Say Anything Blog

How in the world this disgusting human being nearly won a Pulitzer is beyond me.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

How in the world this disgusting human being nearly won a Pulitzer is beyond me.

Simple. The same way the Dixie Chicks, a middle shelf group at best talent-wise, need a wheelbarrow to carry away all the Grammys they “won”.

It’s not the talent that’s considered, it’s the left wing message and the left wing judges who bestow “awards” on people like Rall.

I’ve looked at Rall’s stuff. Like the Dixie Twits, it’s middle shelf at the VERY best and shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same room as Pulitzer.

I realize that personal boycotts are stupid, but I won’t buy any publication that runs Rall’s stuff. Frankly, I wouldn’t pay him to shine my shoes, much less anything else.

The future ain’t what it used to be.....

Cass, thanks for the post. We here a SA are quite familiar with Ted “human feces” Rall, and heap derision upon him at every opportunity. And his whining about people “spewing vitirol and hate” is absolutely precious.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

This Ted Rall guy sounds pretty damn sharp. Brave too to offend those with profiles of suicide bombers.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Brave too to offend those with profiles of suicide bombers.

I know you say this with tongue in cheek, because this little snot knows that these men will not engage in the type of jihad Rall would have invited had he insulted true suicide bombers.

Willingness to die for a cause

For all of their talk of “nuance”, jerk wads like Rall can’t tell the difference between men who are willing to fight knowing they might die and those who throw their worthless lives away for empty promises or for a bounty they can earn for their families.

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

It’s not brave to insult an American soldier, because American soldiers have restraint.  Honor.  Respect.

If we truly want a test of Rall’s bravery, let’s see him aim some of that insult and derision at the Islamic terrorists.

Something tells me he won’t be doing that any time soon.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Let’s see Rall have the courage to face a “cartoon riot”.  He only insults people who are too decent to fight back.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

If we truly want a test of Rall’s bravery, let’s see him aim some of that insult and derision at the Islamic terrorists.

And THAT, boys and girls, hits the nail squarely on the head. Good shot, Rob.

The future ain’t what it used to be.....

I was not familiar with the work of Ted Rall, so in an attempt to verify the veracity of the claims made in this article I visited his site and browsed through the archive of cartoons as well as a few articles.

I found nothing there to support the idea that he is “despicable”, “vile”, “unhinged” or “hateful”.

As was pointed out, he believes that the military were once used for just causes, i.e. to defend America. The overall theme of his work tends to show that he disagrees with the current use of the military.

Cartoonists, by their very nature, exaggerate reality to try to highlight their message.

For example I very much doubt that he considers American soldiers to be equivalent to Islamic suicide bombers, he is merely pointing out some similarities.  For example, religious extremism is often accepted, ignore or tolerated in the US as long as it is Christian extremism.

Similarly his characterization of some military personnel as being stupid or uneducated, is an exaggeration.  Again this is the nature of the cartoon genre, and it is expected that the reader is aware that such things are meant as an exaggeration to prove a point of view.

Whether you agree with the particular point of view is up to you.

The fact that he has not explicitly drawn cartoons of Muslim extremists is simply an indication of the scope and intent of his work.  Reviewing his cartoons it is clear that like many American cartoonists his main aim is to hold up a mirror to American society and in particular the American administration.

It is clear that his views incite strong responses from those who disagree, to the point where he has received death threats.

I was unable to find a single instance where Ted Rall used strong words against any individual.  So to describe him as “one of the most vile, despicable, hateful, bigoted, unhinged people alive”, shows that it is the writer of this piece who is the one who is hateful.

For example, religious extremism is often accepted, ignore or tolerated in the US as long as it is Christian extremism.

As an agnostic, I call bullshit. What “Christian extremism”? Are some Christians holding you down somewhere and making you do Christian things? Please do tell!

xtempore - I was unable to find a single instance where Ted Rall used strong words against any individual.

He just tells people that our U.S. troops are murderers for Halliburton. No strong words there!

Reviewing his cartoons it is clear that like many American cartoonists his main aim is to hold up a mirror to American society and in particular the American administration.

