Michael Ramirez for September 10, 2010

  1. Warcriminal
    WarBush  over 13 years ago

    Talk about a hidden message. My concern is that a guy like Stripper might act on it.

     •  Reply
  2. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 13 years ago

    Tomorrow would have been my brother’s 70th birthday, had he not been killed at age 18 by an “incapacitated” driver. It reminds me every 9/11 of how many of our own we kill without it making real “news”. Between cars and guns, America doesn’t need any help with the stupidity of irrational death.

    It’s our accepted “standard of living”.

    Maybe that ignorance and arrogance is why “us” hates “them”, and a little of vice-versa??

     •  Reply
  3. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    Government interfering on private property? I thought that Conservatives didn’t want to do that.

    Again, Conservatives love big government just like Liberals… it’s all about who they want to use the government against.

     •  Reply
  4. Thumbnail.aspx
    Keith Messamer  over 13 years ago

    dtroutma when drunk drivers kill people, there’s not an organization that actively supports that activity. There also aren’t people running around saying we should understand drunk drivers.

     •  Reply
  5. Stitch
    dshepard  over 13 years ago

    Mikes got it right. That sums up my sentiments for both the Quran burning and the ground zero mosque.

     •  Reply
  6. Exploding human fat bombs hedge 060110
    Charles Brobst Premium Member over 13 years ago

    As Americans we have right to worship where and as we please. But not to burn books like Nazis.

     •  Reply
  7. Img 1055 1
    halfabug  over 13 years ago

    duh,we all knew that. must have been a slow news day.

     •  Reply
  8. Paulkossoff
    SpikeySunface  over 13 years ago

    Burn the New York Times. Better than firewood.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    Libertarian1  over 13 years ago

    @itisme

    Irrational? We must have different definitions. There have been literally thousands of incidences of Muslims, because of the teaching of Islam, attacking, killing, slaughtering innocents. If we fear that recurrence, to you that is irrational?

    What should a rational response be?

     •  Reply
  10. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    “If the Community Center/Mosque is funded by any group with ties to terrorist or they are connected to terrorist then the Mosque should be legally taken by the government sold and the money from the sail given to the families of the victims in 9/11.”

    So the government should take Fox News? The same guy they’re pointing out is a major shareholder of Newscorp.

    “Have you ever even sat down and had a diner with a conservative before”

    Yes. On numerous occasions. In fact, I have defended one of my conservative, religious friends against the constant attacks of one of my Liberal Atheist friends. In fact, she’s currently one of my best friends. We don’t agree on policy a lot of the time, but you know why we can get along? She has a lesbian sister, and she supports her right to marriage and to love, and she loves her sister. And she supports me as well. If more Conservatives were like that, as I have said numerous times I would be more centrist. Next question.

    “You seem to think all conservative are these unthinking, unbending, evil people”

    I can easily swap “conservative” with “liberal” and get the exact same sentiment from the right you claim I have. I have never claimed them to be evil, nor unthinking. Both sides are unbending, and my sentence about big government obviously applies to both sides of the spectrum. Whether it’s making masturbation or being born with a different orientation illegal, or spending too much time making laws about what’s legal to say without getting in trouble, both sides want big government. And as I have stated numerous times, my vitriol towards the right comes from the vitriol I GET from the right. I have NO problem with moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe. Finances are one thing, and there’re strong merits to Conservative opinions of finance (just as there are for Liberal opinions). However, while one is free to believe what they want, I draw the line at any ”legal” (violating amendments isn’t legal) paths taken to attack and isolate and denigrate people in the LGBT community. If you support DADT and oppose marriage equality, then we have nothing to discuss. You are free to believe and say “it’s a choice.” That’s the wonder of the 1st Amendment. When one violates the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments to impose their beliefs upon others through the LAW, that’s another matter.

    “There have been literally thousands of incidences of Muslims, because of the teaching of Islam, attacking, killing, slaughtering innocents.”

    Same for Christians and Catholics, even in this current day and age.
     •  Reply
  11. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 13 years ago

    Uh, history notes “good Christians” also burned people at the stake, for a long time. Today, we use unmanned aerial combat systems with missiles, flown by pilots 7,000 miles away in a bunker. Actually, everyone is developing them, putting “higher moral authority” into wars without getting our hands dirty, or even smudged by a match?

     •  Reply
  12. Missing large
    Libertarian1  over 13 years ago

    Church You misunderstood Obama. He said it but didn’t really mean it.

     •  Reply
  13. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    “So you have nothing to discuss with Obama?”

    You’re missing a good portion of my sentence, nice try though. You should work for Fox News with an edit like that. Obama supports civil unions with equal access to the law, which, to me, is the same thing, since to me “civil union” and “marriage” are more or less the same thing with how people treat marriage these days. He does oppose DADT, which is the other half of my sentence. Besides, under Obama, we won’t have to hear many more stories about same-sex couples banned from seeing one another in the Hospital while the patient slips into a coma and dies. Neither Bush nor Clinton did something like that for the LGBT community. I don’t have to like him (and I have previously stated that I do not, he was merely the lesser of two evils) to agree with this action.
     •  Reply
  14. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    No. My sentence contains the word “and.” Not “or.” Therefore if you have 1 and 1, then the response is 1, because both stipulations must be true for the sentence to be true. If I had said “or,” then only one of the statements would have had to be correct for the whole statement to be correct.

    Therefore, since I used “and” and you took one portion of my sentence to try and invalidate my whole statement, you falsely misused my sentence. If I had said “or,” then yes, I would have had to remand myself.

    “You are aware that there are many LGBT activists who would not be satisfied with that, right?”

    I’m well aware, but I’m a little more pragmatic.
     •  Reply
  15. F35 debuts06
    michael.p.pumilia  over 13 years ago

    It has always amazed me that “tags” get applied and immediately an idea, program or person becomes either beloved or hated. It doesn’t matter what is really going on or the depth of said topic. For instance, conservative vs liberal; one skin color vs another; one type of religion vs another; one education plan vs another. People don’t need to think for themselves; they just look at the tag and their mind is made up for them by someone else. So it’s a case of either “Help, help, the paranoids are after me” or ” All hail the blessed event for the messiah has come again.” So for 99.9 % of people, there is no need to think. What a tragic waste of brain power!

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Michael Ramirez