ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 1 Users Online   
   
                 09/03/2014 04:18 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Society and Culture
Egyptian Feminist Poops, Menstruates on Islamic State Flag
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think the U.S. should do more to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine?
  Latest Events
09/02/2014 05:54 PM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Couple Kidnapped in Decatur, Ga. Found Handcuffed, Shot'
09/02/2014 05:53 PM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Carrie Underwood Is Pregnant'
09/02/2014 05:52 PM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Apple Fixes iCloud Bug Blamed for Leak of Nude Celeb Photos'
09/02/2014 05:52 PM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Marine Helicopter Goes Down in Gulf of Aden, All 25 Aboard Rescued'
09/02/2014 12:24 PM
dolcevita receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Couple Kidnapped in Decatur, Ga. Found Handcuffed, Shot'
09/02/2014 12:00 PM
dolcevita receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Carrie Underwood Is Pregnant'
09/02/2014 11:43 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Joan Rivers Put on Life Support'
09/02/2014 11:37 AM
dolcevita receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Apple Fixes iCloud Bug Blamed for Leak of Nude Celeb Photos'
09/02/2014 11:18 AM
dolcevita receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Marine Helicopter Goes Down in Gulf of Aden, All 25 Aboard Rescued'
  2.006 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/22/2009 06:45 AM ID: 77180 Permalink   

NAACP Urges Boycott of N.Y. Post Over Cartoon

 

The NAACP has urged readers to boycott the New York Post after they published a cartoon that some say likens President Obama to a gunned down chimpanzee. NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous called the cartoon "an invitation to assassination."

Jealous said the drawing opened "racial wounds" and urged the N.Y. Post to remove editor-in-chief Col Allan and cartoonist Sean Delonas. While the paper issued an apology on their website, Jealous said it was "half an apology, without elaboration."

The NAACP Chairman said the cartoon was published without any thought and said "Anyone who is not offended by it does not have any sensitivity." The NAACP said they will intensify their efforts if the Post doesn't take "serious disciplinary action."

 
  Source: www.usatoday.com  
    WebReporter: vash_the_stampede Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  56 Comments
  
  Link to picture:  
   
  by: vash_the_stampede     02/22/2009 06:46 AM     
  jealous  
 
Ah he's just Jealous
Anyway hadn't there been a few occurrences of likening Bush to a monkey?
 
  by: paul_   02/22/2009 10:54 AM     
  Eh  
 
somebody wasn't thinking when they made that cartoon, that's for sure.
 
  by: The Mad Mule   02/22/2009 11:36 AM     
  @The Mad Mule  
 
Delonas is known for his over-the-top cartoons, here is a small selection of what many would call offensive works:

http://newsone.blackplanet.com/...
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     02/22/2009 12:23 PM     
  Idiots  
 
Want to get rid of free speech.
 
  by: Rayn     02/22/2009 02:53 PM     
  @Paul  
 
Thats true, but wasn't racial. This is just!? WTF, he could have used the N word, since African Americans call each other N***.
 
  by: chakubanga1   02/22/2009 03:04 PM     
  @rayn  
 
"Idiots
Want to get rid of free speech."

no, just hate speech and racism in general.

people who excerise that kind of free speech dont deserve to have it in the first place, atleast not anymore then the next guy deserve to beat the shit out of him for it, and alluding to black people as monkey's, democrats as communists, islamic people treating their wives like animals and correlating gays with people who screw animals is a sure way to get your ass kicked... and not only that but in that case they'd damn well deserve it.

personally, i think they should just be boycotted, as they clearly have history of it... if all black people, arabs, gays and democrats boycotted them as they are the ones being directly offended on a regular basis the NY post have a hard time getting their bigotry out there and not only that would likely lose their advertisement and then their business altogether.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/22/2009 03:12 PM     
  Eh  
 
it seems to me he is just saying the congress (who actually write bills) are just a bunch of idiots and that really it was the chimp that was writing the bill?
 
  by: RyanB     02/22/2009 04:17 PM     
  @vash  
 
the guy who wrote that article is an over sensitive idiot. political cartoons are supppose to be satire. "here the cartoonist advocates for a nuclear strike on iran and believes nuclear holocaust to be funny" or the one where bill clinton is depicted as a whore. He wrote the comment sounding indignant about depicting a pres as a whore. Was he indignant when Bush was depicted as a dumb monkey? or are monkeys not as bad as whores?


Either way people need to grew the bleep up and stop looking for reasons to be offended.
 
  by: RyanB     02/22/2009 04:22 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
Hate Speech is still speech.


The populist authoritarianism that is the downside of political correctness means that anyone, sometimes it seems like everyone, can proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged. The victim culture, every sufferer grasping for their own Holocaust, ensures that anyone who feels offended can call for moderation, for dilution, and in the end, as is all too often the case, for censorship. And censorship, that by-product of fear - stemming as it does not from some positive agenda, but from the desire to escape our own terrors and superstitions by imposing them on others - must surely be resisted. ~Jonathon Green

"alluding to black people as monkey's"

We're all a bunch of monkeys.
http://iacs5.ucsd.edu/...

"democrats as communists"
LOL, or extreme Socialists.

"islamic people treating their wives like animals"

I sometimes forget about all the freedom islamic women have......

"correlating gays with people who screw animals"

Human's are animals...so they kinda are.

 
  by: Rayn     02/22/2009 04:29 PM     
  I'll never be able  
 
to see anyone but GW as a chimpanzee.
 
  by: calilac     02/22/2009 06:37 PM     
  Obama didn't write the stimulus bill  
 
Why boycott??
Obama didn't write the stimulus bill, congress did.

Another example of our becoming " The United States of the Offended"
 
  by: netguysc1   02/22/2009 07:41 PM     
  Let's all do the "Technicality Tap-Dance!"  
 
"Congress wrote the bill, not Obama ... so the cartoonist was making fun of Congress! (Even though everyone knows the stimulus bill was Obama's brainchild.)"

"Oh, so it was OK to make Bush out to be a chimp, but it's not OK to do that to Obama? What a double standard! (Ignoring the fact that Bush is white and Obama is black, and black people, not white people, are the ones who have been historically subjected to ape-themed racial slurs.)"

"Gosh, people are so easily offended! These liberals get so up-in-arms over a stupid little cartoon! (Gosh, people are so easily offended! These conservatives get so up-in-arms just because Wal-Mart greeters don't say 'Merry Christmas!')."

Here's some advice to our SN users who represent the various flavors of conservative thought -- stop making flimsy excuses for the racists among your ranks. It only makes you look like sympathizers.
 
  by: ben_reilly     02/22/2009 09:05 PM     
  @paul  
 
yes, but you're overlooking the fact that Bush actually does strongly resemble a monkey.
 
  by: gryphon50a   02/22/2009 09:20 PM     
  @RyanB  
 
"Either way people need to grew the bleep up and stop looking for reasons to be offended."

Or people could, I don't know, stop going out of their way to offend others?
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     02/22/2009 09:36 PM     
  heh  
 
'an invitation for assassination'...riight. Look if someone saw that and then tried to assassinate someone..they were going to do it before reading that cartoon in the first place.

Whatever happend to freedom of speech? Just because a few people don't like it they have to take it down? Please...get a life people.
 
  by: Jediman3     02/22/2009 09:43 PM     
  @Vash  
 
Do you really want to delegate your emotions to others?

If you don't let people offend you, you can't be offended.

As for the cartoon, I haven't made up my mind on it yet. I can see how it could be seen as racist, but it doesn't make much sense that way.
 
  by: erasedgod   02/22/2009 09:47 PM     
  not racist at all  
 
i think they were calling out polesi.

but none the less its just a cartoon, it never singled anyone out, it was one of those use your imagination who there talking about, but if you use the clues, it does say who wrote the bill and obama had nothing to do with writing the bill.

Black people: GET OVER IT.

people think that since obama got elected that it would show that the USA isnt racist, it would bring the races together, but in all means i think it made it worse, people are all up in arms over a stupid cartoon, calling for boycotts,apologies and so on.
 
  by: cray0la     02/22/2009 10:51 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
"people who excerise that kind of free speech dont deserve to have it in the first place,"

Havoc you seriously just need to STFU. I don't know how much you guys care about personal liberty in Canada, but here in the states...we actually have a document that used to protect it. It's called the Constitution, and you're a retard. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Constitution really doesn't protect the people who complain about certain types of speech or words, it protects the people who use said words. Any other use is entirely a mis-use of the constitution. And it's funny that you advocate the de-construction of individual liberty for your illegitimate view of social evolution. It means you so blatantly favor stripping people of their freedoms for the good of groups who really do the most harm to your view of social evolution.

"personally, i think they should just be boycotted, as they clearly have history of it... if all black people, arabs, gays and democrats boycotted them as they are the ones being directly offended on a regular basis the NY post have a hard time getting their bigotry out there and not only that would likely lose their advertisement and then their business altogether."