What are you trying to say here xtempore? That our troops are murderers for Halliburton?

Do you even know what we’re talking about? You didn’t know of Ted Rall until today, so it’s possible that you missed the many things that this scumbag has spewed out over the years. The guy is anti-American and naturally, anti-U.S. troops.

Every now and then you will see footage of leaders of the Muslim faith who spout off their desire to see the world converted to Islam.  When this happens people are horrified (probably rightly so).

And yet, time and time again I have seen Christian leaders stating that they want to see the world converted to Christianity.  When this happens there is no outrage.

Christian extremism takes many forms.  Perhaps its worst comes in the form of the murders of abortion doctors.  If that is not extremism, frankly I don’t know what is.

xtempore:

I have seen Christian leaders stating that they want to see the world converted to Christianity.

1. Christians in God’s love would like to convert everyone possible, but they don’t do it by terrorism, violence, torture and murder. They don’t send Christian suicide bombers anywhere.

2. Your incredibly ignorant statement, “Every now and then you will see footage of leaders of the Muslim faith who spout off their desire to see the world converted to Islam.” defies reality. Islam was born in murder, torture and forced conversions, that philosphy and demand upon every Muslim has never changed, it is at the very heart of Islam. All over the world, even in Europe and the US every day Muslims leaders in Mosques and elsewhere are calling for the conversion of the entire world by force. To make that statement you are either deliberately lying or you are an ignorant fool. There are no other options!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Christian extremism takes many forms.  Perhaps its worst comes in the form of the murders of abortion doctors.  If that is not extremism, frankly I don’t know what is.

Many forms? You managed to find one, adhered to by few and condemned by most Christians. Nice straw man! You’d like to shift the coversation from the scumbaggery of Ted Rall, whose years of work you became familiar with in the course of an afternoon! Way to hustle! /sarcasm

I’d rather sleep under a bridge, eating trash out of a Dumpster, than murder human beings for Halliburton.

I was not familiar with the work of Ted Rall

If that is not extremism, frankly I don’t know what is

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

I’d rather sleep under a bridge, eating trash out of a Dumpster, than murder human beings for Halliburton.

Ted Rall never directly calls soldiers “murders for Halliburton”, and he certainly never directs any such claim against an individual.

My belief is that some very, very small number of individual American soldiers, during their time in Iraq, have used their weapons unnecessarily, perhaps in anger, and the result has been the death of innocent civilians.

I would call this murder.

Do I think that Halliburton is making money out of the war in Iraq? Yes, I do.

You are correct in that I did not know of his work prior to today.  As I said, I reviewed a large number of cartoons, but certainly not the entire collection.

If you would like to point out one where he actually says anything hateful, please post a link.

Ted Rall, quoting the Gospel of Michael Moore:

First we see U.S. forces indiscriminately bombing Iraqi civilians, torturing and sexually harassing prisoners and terrorizing women and children in their homes.

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

Proof:

I did not try to “shift the conversation”.  In “Profile of a Suicide Bomber” in the original article, Rall compares Muslim and Christian “religious fervor”.  I was then challenged that Christian extremism did not exist, and responded to that statement.

I presented TWO examples of religious extremism (for those who wish to keep count).  Seeing as the relevant word here was “extremism” I chose the more extreme.

Perhaps you see the irony then that you complain that I tried to “shift the conversation” and then in the same post you ask me for more examples?

How about arson of medical facilities, arson of other religious buildings, assault against detractors, denying access to medical treatments, denying access to education, ...

These are all extreme things. I do not in any way suggest that the majority of Christians partake in such things, but some do, they are appropriately labeled extremists.

I have many Christian friends, most a fairly moderate.  I also have many Muslim friends who are also moderate.  The majority of the World’s Muslims are moderate.  A tiny fraction of them believe in violent means - those are the extremists.

I would grant that this tiny fraction is a larger fraction then is probably present in Christianity, but this has more to do with socio-economic factors than actual religious tenets.

Also let me restate…
Cartoons are exaggerations - they are not meant to be taken so literally. 

