Comments (24) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   devee said, 5 months ago

   This is so frightening, but thanks for reminding us of the mindset of the “off-kilters.” I’m a therapist and know how distorted the thinking becomes!

2. 

   sclark55 said, 5 months ago

   Hmmm, Tony, what did the museum guard killer think of the Bushes? And I hear he thought 9/11 was an inside job… Now what President would that reflect on?
   Oh and what President compared the holocaust to difficulties the Palesitinians have now? How did that affect the thinking of the “off-kilters”?
   Maybe you got some homework to do…

3. 

   rickhutchinchina said, 5 months ago

   It’s the therapists that I consider “off- kilter”； like most professionals they think they can fix others when they can’t “fix” themselves. Kelsey Grammar made a living at it for 20 years! :-P

4. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

   And what would that “homework” have to do about the “wing nut media” incitement of extremists???

   Or were you just trying to change the subject?

5. 

   Simon_Jester said, 5 months ago

   Where are the Bushes mentioned in this cartoon? Where has ANYONE blamed this on Bush?

   And do you have a link to back up that claim about the Palestinians and the Holocaust?

6. 

   longtimecomicsfan said, 5 months ago

   sclark55 - OK. Good point. We heard you. Now, please put the radio down…(or at least turn off Rush)

7. 

   DrCanuck said, 5 months ago

   rickhutchinchina said, about 2 hours ago:
   “It’s the therapists that I consider “off- kilter”； like most professionals they think they can fix others when they can’t “fix” themselves. Kelsey Grammar made a living at it for 20 years! :-P

   DrCanuck responds: You base your analysis of the psychological and psychiatric professions on a TV show? Oh dear!

8. 

   johnking said, 5 months ago

   Hey Anthony, give one specific example of a conservative talk-show host giving an incitement to violence.

   Slander is easy when you don’t have to get down to cases, isn’t it.

9. 

   deadheadzan said, 5 months ago

   Rush said Obama does not have a valid birth certificate and he is going to wreck the country before Al Quaida can get to it. Bill O’Reilly called Dr. Tiller a “baby killer” who “if you have $5000 will do the abortion for you”. Those are 2 examples that spring immediately to mind. That kind of talk is all it takes to put these people over the edge. Also, there have been an unprecidented number of death threats aimed at Obama.

10. 

    sclark55 said, 5 months ago

    By homework I meant, find out something about the guy who shot the guard at the holocaust museum. I understand he had complaints about both Bush 41 and 43, and thought 9/11 was an inside job. The only such talk I hear is from the left.
    Palestinians: Obama drew a parallel between the holocaust and the difficulties of the Paletinians, minimizing the suffering of the Jews during the holocaust. Ok, a bit of a stretch, but if we think talk prompts the “off-kilter”…. And as far as a link, I’ve researched plenty of things Rush says, and it’s always a waste of time, cuz regardless of his opinion, he generally has the facts right.
    Birth certificates - That was a joke, and I’ll bet you know that Rush said “at least not one we’ve seen” - and you have to admit, it is odd that we haven’t seen such a simple, common document.
    So if I got these points from talk radio, why put the radio down? Should I stay un-informed?

11. 

    Machado said, 5 months ago

    Watch out America, the Lefties are trying to take away your voice of dissent too, by painting all those that listen to different opinions as radicals and moving on to silence the airwaves. (equal time doctrine)

    When in fact most radical lunatics reside in the Left, they even wrote books about murdering Bush, and even made a movie about it that played in Canada.

12. 

    johnking said, 5 months ago

    Deadhead, you’re being ridiculous. You make all harsh criticism tantamount to incitement to violence. Goodbye First Amendment for conservatives if you have your way.

13. 

    DrCanuck said, 5 months ago

    Hey, Much-ado; what’s the name of that movie, I wanna SEE that! Book titles too, please.

14. 

    Simon_Jester said, 5 months ago

    Clark, I asked you for a SOURCE for your contention, not a repetition.

    When righties do that y’know, it’s my experience that they’re just parroting back something they heard on right wing radio.

    And how about answering my question about Bush? Well?

    As for you Mach…a movie nobody heard of is your proof that most radicals reside in the left?

    ROFL!

15. 

    churchillwasright said, 5 months ago

    STUPID HUMAN: I have told you this before. Go to Popular Mechanics website, and there you will find experts explaining how the WTC fell.

