Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This Modern World: I'm sorry, were you saying something about Iraq?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 06:51 AM
Original message
This Modern World: I'm sorry, were you saying something about Iraq?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jmp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Why are Dems worried about talking heads ...
Being "upset" about the BetrayUs ad?

Most Americans don't even know who the man is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. Tom Tomorrow knows how to make a point n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I disagree in this case, actually - it's not clear to me which side of the case he's arguing.

I think it probable that he is satirisng & attacking the critics of Moveon, saying "are you really saying Conservatives will do this?", but possible that he's agreeing with them and satirising the poor priorities of the conservatives who do do that.

Leaving the viewer uncertain which side you're on is not a good way of making a point, in general
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. If you look at the use of "outrage" in panel 4 and "infuriated" in panel 6
Edited on Mon Sep-17-07 12:07 PM by spooky3
it appears to me that he's saying that the attack on MoveOn's ad was another manufactured "outrage" intended to distract people from the TRUE outrage that is our planned, permanent occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. I love his work.
Thanks for putting it here... I never look up comics anymore.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. Meh
Edited on Mon Sep-17-07 03:20 PM by Hydra
I feel like that too often, even here on DU. Why was I bothering, again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. Link to website that got the Quakers spied on by NSA...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. If Malaki asks us to leave, you know he will liquidated. Too much money
has been invested to leave. Now that Hunt Oil has a contract, bush will have to stay. The Hunts are friends of the BFEE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Back in July he DID say we could leave 'anytime they want'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. And bush ignored it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. actually the Cheney/Rumsfeld doctrine was written....
Way back during the Nixon administration Cheney, Rumsfeld and I believe Wolfowitz argued in a paper that there was a need fro the US to, if necessary, invade a mid-east country in order to provide a military presence close enough to insure Israeli security, as well as providing protection for the oil. For all intents and purposes these guys never changed any of the main thesis. They are remarkable for no other reason than they were able to fend off fact and reality fro thirty years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC