certain? Perhaps you missed the other historical comics depicting assassinations of previous presidents. As far as I know, all were legal.

[Quick1]

*sigh*

Read the thread and learn. The cartoonist is conservative, the cartoon is very pro-Bush. It's been explained multiple times.

[SerpentDove]

They're "concerned, " huh? So long as they're "concerned."

[Publius6961]

Stupid Los Angeles Times!,p> I don't get it. Hang on a second.

I see that cartoon as supporting the notion that politics alone is attempting to bring Bush down, not reality.

Of course, pursuing the anology much deeper causes all sorts of complications.

[SerpentDove]

Yeah, people it's funny!

The idiot who drew this should be in jail.

[SerpentDove]

First rule of comedy:

If you have to explain your jokes, they're not funny.

[Joe Brower]

*sigh*

OK, I've read the thread; I got the original message off Drudge via email.

Interesting commentary, and both sides have their points. Up to now, I've only had a rudimentary familiarity with Ramirez' work, so I had no prior knowledge of his political bent. He does seem to lean more on the conservative side, although he doesn't seem to pull punches either way, which is good.

I now understand Ramirez' point more fully, but he would have done a much better job of it if he had put the word "DEMOCRATS" on the back of the shooter's flak jacket instead of the much more ambigious "POLITICS". And in any case he was just plain foolish to depict a gun deliberately pointed at the head of the President of the United States, particulary in a time of war. You can rest assured that will indeed give some of the crazies out there some very bad ideas; to think otherwise is simply fooling yourself. The Secret Service knows this all too well; I have worked with the SS in the past, and they do not play games.

In addition, Ramirez must be aware of the L.A. Times' Marxist proclivities, and had to know that the conservative half of the country is completely rubbed raw at this point in time by their incessant agitprop. Again, a display of poor judgement, IMHO.

And last but not least, I stand by my statement that if a cartoon like this had ever been published depicting Clinton in such a manner, Ramirez would become uno de los desaparacidos.

*sigh*

[Quick1]

If you have to explain your jokes, they're not funny.

Good point. I find Dennis Miller hilarious, but after he was on Monday Night Football, ESPN would run a weekly column trying to explain some of his jokes. So, is it saying something about the joke teller, or the person not getting the joke?

[Quick1]

And last but not least, I stand by my statement that if a cartoon like this had ever been published depicting Clinton in such a manner, Ramirez would become uno de los desaparacidos.

Do you have any proof of this? The history of cartoons in this thread would indicate otherwise.

[ChadGore]

Look, no matter how much you try to put a maraschino cherry on this turd pile, in the final analysis, regardless of any interpretation, it still has 2 things in the front and center of the image.

1) A gun
2) pointed at the temple of the leader of the executive branch of my government.

I could care less if the author whistled the star spangled banner every morning, his current ideology or political affiliation isn't at issue. His depiction of the assasination of my president is. It's wrong, it's against the law, and he made a mistake in publishing it.

[MeekOneGOP]

Sheesh ! Way to go LA Times Ramirez ! < /sarcasm >
My apologies if you've seen this or already been pinged to it!

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[MeekOneGOP]

Grampa, that pic is uploaded to my website if you want to use it, fyi . . .

[The_Media_never_lie]

Agreed. Is a newspaper responsible for its content? I think the answer is yes. Someone is responsible and should be held accountible.

[Lazamataz]

Read the thread and learn. The cartoonist is conservative, the cartoon is very pro-Bush. It's been explained multiple times.

I understand both of these rationales, and I reject them as inconsequential.

Don't depict the real American President being assassinated. Period.

[Quick1]

You still haven't indicated exactly what law this is breaking. The history of cartoons would seem to indicate this cartoon is legal. Ann Coulter also says you're wrong, according to other Freepers on this thread.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks ! When I saw the LA Times/Ramirez cartoon, THAT one came immediately to mind as well !!

That is undoubtedly what Ramirez was going for, imho !!!

[Modernman]

Political speech is one of the most highly sacred things in this country."

And needs to be done responsibly.

This is an argument that has been made since the time of the first political cartoon in this country. It still doesn't hold water because "responsible" is in the eye of the beholder. Who gets to define what "responsible" really means?

However, that's going into the 'yelling fire in a theater' or screaming 'this plane is going to explode now' on a flight territory.

Not at all. Yelling "fire" is not protected speech because it isn't politically oriented and it has the potential to cause great harm to others. Now, comparing the President to Bin Laden, though clearly despicable, is certainly political speech.

[Joe Brower]

"The history of cartoons in this thread would indicate otherwise."

Please indicate what exact posts you are referring to.

[Quick1]

They're scattered throughout the nearly 750 posts in this thread. I'm not going to spoon-feed you something you can fairly easily find yourself.

I believe the first cartoon posted was one of a president going between two cannon. Another was a president being hung by words.