    Either a) you haven’t/refuse to read it b)read it but for some psychological reason refuse to believe it because it gives you some kind of feeling of superiority over the misled masses (or you just dig conspiracy theories) or c) you are too stupid to understand it.

    If the answer is (b) then there is nothing anyone can say to you, except stop posting your stupid drivel here. If the answer is (c) Hey, there’s nothing wrong with being stupid. Sit down with a friend or relative so that they can explain it to you paragraph by paragraph.

    If the answer is a) then stop being stupid and READ IT! This time I’m including the link for you, so you won’t have the excuse of “I was too stupid to find it”.

    http://tinyurl.com/nsvarSTUPID HUMAN: I have told you this before. Go to Popular Mechanics website, and there you will find experts explaining how the WTC fell.

    Either a) you haven’t/refuse to read it b)read it but for some psychological reason refuse to believe it because it gives you some kind of feeling of superiority over the misled masses (or you just dig conspiracy theories) or c) you are too stupid to understand it.

    If the answer is (b) then there is nothing anyone can say to you, except stop posting your stupid drivel here. If the answer is (c) Hey, there’s nothing wrong with being stupid. Sit down with a friend or relative so that they can explain it to you paragraph by paragraph.

    If the answer is a) then stop being stupid and READ IT! This time I’m including the link for you, so you won’t have the excuse of “I was too stupid to find it”.

    http://tinyurl.com/nsvarPost Comment

16. 

    arinte said, 5 months ago

    Yeah he must have been listening to Alan Colmes…

17. 

    sclark55 said, 5 months ago

    I think Rush said it was the speech in Cairo - if I’m wrong, sorry; I don’t take notes on current events any better than most other people. Feel free to look it up, if you’re interested. It may have been another recent speech. But the point is, if Obama thinks there’s any similarity between the holocaust, and the difficulties the Palestinians bring upon themselves by their stuborness, and if talk radio can be blamed for this lunacy, perhaps the President should also watch his words; it is foolhardy to minimize the holocaust.

    Re: mentions of Bushes - bear w/ me, I’m not good at sound bytes - the premise of the cartoon, based on other cartoons by Tony Auth, seems to be that the guy who shot the museum guard was prompted to commit the shooting by conservative talk radio. But it turns out that he (shooter) dislikes the Bushes, and thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Now, who dislikes Bushes? and who says 9/11 was an inside job? That would be the left.

    So if Auth is suggesting conservative radio prompted the shooting, Auth is incorrect, and he should’ve checked. No, the Bushes are not mentioned in the cartoon, and nobody blames them; I used this fact about the shooter to demonstrate that Mr. Auth should have done his homework better.

    It’s been fun guys … we’ll have to do this again……

18. 

    fennec said, 5 months ago

    Here’s one for the haters in this group.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?ref=global
    Do you guys have a clue how you come across?

19. 

    harleyquinn said, 5 months ago

    “9/11 was rigged
    1) Steel does NOT fail instantaneously & the fires were NOT hot enough to make steel fail (Black smoke is a sign of an oxygen starved fire) (low heat)”

    ha ha getting old and people have stopped reading
    Rosi Odonald proclaimed this. a week later a taker truck with gas in it hit something and caught on fire under or on a metal bridge. What happened. it melted.
    Please non Human give it up and check out PM site church talks about. Ignorance can be fixed but stupid is forever.
    . You are a perfict example of a lone loon that is on both sides and do not need radio to set them off. But I guess that is the target of this stupid strip. Loon loons that can be set off but lets just blame talk radio, and because it is a lefty lets blame the righty.

20. 

    believecommonsense said, 5 months ago

    sclark55, von Brunn, the museum shooter/killer was an Aryan Nation white supremacist who hated Jews and blacks, that is NOT leftist thinking.

    The museum shooter/killer believed the Jews are in cahoots with fed. govt to run the country to the detriment of white folks. That is not leftist thinking. He has an anti-government bent, that is not leftist thinking. He admired Hitler; that is not leftist thinking.

    Their rhetoric increased in volume with the nomination of Sotomayor …. Pat Buchanan was all over the airwaves saying the white man was the most maligned and discriminated against segment of U.S. society. That is not leftist thinking nor influence.

    Get real. Facts do matter.