Suggesting that Ted Rall actually believes that his cartoons are an accurate depiction of reality is like suggesting that Matt Groening believes people have 8 instead of 10 fingers bright yellow skin and bulging white eyes.

Cartoons are exaggerations

And the cartoon of 11/24/05 above...you don’t find that to be in incredibly bad taste? Insulting? You find that to be a mere exageration?

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

Do I think that Halliburton is making money out of the war in Iraq? Yes, I do.

Do you think that Halliburton made money in Bosnia when they provided nearly identical services to the troops that the Clinton administration sent there?

If any contractor makes any thing for the military under contract to supply them to the troops: Do you think they make money? Do you think they would accept the contract if they didn’t make money?
In what socialist pipe dream does any company that provides any goods or services to the military or the Congress or any local government not make money?
Of all of the complaints against the Iraqi war, ”Halliburtonmade money” is the most lame brained of all!

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

I find it surprising that you dare to call my arguments “straw men”, when one of your arguments is to quote Rall, simply describing something from Moore’s film.  That’s a bit of a long bow.
You also fail to point out that Rall goes on to question and criticize Moore’s depiction in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Well, which is it? Are they torturers or footsoldiers of democracy?

As for the cartoon, I do not find it offensive.  If I was an Iraqi vet, maybe I would, but I’d recognize it for what it is, a cartoon.

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this - cartoons are not meant to be taken literally!

Clearly the imagery used herein is a reminder of what happened at Abu Ghraib.  That was a horrific incident, and those involved were a disgrace to the uniform.

I’ll say it one more time - Cartoons are exaggerations.  Ted Rall has a sometimes dark sense of humor in dealing with his chosen matter.  If you don’t share his sense of humor and political viewpoint then stop reading them.

I would be very surprised though if you have never laughed at something that you knew was in poor taste, so long as it at some level reflected your own beliefs.

Rall has referred to US soldiers as “an Army of scum” and called the the troops in Iraq “indistinguishable from the SS,” Rall called Secretary of State Rice a “House Nigga,” and slimed Ronald Reagan when the former president passed away in 2004.

Ted Rall is adored by those on the left who he delights in titillating.  If Conservatives, even George Bush’s “compassionate conservatives,” ever decide to give up our civility and our adamant defense of the rule of law, and take up suicide bombing instead, Ted Rall will likely be a top ten selection as a target of opportunity.  He has every right to his opinions, as do those who charitably refer to him as a foul, multi-talentless piece of shit.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Context, context, context!

When Rall made those references it was in a piece relating to the Abu Ghraib scandal.  His over-generalization is unfair (but as a cartoonist not surprising).  With regard to the soldiers involved at Abu Ghraib, I would concur that they were indeed scum.

As regards the Condoleeza Rice cartoon, he had the character refer to herself as a “house nigga”. You may not appreciate the distinction between a writer’s beliefs and the dialog of his characters, but I think the distinction is important. In this case Rall was reflecting on an opinion of Condoleeza Rice that had previously been put forward by black activists.

Because Rall is white he was accused of racism, but interestingly the bulk of the criticism came from righ-wing conservative groups rather than from black civil rights groups.

Mocking politicians is what political cartoonists do.  Reagan was not exempt. The main brunt of Rall’s poke at Reagan was that he showed him in heaven, but that heaven looked a lot like hell due to budget cuts.

I do not agree with every little thing that Rall says and does.  By the nature of what he does he will shock and offend some readers. They should stop reading.

My objection is to people who become so enraged that they resort to vilification against him as an individual and make suggestions that he should be killed.

My point was and is primarily to point out to those who hold such violent opinions against this one individual that it is irrational to condemn him as “hateful” when clearly expressing hatred themselves.

I agree with xtempore. Because someone writes or draws something which is disagreeable doesn’t mean he is a hatemonger or a bad person. The words Rall used to describe the reaction to Pat Tillman’s enlistment are ones I have heard over and over, and I pondered his decision myself (as a mother, who hates to see war or any kind). Many people would say it is stupid to turn down an NFL contract in favor of going to Iraq, but most of those same people surely see Tillman as a hero--or at least someone who has earned our respect for wanting to serve his country.
I can never understand why there is so much name-calling and vitriol in these blog entries. Most people are decent human beings, including people from the “left.” If all of us were at a party together, and you didn’t know who Rall was, you’d probably get along with him just fine.

xtempore - And yet, time and time again I have seen Christian leaders stating that they want to see the world converted to Christianity.  When this happens there is no outrage.