You're an even bigger ignoramus than I thought. People boycott the NY Post every day, by not reading it. If anyone who reads it is offended, they won't use it you douche. This is how the free market works, when a consumer is ill-satisfied with a product they don't use it. The only real crime committed here is that the NY Post apologized for being within their own rights. Since you so obviously hate religion, I suggest you stop contributing to the mob-mentality and let people think for themselves. Holy hell, you are so backward.
 
  by: blac   02/22/2009 10:57 PM     
  @ben  
 
Here's some advice to internet tough guy and other who represent various flavors of Nazi-fascist extremism
---Buy a plane ticket to China if you care so little about personal liberties, it only makes you look like a communist.
 
  by: blac   02/22/2009 11:04 PM     
  @blac  
 
the right to free speech DOES NOT include hate speech.

as per boycotting i obviously was not referring to people who already don't read it but to people who do read it regularly, namely via a subscription service.

and you call me moron and an ignoramous while in the same alotment of breaths proving such of yourself.

you do realise defending a person who is explictly using his cartoons for slander and general hate speech... its utterly disgusting that you or anyone would defend that.

have you seen these cartoons, they aren't ha-ha funny, nor insightful, but rather blatently made to be hateful and offensive, thats no more his right than it is for one of the people he frequently offends from attacking him, attacking him isn't within their rights but nor is hate-speech..

the only one of those 10 over the top comics was was even reasonable for publication would be the lazy jesus husband, but even that will likely be offensive to many christians, though no where near to the degree of suggesting that arabs are terrorists, or arab are uniformily abusive to woman, or calling hillary a whore (as much as i dont like hillary clinton thats not funny and definately uncalled for), associatting obama with communism, gays to people who commit beastiliatily,.

he obviously has a history of publicized hate speech... its not like its just something thinking to himself or sharing with his friends...

would the KKK be allow to preach their hate speech... how about people might support al-quida wishing death of policitians and saying america deserves blood in their streets and non-islamic americans are infidels, and wishing suffering or death on them, or comparing christians to neanderthals, or an anti-white supremist organization... i'm sure all of these would go over with equal support in america right... LOL... keep living that american fantasy.

i'm all for the SPIRIT of the constitution, but its neither perfect nor absolute. i'm all for freedom, liberty, tolerance and other akin concepts/traits but some things simply shouldn't tolerated.

maybe he just wants the attention the denmark cartoonist got...lol
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/22/2009 11:39 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
"the right to free speech DOES NOT include hate speech."

Yes, the F*ck it does. You cannot use SPEECH as an argument against SPEECH.

"you do realise defending a person who is explictly using his cartoons for slander and general hate speech... its utterly disgusting that you or anyone would defend that."

Classic liberal, go for the morality of the issue. Look, I re-read my post...nowhere did I condone what was actually said, rather I just suggested that his personal liberties should be protected. Again, the fact that you so blatantly want to strip people of their personal liberty is utterly disgusting.

"the only one of those 10 over the top comics was was even reasonable for publication would be the lazy jesus husband, but even that will likely be offensive to many christians,"

Oh ok cool. So hate speech toward Christians is okay. Seriously, you're arguing that every other cartoon they've published is hate speech, but when it comes to Jesus...yeah that's just borderline and Christians should just shutup anyway, because they shouldn't be AS offended as the arabs. Way to make an ass of yourself there, bud.

"associatting obama with communism"
How is that hate speech? What you deem offensive is ridiculous. I bet you wouldn't have a problem with me calling Bill O'Reilley a Nazi though.

"would the KKK be allow to preach their hate speech"

Would Americans be allowed to preach their hate speech against the KKK?

"how about people might support al-quida wishing death of policitians"

How about politicians wishing the deaths of Al-Qaeda?

"i'm all for the SPIRIT of the constitution, but its neither perfect nor absolute."

No, it is. That's why you're an idiot. Because you believe things like that. The Constitution is the finest piece of legislation that has ever been penned, it's honestly a shame it didn't go untouched for very long. Not just for us, but the rest of the world really...a lot of people stood to make a lot of money.

"i'm all for freedom, liberty, tolerance and other akin concepts/traits but some things simply shouldn't tolerated."

So, you had an argument, right? You favor the destruction of personal liberty. And as a means of doing so you use speech as an argument against speech. You've also exampled that it's quite alright to use hate speech on Christians and other groups that use hate speech as a means of relaying messages. Oh, you also think the current administration shouldn't be likened to communism. Am I missing anything? Yeah, I couldn't find anything coherent in that mess either. Also, there is no need to write an essay every time you post, just a thought.
 
  by: blac   02/23/2009 08:01 AM     
  @erasedgod  
 
I just think human beings should respect other human beings. When someone asks you not to say something that offends them, you should try to honor their wishes within reason. It makes no sense for someone to go out of their way to cause someone distress; it just shows a person’s immaturity.

You’d be surprised how rewarding being civil, caring and respectful can be.
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     02/23/2009 10:04 AM     
  Screw the PC police  
 
I'm going to make a few statements here, because this is just ridiculous.

Calling Bush a monkey and Obama a monkey is the same exact thing. If you don't think so, then you have more racist thoughts than others. It's the same train of thought (generally speaking) that the biggest homophobes are the biggest closet gays.

The PC police is getting a little out of hand. If anything, I want to be the biggest super ultimate uuber racist/biggot/sexist/etc just to get away from it. The PC police makes me want to be socially unacceptable and change all my views about the world as I see it.

Free speech is free speech. Someone else was probably offended that Bush was depicted as a monkey, but there was no representation--no boycotting--of anything on this large of a scale.

Why the hell isn't there a white group that isn't considered nationalistic racists? I'm just curious on this one. One can have a black chamber of commerce, a korean chamber of commerce, a latin american chamber of commerce, but if there is a white chamber of commerce, you're a racist.
HOW DOES THAT WORK
(and please, none of that 'well, the chamber of commerce is for white people...anyone can join that one. So.)


The artist of this cartoon did a good job. It doesn't matter if you like the cartoon or not (or however else you can feel about it.) You're talking about it. The guy making the protest statement just exacerbated the situation. EVERYONE is looking at this cartoon now, and everyone will remember this guy. So. It's really just lucky and fantastic self marketing on his part.
 
  by: polkaspotted   02/23/2009 05:27 PM     
  @blac  
 
"Yes, the F*ck it does. You cannot use SPEECH as an argument against SPEECH."

yes i can, and you have laws to prove it.

"Classic liberal, go for the morality of the issue."

at least i have morality.

"Again, the fact that you so blatantly want to strip people of their personal liberty is utterly disgusting."

not at all, only from publishing hate speech and slander.

"you're arguing that every other cartoon they've published is hate speech, but when it comes to Jesus"

every other one of those 10 WAS BLATANTLY OFFENSIVE... the jesus one might have been distasteful but i could hardly see how it was offensive and certianly not blatantly so, its like like jesus had his wife on a collar... can you not see the massive difference.

"How is that hate speech? What you deem offensive is ridiculous. I bet you wouldn't have a problem with me calling Bill O'Reilley a Nazi though."

no, bill-o is a propaganda shovelling douche bag, not a nazi, bush was a nazi, he just perfered the american flag to the swastika.

"Would Americans be allowed to preach their hate speech against the KKK?"

like what calling them the asshole, inbred racist they are... thats that hate speech, calling for the deaths and mistreatment of non-white is.

"How about politicians wishing the deaths of Al-Qaeda?"

good point, though in fairness many of them are under the same illusion as most americans in that al-qaeda attacked the US on 9/11, and prevuiously in 1993. so to a point thats a different scenerio, thats war, even if it is reactionary to propaganda, its like a like a crazy racist in a white hood is the source of this info, but rather sources that are generally trusted, without much question.

"No, it is. That's why you're an idiot. Because you believe things like that. The Constitution is the finest piece of legislation that has ever been penned,"

no it a good document its FAR from perfect... anyone that things anything in the matter of legality, economics or politics is perfect, is a perfect fool.

"And as a means of doing so you use speech as an argument against speech. You've also exampled that it's quite alright to use hate speech on Christians and other groups that use hate speech as a means of relaying messages."

nothing of the sort in either case... here i make it real short and simple this time, the last tiome was evidently too long and complex for you:

1: free speech is NOT absolute, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE HATE SPEECH

2: i found nothing directly offensive in the lazy jesus cartoon, other than perhaps jesus being lazy, which should hardly be offensive to anyone thats reading this as they are being just as lazy as the jesus in the comic by being here and read thease comments as jesus was just hanging out watching the big screen tv with his kid playing a video game. thats a far cry from the other 9.

``Oh, you also think the current administration shouldn't be likened to communism``

look at the picture that tell me thats not offensive, obama smiling with a crook, an alleged terrorist, an accusing radical preacher (the slander andlibel against that preacher in the last years in amazing in and of itself, and we all know i``v know fan of religion) and the father of communism karl marx... if you can`t see how that was deliberately offensive then your a moron, not that you last two posts haven`t exasperated that point already.

``Am I missing anything? Yeah, I couldn't find anything coherent in that mess either.```

are you missing someing, perhap the capacity for reason.

couldn`t find anyhting coherent... and yet you understaood it well enough to make yet enother ignorantaly defensive post, and yes its is ignorant to defend a hate speech and slander artist when at the same time arguing that free speech in absolute, one serves to make you look just as bad, and the other shows gross ignorance of the constitution which you so freverently defend, which was not penned to harm or unduely offend others, contrary to whatever you may think.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/23/2009 06:24 PM     
  at: polk  
 
``Calling Bush a monkey and Obama a monkey is the same exact thing. If you don't think so, then you have more racist thoughts than others. It's the same train of thought (generally speaking) that the biggest homophobes are the biggest closet gays`.``

monkey was a slanderous term against white people for generations, even centuries... so no its not the same things... unless you are completely ignorant of the history of racism.

bush was called a chimp and monkey because he actually looked like one, there are DOZENS of side by side pictures of various chimp and bush faces... that and he exhibited sub-human intelligence.

``I want to be the biggest super ultimate uuber racist/biggot/sexist/etc just to get away from it``

i hope that was a joke, or your a young teenager, otherwise you really need to grow up beyond that teenage angst and rebellion phase.

``Free speech is free speech. Someone else was probably offended that Bush was depicted as a monkey,``

free speech is not absolute any more than my right to defend myself extends to me the right to attack you, you know like the US claimed to do to iraq.

the only people that were likely offended if at all by bush being called monkey were maybe bush (but he cant help that he looks like a primate) and the people that think evolution is a myth.

``Why the hell isn't there a white group that isn't considered nationalistic racists? I'm just curious on this one. One can have a black chamber of commerce, a korean chamber of commerce, a latin american chamber of commerce, but if there is a white chamber of commerce, you're a racist.
HOW DOES THAT WORK``

BECAUSE OF A HISTORY OF RACISM AND NO REPRESENTATION.

for being a extremist in published cartoons... for being a slander artists... how good his comics are but rather how bad they are, how ignorant he must be, perhaps even racist...

i dont mind that he obviously has as axe to grind against the democrats mostly (though he obviously wasn`t much of a bush fan either) but slander, hate speech and the fact its allowed to be publized in a newpaper and on their website is absurd, second only to the absurdity of those that defend it, which fuels their drive to continue such socially destrcutive behavior, and not only that but it along with the heaviers propaganda sources its based on in many cases grows with its acceptance...

hate speech and propaganda are two things society should not be tolerant of, lest they want a whole society of social scum and ignorance as result. this can readily be seen in even major media outlets, esspecially fox news whom is a media specialist in propaganda and social engineering which leads to a result of social ignorance and intolerance... this can readily be seen in fox news viewers compared to that of nearly any other news agency in the US and much more on global scale, and there are often more extreme examples though they are usually on radio like limbaugh or internet extremist sites like stormfront. i`m not saying everyone who watches fox, listens to limbaugh and visits stormfront is an ignorant pile of social scum, but with the proganda and hate speech it is far more likely, and this is readily observable.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/23/2009 06:58 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
The one comment was partially a joke. I like to be fair and I like to be equal.

My comment about Obama being represented as a monkey is the fact that the monkey DOES NOT look like him in the least. He also didn't write the stimulus bill. So. Being hypersensitive and thinking that it's a racial, hateful move is being a bit racist on the part of those who are protesting.
As for hate speech not being free speech, what about the crazy Westboro Baptist Church group? They can say "God hates fags" and "Fag Troops" and whatever else on streets. Sounds like hate speech to me. Government also stepped back so as not to infringe on their FREE SPEECH. (Note. I'm not advocating being hateful in a community in the least. I'm just proving a point)

Following around the same line of thought that you gave regarding the whole chamber of commerce example, the chamber of commerce is supposed to be a representative selection of the community. So having just a Chamber of Commerce would be sufficient. Having a specialized group kind of defeats the purpose?
MLKjr was about equality and fairness, not reparation and reverse, hypersensitive near-servitude. While that statement is a bit overdramatic, I'm AGAIN trying to prove a point (and by near servitude, I'm referencing the PC 'racial' police)


Where I agree with you that hate speech and propaganda should be watched with a close eye by all, it should in no way be monitored to extinction, especially by the government. People should be educated on basic rhetorical analysis so not to be caught up in propaganda speeches, Republican OR Democrat. People should also just grow up and see everyone as equals and NOT try and bring more attention to themselves as being different by crying 'Hate.'
One shouldn't be apathetic
One, however, should ignore stupid comments.
 
  by: polkaspotted   02/23/2009 10:36 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
I think it's funny that a canadian thinks he knows more about the Bill of Rights than an American.

So... if you could find some sort of ruling that proves that hate speech is not covered under freedom of speech, that would be good.

Otherwise you're just pulling stuff out of your ass AGAIN. Like you always do.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
  by: Rayn     02/23/2009 10:56 PM     
  @polk  
 
"They can say "God hates fags" and "Fag Troops" and whatever else on streets"

unfortunately in the US religion is more important than decency to many people, and all they have to do is hide behind their bible and most people wont dare touch them or their right to free speech (which does not protect from hate speech but reather from the government, which lets face it is a farce in the first place, its a good ideal but its never been a matter of fact), even if they are disgusted them them, and unfortunately as a country (on the whole) america is intolerant of gays even if only passively by support this intolerance by doing/saying nothing.

unfortunately most people don't even know what the constitution means in free speech... its protection from the government... not protection from being immoral douche bag.

just as the right to bare arms meaning having society armed to teeth, but rather that the people have the right to form militias (which if they do they are deemed terrorists; think of the late 60's and 70's) to protect themselves from the governemnt no so people can engage in urban combat with each other.

americans love hiding behind the constitution but i doubt if i've met more than 10 people that actually understand it.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/23/2009 11:08 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
You're an idiot, the second amendment is an Individual right, not a collective right. Almost every right in the Bill of rights are individual rights.
 
  by: Rayn     02/23/2009 11:17 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
"Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias. "

http://www.law.umkc.edu/...
 
  by: Rayn     02/23/2009 11:22 PM     
  AT: rayn  
 
"Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias. "`

unfortuunately for justice scalia everyone walking around with guns has NOTHING to do with militias... hell gangs are a better example of an organized militia...

see this is EXACTLY what i mean when i say american love hiding behind the constitution yet most dont have a slightest clue as to what it actually means and hence they believe they are absolute.

the founding fathers wouldn`t just be rolling in their graves they`d be throwing up in them.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/23/2009 11:44 PM     
  @havoc  
 
dude.. you really are one of the dumbest people I've ever met.

In order for people to effectively form a militia they have to have guns. And don't bring the founding fathers into this. You know nothing of the founders of this country.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" - Patrick Henry

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." Thomas Jefferson

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington

Go be stupid somewhere else Havoc.
 
  by: Rayn     02/24/2009 12:16 AM     
  again for the moron in the back  
 
ITS ABOUT MILITIA's ...

PROTECTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT...

i don't think the founding fathers were penning the supposed justification for the annual 10000-11000 gun related murders each year in the US

and lets bar in mind that over 200 years have passed since, things have changed alittle...

unfortunately jefferson was right in this one:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." Thomas Jefferson

but when you have restiction on them it also become harder to get them... most illegal guns in the canada come the the US, hence nearly all of our gun crime stems from the US and their ultra lax gun laws, which make it VERY easy for gun realted crime to occur...

unfortunately america is also full of gun nuts so gun control is no only difficult do so unpopular that you'll have a hard time getting elected

gun control doesn't mean you dont have the right to have guns it means you have to be responsible or atleast trustworthy in that you wont be dangerous to society, which clearly many people with guns are by the fact that the US has a murder by guns rate of about 8-11 time more PER CAPITA than canada,... facts like that do indeed deminish jeffereson point, though by no means does it refute it entirely... criminals will be able to get their hands on guns, sure, but that doesn't mean you have to make it easy for them.

unless you believe everyone including criminals deserves to always have their gun rights... in which case everyone should be given a gun a birth to protect themselve against all the other assholes that have guns, and without regulation EVERY asshole can get a gun.

and again this has nothing to do with militias as even street gangs, biker gangs, the mafia are a better example of a militia than your average person with a gun... and in their mind, its their right too.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/24/2009 12:55 AM     
  @Rayn  
 
So how would you plan a war of untrained civilians with shotguns and pistols vs. the United States military (tanks, fighter jets, daisy cutters, etc.)?

I'm all for sensible gun ownership among the public ... but the world's a lot different than it was during the American Revolution, and we shouldn't let our firearms allow us to get too big for our breeches.
 
  by: ben_reilly     02/24/2009 12:59 AM     
  Stupid cartoon  
 
Either they weren't thinking, or they were hoping for some great publicity from such a controversial piece. That's not "controversial" in the positive, thought-stimulating sense, either.

I see nothing wrong with what's happened since, though. If "idiots" want to take free speech, Rayn, then there must be no idiots involved. The NAACP is exercising free speech for themselves, not asking for someone else to censor the Post. We're free to say what we want without the government stopping us, not without suffering (non-violent) consequences from our fellow citizens.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     02/24/2009 01:18 AM     
  @Rayn  
 
It is common knowledge that free speech can be curtailed if it:

1) Is lewd or vulgar in the judgment of the reasonable person ...

2) Recklessly endangers others (i.e. shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater that isn't on fire) ...

3) Incites people to violence.

This cartoon borders awfully close to problem No. 3, as it can be reasonably interpreted as saying that the author of the stimulus should be shot and killed.

Generally, the speaker must specifically call for violence in order to actually get in trouble. In some cases, though, the argument can be made that a criticism is so beyond the pale that it is tantamount to reckless endangerment.

For example, during the campaign, Sarah Palin said that President Obama was "palling around with terrorists." A statement like that can cause some people to envision an ally of the likes of Osama bin Laden preparing to take over the leadership of the United States, regardless of whether Palin intended it to be understood as such.

In fact, the Secret Service saw a big jump in the number of threats to Obama after Palin made that comment (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
 
  by: ben_reilly     02/24/2009 01:32 AM     
  @The Retarded Canadian.  
 
"ITS ABOUT MILITIA's ..." "PROTECTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT..."

Individual right retard! Look it up! It's very clear if you simply read the second ammendment that it's an individual right and the militia was the objective.

Of course.. if it wasn't an individual right.. why didn't George Washington, John Adams, or Thomas Jefferson take guns away from people during their presidency??

"and lets bar in mind that over 200 years have passed since, things have changed alittle..."

People no longer want freedom? People no longer have inalienable rights?

"but when you have restiction on them it also become harder to get them... most illegal guns in the canada come the the US, hence nearly all of our gun crime stems from the US and their ultra lax gun laws, which make it VERY easy for gun realted crime to occur..."

....Like I really care about Canada..

"unfortunately america is also full of gun nuts so gun control is no only difficult do so unpopular that you'll have a hard time getting elected"

Because we actually understand the Bill of Rights.


"gun control doesn't mean you dont have the right to have guns it means you have to be responsible or atleast trustworthy in that you wont be dangerous to society, which clearly many people with guns are by the fact that the US has a murder by guns rate of about 8-11 time more PER CAPITA than canada,... facts like that do indeed deminish jeffereson point, though by no means does it refute it entirely... criminals will be able to get their hands on guns, sure, but that doesn't mean you have to make it easy for them."

Highest murder rate in the U.S.? Washington D.C., it is known as the Murder Capital of the United States, and they just so happen to have the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.

Control means that it's no longer a RIGHT, It's a privilege!

"and again this has nothing to do with militias as even street gangs, biker gangs, the mafia are a better example of a militia than your average person with a gun... and in their mind, its their right too."

It's an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT! The Supreme Court Verified that! The Quotes of the Founders back that up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...

and it is the Mafia's right to own guns because they ARE individuals.

I notice you STILL have not come up with anything to prove that hate speech is not protected under freedom of speech.


 
  by: Rayn     02/24/2009 01:37 AM     
  @Ben  
 
"1) Is lewd or vulgar in the judgment of the reasonable person ..."

Can you cite a supreme court ruling of such an event?

"2) Recklessly endangers others (i.e. shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater that isn't on fire) ..."

Theater is private property, thus the theater owner could bring charges on the person.

"3) Incites people to violence."

cite a supreme court ruling?





 
  by: Rayn     02/24/2009 01:47 AM     
  @MOC  
 
The populist authoritarianism that is the downside of political correctness means that anyone, sometimes it seems like everyone, can proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged. The victim culture, every sufferer grasping for their own Holocaust, ensures that anyone who feels offended can call for moderation, for dilution, and in the end, as is all too often the case, for censorship. And censorship, that by-product of fear - stemming as it does not from some positive agenda, but from the desire to escape our own terrors and superstitions by imposing them on others - must surely be resisted. ~Jonathon Green
 
  by: Rayn     02/24/2009 01:48 AM     
  @Rayn  
 
So what?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     02/24/2009 01:52 AM     
  @MOC  
 
Exactly!
 
  by: Rayn     02/24/2009 01:59 AM     
  @Rayn  
 
Agreed.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     02/24/2009 02:02 AM     
  @rayn  
 
"Individual right retard! Look it up! It's very clear if you simply read the second ammendment that it's an individual right and the militia was the objective."

MILITIA...

" "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

IT EXPLICITY SAYS MILITIA... i dont care how a judge wishes to REDEFINE it 225 or so year after the fact... thats not how its written, and so thats not what it means.... it means A WELL REGULATED MILITIA... not every asshole in america having a gun.