21. 

    sclark55 said, 5 months ago

    Conservative talk radio hosts (and 99.99% of listeners) are not white supremacists, don’t believe Jews are in cahoots with fed govt, and don’t admire Hitler. Von Brunn was off the charts. It’s absurd to suggest conservative talkers bear any responsibility for this. As for Buchanan, the examples you give above also can not reasonably be called incitement to violence.

    But if you insist conservatives do bear any responsibility, what about the Bush-haters and 9/11 conspiracists on the left? Shouldn’t such talk also be condemned? Tell us what you think of the movie about the assassination of GW Bush in relation to this cartoon.

22. 

    motivemagus said, 5 months ago

    sclark, no one is saying that (most) conservative talk show hosts are white supremacists. (Though I wonder about Pat Buchanan, who just wrote a book slamming Churchill and calling WWII “unnecessary.”) What many people are saying is that the vitriolic bombast being bellowed by them in place of discussion or even thought is encouraging people to substitute emotions for their thoughts, and the direction of their vitriol is to claim, among other things, that Obama is a traitor to the nation, that he’s not really a citizen, he’s going to be pro-Black, etc., which are all ways of appealing to the ignorant white audience and implicitly leading the wackier to believe that there truly is an evil conspiracy that can only be solved by revolution. And all the “tea parties” are pretty explicitly heading that way, don’t you think? It’s only a short step from claiming that the government needs to be overthrown peacefully to saying it needs to be overthrown period. We practically did it ourselves. Sam Adams would probably be considered a terrorist by modern standards, and if he had modern weapons, without question. Look up what happened to the Tories, including Ben Franklin’s own son, who was Royal Governor of New Jersey. If it can happen in the “Age of Enlightenment,” why not here and now, with a far more efficient form of communication?
    I miss William F. Buckley. He was a snide, pretentious conservative gadfly, but he was an intelligent, thoughtful one, who always had a reason for his views and could explain them. The same does not seem to be true of Ann Coulter, who genuinely disturbs me, or Rush Limbaugh, or certainly Glenn Beck, who seems to be heading right off the edge. Network is coming true, folks – it’s just starting on radio first.

23. 

    sclark55 said, 5 months ago

    I don’t hear “vitriolic bombast”, but I hear plenty of good reasons for their beliefs, from talk show hosts and callers-in both.

    But you do raise some interesting questions in my mind - (1) Is today like the 1700s? We have an elected govt instead of a monarchy, and we’re all represented by that govt, so we can peacefully throw them out (and some of us are looking forward to that).

    & (2) What was in the hearts and minds of those who rebelled in the 1700s? They did have to have some critical mass; there had to be some who were the talk-show hosts or commentators of the day. But when it came right down to it, why did a family decide to send their kids to fight? What was in the mind of those who went to fight? And how big a difference did the orators make?

    Then (3) Did they have a means of peaceful rebellion, as we do now; was it even an option? I don’t think so.

24. 

    motivemagus said, 5 months ago

    sclark, if you’re not hearing the vitriol, then you’re not listening to the same people I have. There are plenty of documented quotes out there. Beliefs are one thing – lies and smears are something else.
    If it is possible to peacefully throw people out (and that is indeed what we did to the Republicans), then why are they resorting to this nonsense about “impeach Obama,” which I’ve already seen (on what grounds, pray tell)?
    
    In the 1700s one of the most influential pamphlets (the nearest to talk radio) was Common Sense, by Tom Paine. It did indeed arouse many people. Paul Revere did his best to egg on rioters post-Boston Massacre (he did the famous etching that made it look like evil soldiers fired on surrendering men), and in fact “Massacre Day” was a holiday in Boston from 1771 into the 1780s. So, yes, equivalents were there.
    But turn it around. Do you really think the level of vitriol being done today is justified? Obama was duly elected and the GOP majority thrown out in a totally honest election, which is more than you can say of 2000. So why are the whackos on talk radio talking revolution? That’s what the “Tea Party” is about, remember?
    And for the record, the Colonials did in fact try (repeatedly) to get a hearing before the King, which failed in large part because his representative (Lord North?) was a complete idiot. But many commentators and I believe George III himself commented that they had made a tragic mistake with that decision, and lost the Colonies as a result.
    
    Still, that only reinforces my point, which is that this level of froth is unneeded at best.