So what? That isn’t “extremism”. That is simply a group advocating for their group. It’s not like they support conversion by force, so you can drop the silly comparisons to Islam now.

Christian extremism takes many forms.  Perhaps its worst comes in the form of the murders of abortion doctors.  If that is not extremism, frankly I don’t know what is.

Straw man. Christians don’t support killing the “doctors” of death.

So I ask again - where is this “Christian extremism” that is supposedly accepted here in the U.S.?

Try giving a serious answer this time.

Because Rall is white he was accused of racism, but interestingly the bulk of the criticism came from righ-wing conservative groups rather than from black civil rights groups.

Rall was “accused of racism” because he made a racist comment. Or, as you would pedantically put it, he made Condi’s “character refer to herself as a “house nigga’”.

Secondly, why is it “interesting” that these so-called black “civil rights” groups can’t recognize the racism? These are groups that support racial preferences. It’s par for the course with these guys, and apparently you as well.

My objection is to people who become so enraged that they resort to vilification against him as an individual and make suggestions that he should be killed.

He’s earned his vilification. And it doesn’t go unnoticed that you don’t object when Ted Rall engages in such behavior. It’s somehow okay for him to make suggestions that U.S. soldiers should be killed. Because “cartoons are not meant to be taken literally!”, right? You’re telling us that you wouldn’t have a problem with people vilifying Ted Rall if only they did it with cartoons.

How enlightened of you xtempore. Did you work hard to get those double standards in?

A little clarification with regards to Pat Tillman…

* Pat Tillman joined the army with his brother in 2002 (a year before the invasion of Iraq).

* Pat Tillman is reported to have been opposed to the war in Iraq, and did not support Bush’s re-election.

* Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan by “friendly fire” - the Army tried to cover this up.

* Rall did mock him, but later expressed regret for making unfair assumptions about the man.

We all are prone to occasionally “judging a book by its cover”.  Rall did this.  When he realized his mistake he admitted it and apologized.

One of the hallmark’s of a rational person is to admit when they have made a mistake.

distemper,

Just go ahead and surrender and/or run away now.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

likwidshoe:

The majority of Muslims also do not support conversion by force - the comparison stands.

Thanks also for illustrating my point, by claiming that the desire to convert the world to Christianity is not extremism.  As a non-Christian, I do not wish to be converted, and I find those who want to convert the whole world scary and extreme.

I take it that you are saying that those Muslims who desire global conversion (without force) are not extremists?

I have yet to see a cartoon or article by Ted Rall that says that US soldiers should be killed.

But in answer to your question…

If a cartoonist were to depict, for example, Ted Rall hanged by the neck with a piece of telephone cord and the other end was being pulled on by a government agent, I would have no objection.

I would look at the cartoon and say.  “Oh I get it.  This is a reference to the government’s wire-tap on Ted Rall’s phone.”

I would not take the cartoon literally and assume it was intended to incite the government to murder Ted Rall.

I’m getting then feeling that this is an uphill battle.  I know there are some conservatives out there who have a sense of humor and can distinguish between cartoons and reality, but it seems that they are presently otherwise engaged.

Oh.  I get it “distemper” - that refers to my alias, because it has some of the same letters and it refers to a viral disease. 

And just when I said that there were no conservatives in here with a sense of humor.

Touché, Mr. gRaves.

xtempore - The majority of Muslims also do not support conversion by force - the comparison stands.

There is one hell of a minority that does. Muslims are making great inroads by spreading their religion by force. You can’t say the same about Christianity. Your comparison doesn’t stand.

Thanks also for illustrating my point, by claiming that the desire to convert the world to Christianity is not extremism.  As a non-Christian, I do not wish to be converted, and I find those who want to convert the whole world scary and extreme.

Do they bother you xtempore? Stop acting like a big baby. Christians aren’t threatening you.

