0
   

Weeping and gnashing of teeth

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 01:08 am
Well, I am way-tired, re politics, but I liked the photos for themselves.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 01:18 am
I have been tired since the crap began.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 07:22 am
On some things I am a little slow on the uptake. I am trying to figure out who the sharks are waiting to attack and what people are growing tried of exactly.

If it is anything that I have posted, all those articles and things. I apologize. I think I was just trying to find something to say in here now that the election is over more than anything.

When this board first opened up after the disappointment of the election I found it a huge relief and I guess I just didn't want it to die out. But I guess forcing things don't really work.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 03:12 pm
I, for one revel, am talking about the disgusting, gloating and vicious photos - you now, the crybaby one, and the gun-porn "we are glad and [email protected]@k the world and all you liberal wienies" things.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 03:18 pm
dlowan wrote:
Ok - briefly, and never again I give in - at least there is a little attempt to think in this stuff...

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/11/09/9n_cartoon_gallery__550x320.jpg

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,394054,00.jpg

I AM sorry.


Then, again, maybe viciousness is in the eye of the beholder.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 03:22 pm
Not that I'm defending the imagery-based eye-pokes to which you allude, dlowan ... but I'm curious here ... were you equally put off by the lampoons, cartoons, and parodies gleefully flung about on these boards during the runup to this election by those critical of The Now Decidedly Retained Incumbent, his Party, his policies, and his partisans? Perhaps you were, and I just missed your condemnation of it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 03:49 pm
Yeah, JW - I just let me guard down and went for it. I pointed out on that thread that I was cross with myself.

Timber - I have often declared that I find the stupid polarised demonisation crap from both sides pathetic. If you have failed to see that, you weren't looking - and I won't do your work for you by looking it up.

I don't think I have normally objected to thoughtful cartoons from either side. Hateful drek from both sides I have frequently condemned - and frankly, I can only think you disingenuous to say you have not seen this.

From you, and a few folk like you (but not, of course, from the usual fanatics and trolls) I have found the vicious gloating since the election both extraordinary and sickening. If you are unable to tell the difference - by the way - between the disgusting gun-porn stuff (especially what appears to be a very young teenage girl - all kitted out in pretend combat gear and a huge gun - sort of Lindy English nymphette thing) and the revolting cry-baby sttuff and your repeated posting of the therapy stuff, just as a for instance, and a political cartoon making a thoughtful point, then so be it.

I considered the posting of the political cartoons untoward only in the present atmosphere on these boards, by the way - which I am decrying. I failed myself by doing it - but, as I said, if you see those as similar in tone to the disgusting stuff you and others have posted, so be it.

I have often thought that grace in victory is a wonderful thing, and something I admire - and have often cringed at the behaviour, eg of the Oz cricket tteam in victory. I think, perhaps, it is a mor edifficult thing to achieve than grace in defeat?

I had thought you would have it.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 04:04 pm
I am now sorry I asked as it seemed to have opened another avenue of uncomfortableness.

In other news, Cheney is in the hospital.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 04:17 pm
Yes - but it says he's out now.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 04:43 pm
I'll allow you may have something of a point, dlowan. I did not contend you had not voiced objection to "Hateful drek", I noted merely that example thereof had escaped my attention, or at the least my memory.


Dunno for shure exactly what's goin' on here ... am I underly sensitive, or perhaps are those critical of the recent postings of mine to which you take exception overly sensitive? Likely a bit of both, I suspect. I can appreciate some, stinging from disapointment with the recent Oz elections only to be confronted by what they perceive to have been the even more unexpected, even more inexplicable, results of the US elections, might be particularly prone to the infering of injury where none was implied. The point of satire and lampoon is that they are pointed. Perhaps in no other arena than politics is that more evident.


Oh, BTW ... the "young teenage girl - all kitted out in pretend combat gear and a huge gun" is in fact an active-duty member of The United States Army, currently tasked with wearing the real combat gear in which she was kitted out ... those are her work clothes and her tools. Its her job. I expect she would take most strenuous exception to being equated with Lindy Englund. That remark was, to my mind, unwarranted, mean-spirited and egregiously misplaced. But then, mebbe I'm just bein' overly sensitive.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 05:10 pm
Or, Timber, it might be that you are posting hateful stuff, and no psychological explanation is needed?

Let me give you an example:

This is mean-spirited gloating crap - in my view:

http://home.adelphia.net/~thensley/images/demseal.jpg

This is fair political comment, and very funny: Edit - I assumed this was anti-Democrat - but, on second looking, it seems to be even-minded - I MEANT to pick an anti-Democrat one, and thought this was it!

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/041102/matson.gif

Get the difference?

Think that just MAYBE there is a reason for "over-sensitivity"?


The gun stuff - I take your point about that young woman - as I said, she looks like a kid to me - but - what is your POINT with that stuff???