What point of yours was I supposedly illustrating?

I take it that you are saying that those Muslims who desire global conversion (without force) are not extremists?

No. Simply advocating your beliefs does not an extremist make.

I have yet to see a cartoon or article by Ted Rall that says that US soldiers should be killed.

You went from “suggestions” to “says”. Two totally different things. You’re changing the argument mid-stream.

If a cartoonist were to depict, for example, Ted Rall hanged by the neck with a piece of telephone cord and the other end was being pulled on by a government agent, I would have no objection.

I would look at the cartoon and say.  “Oh I get it.  This is a reference to the government’s wire-tap on Ted Rall’s phone.”

I would not take the cartoon literally and assume it was intended to incite the government to murder Ted Rall.

That’s an obvious metaphor. Can you tell me what you take from the “Sex Life of Iraq War Vets” cartoon posted above? I’m curious what the metaphor is supposed to be there.

And xtempore? Spare us the back-patting and obvious observations. We know that when the soldier breaks up a relationship, he’s not really going to fly a jet and bomb the house. We GET that part. No need to go into how you don’t take everything literally. Like, no shit guy.

I’m getting then feeling that this is an uphill battle.  I know there are some conservatives out there who have a sense of humor and can distinguish between cartoons and reality, but it seems that they are presently otherwise engaged.

Are you done patting yourself on the back? I find it funny that you talk about reality when your comments have been pegged with non sequiturs, red herrings and straw men.

likwidshoe:

You are correct “suggests” and “says” are not the same thing. But “suggests” is very open to interpretation, and only Rall himself could know what he is suggesting.
Even so I am willing to accept your semantic argument.  Please indicate where Rall “suggests” that US soldiers should be killed.

I’m not sure where exactly I “patted myself on the back”?  Perhaps we have a different interpretation of this idiom.  I take it to mean that I somewhere congratulated myself on something. Please elucidate.

You ask me to explain the non-literal nature of the “Iraqi Vets” cartoon, and then start to explain it yourself, and that you “GET” it.

Obviously my insistence that cartoons are not literal has somehow offended your intelligence. I don’t want to add further insult, so please clarify whether you want me to explain the metaphor or not.

x: Your claim of violent Christian extremism is grossly exaggerated.  The total number of victims of abortion doctor murders is 5.  Many more people than that are killed every day by Islamic extremists(check out what’s going on in Southern Thailand sometime; no US presence or any of the other BS rationalizations used to justify it by our lefties).  The number of violent Christian extremists is less than 10 people, all quickly villified by the vast majority of Christians around the world(unlike the deafening silence of supposedly “moderate” Muslims around the world).  There is no real comparison, and you are ridiculous for trying to sell us one, just like Rosie O’Donnell.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

likwidshoe:

I also disagree with your characterization of my argument as being filled with “non sequiturs, red herrings and straw men”.

I believe that my initial post responded at all times directly to the original article, and that all subsequent posts also either relate directly to the initial material, or as a direct response to a subsequent posting.

If you wish to challenge my arguments on these grounds, please at least provide references.

Your one attempt to discredit my argument as being a “straw man” was…

Straw man. Christians don’t support killing the “doctors” of death.

Your own argument here is a straw man. You attempt to create an argument wherein I suggest that all Christians support this behavior, solely so that you can argue against me on that basis.

The reality is that I clearly refer to these people as extremists, so I obviously do not associate such actions with most Christians.

The reality is that I clearly refer to these people as extremists, so I obviously do not associate such actions with most Christians.

The percentage of Christians around the world that are violent extremists is so small that it is statistically insignificant.  The percentage of extremist Muslims, however, is estimated to be around 20-25%, which is very significant.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Taking this back to the beginning, so as to avoid being accused of “red herrings”, my argument was simply that Rall’s cartoon was drawing similarities between Muslim and Christian beliefs.

At no stage did I say that the levels of extremism are the same.  In fact I quite clearly stated that there were more Islamic extremists.

I still stand by my statement that this is a very small minority, and strongly challenge the “estimated to be around 20-25%” statement made by robert108.  It is a bold statement to claim such figures, and I would like to know whose estimate this is.

x: Here’s one of about 1.2 million links on the subject.  You will see that it’s a bit slippery, in that some claim 5-10% actually involved in terrorism, but some estimates of 50% or more who “support the goals of the terrorists”, so you have some wiggle room.  It’s just a bit disingenuous, IMO, for you to pretend like widespread Islamic terrorism doesn’t exist, as they are killing many people, all over the world, every day, in their effort to enslave all “infidels”.  The percentage who support the “goals” of the terrorists is significant, in the respect of its implications should the Dems force a cut and run policy in Iraq down our throats.  Which way will the “supporters” jump when they perceive an action on our part that looks like surrender(and is, in fact)?

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/456

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Clearly it comes down to definitions, so to discuss this meaningfully one would have to agree on terms and these terms would have to be used equally when referring to Muslims or any other religious group.

For example if you want to include all Muslims who would be willing to defend Islam through force, then equivalently you would label Christians willing to defend Christianity through force as extremist.

My definition would be those willing to use violent means.

The link you gave did give various estimates, a lot of which looked at Muslims in non-Muslim countries like Germany and the Netherlands.

I personally think looking at where there are lots of Muslims makes more sense.  Clearly in a war-torn country like Iraq the numbers will be high (just as the number of Christians who supported violent means in Northern Ireland was during the troubles there).

Let’s look instead to the world’s largest Muslim population, Indonesia. 

Here’s a reference from the “Globe and Mail"…

Only 2 per cent of Indonesian Muslims believe their religion allows violence against non-Muslims.

So 2% of the largest Muslim population believe their religion allows violence.  I could not find what proportion of those who believe violence is allowed are then willing to personally carry out violence, but regardless it is still a pretty small minority.

Having said that, I still see Muslim extremism as a serious problem, and a threat to individuals all over the world. 

What I disagree with are statements such as “they are killing people all over the world, every day”.

That is a gross exaggeration which is simply not true.

blahblahblah, xtempere, you have yet to supply the copious evidence of Christians using terrorism to force conversion. And do not waste time Blahblahing about the Inquisition or European Colonial period. We are talking about today. Right this moment. As I type reports of carbombs set off in in a market in Kirkuk, a market filled with women and children. Who did that? Were they Lutherans? Southern Baptist Black Caucus? Krishna Conscientiousness Movement?

No, stupid, it is Muslim terrorists. Killing Muslim children and women. And co-enabling apologists such as you are helping them. Proud of yourself?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

As for the cartoon, I do not find it offensive.  If I was an Iraqi vet, maybe I would, but I’d recognize it for what it is, a cartoon.

So, if someone drew a cartoon showing Bill CLinton shoving needles in a puppy’s eye that would be cool, because it’s just a cartoon! (Well, maybe if I was a puppy I would!) If another showed Al Gore setting fire to kittens, by your standards (or lack thereof) that would be fine, because it’s just a cartoon!
Hillary eating dead babies? Harry Reid torturing nuns? Is there nothing so disgusting and vile that you are not willing to dismiss as long as “it’s just a cartoon”? Because showing a U.S. soldier torturing a bound woman with a blow torch is no different than drawing Bart Simpson with eight fingers instead of ten… Really?

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

Vietnam Combat Veterans were spit upon.  I interviewed many veterans during my one year with the Vet Center.  They were not only spit upon in SF Airport, but in middle america places like Iowa by hippies, communists, socialists and anarchists.  Rawl’l weak, “I didn’t find any reports in newspapers” speaks to the inability or unwillingness of the likes of the NYT to tell The Truth.  Remember last week, “how are we going to manage the news with all these blogs.”

But this is nothing new.  The NYT has been lying since the 1930s.

Communism is evil

I also disagree with your characterization of my argument as being filled with “non sequiturs, red herrings and straw men”.

Really? You counter a comparison of American servicemen to Muslim extremists with a comparison to Christian extremists...Are you saying that all U.S. servicemen are Christians? Are there no atheists among them? Are you saying that Christians are more prone to torture civilians than atheists?
Your defense of the indefensible is quite contorted.
Way to hustle!