Msolga and I were having a discussion about this stuff - that begins HERE

(and please note carefully what is above Msolga's question - what, really, do you think of that stuff?) .

We were speculating about how we may see the gun stuff differently - but, it is not just us, or non-Americans who are reacting as I do, Timber - as my PMs tell me. I am just SAYING it, openly. (I am not overly proud of some of the stuff I said on that thread - I think it shows reverse-arrogance, BTW - I was really sickened - but I left it there - warts and all). Mebbe some of it is cultural, though?

But - I still think it very ugly - in actuality, and spirit, even attempting ot make cultural allowances.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 05:11 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I'll allow you may have something of a point, dlowan. I did not contend you had not voiced objection to "Hateful drek", I noted merely that example thereof had escaped my attention, or at the least my memory.


Dunno for shure exactly what's goin' on here ... am I underly sensitive, or perhaps are those critical of the recent postings of mine to which you take exception overly sensitive? Likely a bit of both, I suspect. I can appreciate some, stinging from disapointment with the recent Oz elections only to be confronted by what they perceive to have been the even more unexpected, even more inexplicable, results of the US elections, might be particularly prone to the infering of injury where none was implied. The point of satire and lampoon is that they are pointed. Perhaps in no other arena than politics is that more evident.


Oh, BTW ... the "young teenage girl - all kitted out in pretend combat gear and a huge gun" is in fact an active-duty member of The United States Army, currently tasked with wearing the real combat gear in which she was kitted out ... those are her work clothes and her tools. Its her job. I expect she would take most strenuous exception to being equated with Lindy Englund. That remark was, to my mind, unwarranted, mean-spirited and egregiously misplaced. But then, mebbe I'm just bein' overly sensitive.


More psychologizing - I expected both Howard and Bush to win.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 07:44 pm
Quote:
Get the difference?


See: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37879 (Pretty much the entire topic)

And here's a samplin' of some more.

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/27doggy.jpg
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=990217#990217


http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/CBSandDanRather/images/wasserman.gif
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=920177#920177

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~booblehole/Bush/iv_02%20copy.jpg
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=911858#911858


Quote:
Um.....if you put it that way.....Kerry.

Let's see...

"didn't serve" vs. "didn't serve" (that's a tie)
"shot one kid" vs. "let 9-11 happen" (I'd prefer losing only one)
"coward" vs. "moron" (I'll take the coward)
"flip-flopper" vs. "Hitler wannabe" (I'll take the flip-flopper)
"communist who wants to tax the country into bankruptcy" vs. "privileged smarmy lying piece of **** cokehead who wants to kill everyone outside the U.S" (I'll take the communist tax-lover)
...and Bush hates gays.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=901689#901689

Quote:
these are the ugly Americans and only a % of the population that are arrogant and bullshit. They will be silenced again in November. They are the evil ones

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=778099#778099

What difference?

<shrug>

I guess its a matter of sensibilities and perspective. Odd, though, voiced objection appears to be a bit one-sided and a recent thing.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 08:06 pm
I'd like to direct this all, for a moment, from complex opprobrium for the recent and continuing past, to what any of us want to see in the future. Not re censoring any of this - I personally think various cartoons or webconcoctions are below the belt sometimes, but that is the nature of the beast.

The more discerning will dismiss the below the belt stuff on all sides, which then goes on and wins more votes than any of us know.

Does that mean we all go there? Or make lines clear to others, somehow....

My fave in all this has been Daumier, who has always been underrated, um, underated, less well thought of than he should be, to me.

I have no idea if he was above or below belt to viewers at the time. What is above or below belt is clearly contended, or shined on.

It could be useful to work out where the line is (lines are), re gratuitous flaming, not much as a general worldwide proscriptive, but to see if there is a fuzzy line of agreement.

Or, to disagree with myself, is a sense of a line useful?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 08:24 pm
Perceptive, Osso. Actually, I think this particular digression has pretty much hammered the point to the point there no longer is any point ... if there was a point to start with.


And mebbe, just mebbe, that's the whole point.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 11:35 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Perceptive, Osso. Actually, I think this particular digression has pretty much hammered the point to the point there no longer is any point ... if there was a point to start with.


And mebbe, just mebbe, that's the whole point.


or as the buddhist monk said to the hot dog vendor;

"make me one with everything".

:wink:
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 11:56 pm
Timber, the pic which you posted and that dlowan quoted was aimed at us pinko liberals. Every one of the pics you posted were aimed at Bush - a little difference there, no?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 11:58 pm
does that mean you thing there is no edge, dtom?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 12:03 am
I should explain that timber and I are way the hell and gone on politics. Could hardly be more different. I answer them as I see them, what'er the question. As I suppose he does.


He shows up at the politics site more often though.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 07:07 am
littlek wrote:
Timber, the pic which you posted and that dlowan quoted was aimed at us pinko liberals. Every one of the pics you posted were aimed at Bush - a little difference there, no?


Good point.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 07:12:01