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

Consider too, that in this post-Columbine day and age, if Ted Rall drew those cartoons in high school, he’d probably be arrested, or at least sent for counseling!

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

2Hotel9:

you have yet to supply the copious evidence of Christians using terrorism to force conversion

Yes, there’s a reason I offered no evidence - the fact that I never made any such claim.

Proof:

So, if someone drew a cartoon showing Bill CLinton shoving needles in a puppy’s eye that would be cool, because it’s just a cartoon! (Well, maybe if I was a puppy I would!) If another showed Al Gore setting fire to kittens, by your standards (or lack thereof) that would be fine, because it’s just a cartoon!
Hillary eating dead babies? Harry Reid torturing nuns?

I don’t quite see how any of your suggestions have a political message, but if you want to draw those cartoons go right ahead.  I’m not sure how much of an audience you’ll find, but whatever floats your boat. If you did publish them, and I saw them, I guess I’d just say “I don’t get it” and move on.  I wouldn’t be offended and I wouldn’t in any way feel the need to write a blog article attacking you personally.

(And as far as I understand Hillary prefers her babies alive - that way she can hear them scream as she chows down)

Proof:

You counter a comparison of American servicemen to Muslim extremists with a comparison to Christian extremists...Are you saying that all U.S. servicemen are Christians?

No, I didn’t.  I was discussing the cartoon “Profile of a Suicide Bomber” presented in the original article.  Frame 3 labeled “Religious Fervor” has a woman telling a soldier “God will protect you”. I therefore assume (I think reasonably) that the persons represented have a Christian belief.

The point of the cartoon appears to be to draw a parallel between these two belief systems. I simply followed on from that point.

Your intention of asking rhetorical questions, with regard to statements I never made is obvious.  You often like to accuse others of constructing straw men when clearly you yourself are the master of the technique.

You further seek to undermine those who disagree with you with the now clichéd tag line “way to hustle”.

Proof, you were right last week. xtempere is just another lying, dissembling piece of shit. We are done with you, goodbye.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Well… let me tell you this,
I posted my comment/opinion/question on the “other” Rall post. Grr.. not sure why we have two of the same but, there I said my part.

2Hotel9, you think xtempore is lying? Do you have any examples?

Proof, there is often some relation to real-life (albeit exaggerated or slanted) with Ted Rall’s cartoons, which is why they offend some people. Simply too close to home. Hillary Clinton eating babies, though, would probably not offend anyone.

(For example, there actually was a psychological study comparing the psychology of soldiers with violent extremists, and there was certainly some correlation.)

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

(And as far as I understand Hillary prefers her babies alive - that way she can hear them scream as she chows down)

You’re a sick SOB, but at least you’re consistent!

You further seek to undermine those who disagree with you with the now clichéd tag line “way to hustle”.

Gee! I use it twice and already it’s a cliché!
Whodathunkit?

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

Frame 3 labeled “Religious Fervor” has
a woman telling a soldier “God will protect you”. I therefore assume (I think reasonably) that the persons represented have a Christian belief.

You assume wrong, as usual.  If she had said: “Christ will protect you.”, it would have been appropriate to assume Christianity, but since the vast majority of the world’s population know God in some form(including the Muslims), you are just wrong.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

That is a gross exaggeration which is simply not true.

It is the truth, no matter your denial.  Have you checked into Southern Thailand yet?  I only sent you one of over 1.2 million links on the subject.  Google it, if you dare.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Rall is a mental midget that doesn’t seemed to have aged mentally beyond puberty.  Even his so-called cartoons look like something that came out of an elementary school drawing class.  If it wasn’t for the unwarranted attention and honors that the liberal haters bestowing on him, he would be flipping hamburgers in some fast food joint.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

distemper replies:

Oh.  I get it “distemper” - that refers to my alias, because it has some of the same letters and it refers to a viral disease.

common amongst curs…

And just when I said that there were no conservatives in here with a sense of humor.

With your usual and well noted accuracy.

<blockquote>Touché, Mr. gRaves.</blockqutoe>

De rien, mon petit.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

robert108:

You assume wrong, as usual.  If she had said: “Christ will protect you.”, it would have been appropriate to assume Christianity…

Only Ted Rall could tell you whether the character was intended to be Christian. But I offer the following evidence for my case…
1. The cartoon clearly depicts a white American soldier. One referring to God (as opposed to Allah, etc) is most likely Christian.
2. In frame 7, where the same woman is shown saying “He’s in a better place now”, and in the background we see a grave marked with an unadorned crucifix.

If you think I am wrong, I’m happy to see your evidence, but on this one I have no doubt.  In fact I will gladly offer a bet of $1000. I am sure Ted Rall would be willing to confirm what was intended in this cartoon.  The question is, rather than your usual bluster and distortions of people’s words, are you actually willing to put your money where your mouth is?

x: Once again, you try to change the subject.  I disagreed with your assumption, not what Ted Rall might have meant. I have no doubt that Rall intended to smear Christians with his hate piece.  You continue to be emotional and illogical, just like an adolescent.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Proof:

I do have a dark sense of humor at times, but to refer to me as a “sick SOB” is a bit much, when you were the one who suggested the following cartoons…

Bill CLinton shoving needles in a puppy’s eye…
Al Gore setting fire to kittens…
Hillary eating dead babies…
Harry Reid torturing nuns

All I did was make a joke about one of your suggestions.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

x: sick SOB was meant as a compliment! As far as the cartoon suggestions, I was trying to see if anything was repugnant enough for you to be repelled by it.
Pot 2, kettle 0

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

sick SOB was meant as a compliment!

Maybe I should have put the smiley face closer! Your remark about Hillary cracked me up!

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

robert108:

I disagreed with your assumption, not what Ted Rall might have meant. I have no doubt that Rall intended to smear Christians with his hate piece.

My assumption was what Ted Rall might have meant. That’s what an assumption is.

So in the same sentence you say that you disagreed with my assumption (that the soldier was Christian), and then say “I have no doubt that Rall intended to smear Christians”, which indicates that you agree with my assumption.

I suggest at this point that you withdraw and reconsider your position.  You credibility is shot.

Proof:

Ah, yes the position of the smiley would have made it clearer.

Whilst our political standpoints vary widely, it seems we agree to some degree on the nature of cartoons and humor.  I am glad that my overcall of your Hillary reference “cracked you up”.

It is certainly easier to see the humor in something when the direction of the piece aligns well with our own sensitivities.

My point all along, has been that we mustn’t take things so literally or seriously when presented with a piece that goes against the grain.

Unfortunately we have all strayed from the original topic.  I am as guilty as any!

I find it hard to resist responding, when someone challenges what I have said.  I fear that not responding would be seen as “silence construes consent”, but step by step we wander further from the original debate.

Needless to say Rall’s opinions align reasonably well with my own.  Clearly they are contrary to many other posters.

It is again something of an aside, but I’m am wondering if Rall has a conservative equivalent?  I’d be curious to know if how I might react when the content goes against my beliefs.  If anyone can suggest a cartoonist or satirist who argues the conservative side, please let me know.

Thanks

x: You stated that since the mother said “God will protect you.”, that indicated Christianity.  I pointed out that many people all over the world believe in God, so that alone isn’t an indication of Christianity.  You made an incorrect assumption from the information you gave.  You were wrong to assume Christianity from the statement “God will protect you.” Try to stay on the subject; you adolescent ramblings just don’t make it.
Ted Rall is an obvious hater of Christians(and other things Americans stand for).  My statement was about your reasoning(or lack of it).

Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108:

The assumption I made was that the cartoon depicted a person with a Christian belief.  You yourself have now said that you agree.

Whilst my original statement highlighted frame 3, the entire cartoon was there for anyone to see.  The full context is obvious, and should not need to be re-explained ad nauseum as it already exists in the original post.

The fact that you chose to isolate that one frame and then ramble on about people all over the world who believe in God simply displays your penchant for taking things out of context.

I will not debate this with you any further.  Your arguments are illogical, out of context and irrelevant.  Your failure to admit that you were wrong has taken away any shred of credibility you may have had.