"People no longer want freedom? People no longer have inalienable rights?"

say what... you think your any more free than me...lol

keep living your fantasy.

"....Like I really care about Canada.."

nor the environment, nor much else i reckon. only you and yourself.

"Because we actually understand the Bill of Rights."

and yet you've misintrepreted it 3 times in a row... thats a totally amazing understanding....NOT

"Highest murder rate in the U.S.? Washington D.C., it is known as the Murder Capital of the United States, and they just so happen to have the strictest gun control laws in the U.S."

you got me there... but in fairness washington D.C isn't a state, infact its only about 1/7th the size of my city and yet has a population of about 100,000 more... its not hard to get illegal guns into such a small area.

"Control means that it's no longer a RIGHT, It's a privilege!"

driving is a priviledge too... your point.

"It's an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT! The Supreme Court Verified that! The Quotes of the Founders back that up."

the same supreme court that thought it was within their rights to elected a president for the US.

and again "well organized militia" DOES NOT mean individual... infact a militia is quite the opposite. regardless of the right wing supreme court ruled it.... just again goes back to the point of "americans love hiding behind the constitution but i doubt if i've met more than 10 people that actually understand it." and yes i know the supreme court is the highest court in the US and thats what makes it the saddest of all your own legal system cannot interpret the constitution nor the bill of rights, much less the spirit they were written in, nor understand the times under which they were written.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/24/2009 02:16 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
It's an Individual right you idiot. Anyone who knows anything about the Bill of Rights knows that. The Right to Bear arms is not dependent on being in a militia, Rather the ability to form a militia is dependent on the peoples ability to own firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...
"In the United States, the Constitution outlines individual rights within the Bill of Rights. "

Again.. I can cite court cases and the words of the founders to back this up. All you have done is give us your stupid interpretation of it. Again Havoc.. again you're just pulling shit out of your ass.

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

"driving is a priviledge too... your point."

Driving's not in the bill of rights retard!!

I'm tired of proving you wrong on shit that you simply pull out of your ass havoc. Go read a book. Actually be able to cite why you believe things. Because all you do is make shit up. And write ill informed, misspelled essay's about shit you don't even understand.
 
  by: Rayn     02/24/2009 03:20 AM     
  @rayn  
 
"The Right to Bear arms is not dependent on being in a militia,"

i never said it was... i said that was the purpose of it... its was INTERPRETED by the supreme court to a individual right thats not hwo it was written... and again thats completely ignoring the socio political climate of the time.

and this is the same supreme court that failed miserably to adhere to the constitution in terms of election resulting in the election (supreme court selection) of bush.

"I'm tired of proving you wrong on shit that you simply pull out of your ass havoc."

the only thing your proving is your ability to follow the far right's rhetoric.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/24/2009 03:40 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
""The Right to Bear arms is not dependent on being in a militia,"

i never said it was... i said that was the purpose of it... its was INTERPRETED by the supreme court to a individual right thats not hwo it was written... and again thats completely ignoring the socio political climate of the time."

It was written as an individual right. Everything in the Bill of Rights deals with individual rights. It was written because the Anti-Federalists felt the strong national government would be a threat to individual rights. And several times you alluded to the idea that the second amendment was a collectivist right.

"just as the right to bare arms meaning having society armed to teeth, but rather that the people have the right to form militias"

"unfortuunately for justice scalia everyone walking around with guns has NOTHING to do with militias... hell gangs are a better example of an organized militia..."

"and this is the same supreme court that failed miserably to adhere to the constitution in terms of election resulting in the election (supreme court selection) of bush."

It was written as an individual right, and upheld as an individual right. Don't try to obscure the topic.

"the only thing your proving is your ability to follow the far right's rhetoric."

What I'm proving is your lack of knowledge of the Bill of Rights. It joins the ranks of the multitude of subjects you have no knowledge of though you posture yourself a prodigy of.
 
  by: Rayn     02/24/2009 05:41 AM     
  @rayn  
 
look short and simple i wont even use my own words:

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that declares "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

"In 2001, President Bush directed the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft to issue a memorandum stating that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."

"In 2004, President Bush, through the Justice Department under Ashcroft, also issued Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, a lengthy memorandum which traced the historical development of the Second Amendment supporting its earlier conclusion."

IE, it was INTREPRETED as such more than 200 years after it was penned down in which it actually does say specifically say for the purpose of A WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA to ensure a free, people like yourself INTREPRET the following part which reaffirms the form rather than a seperate right to bare arms beyond the purpose of a well organized militia.


"What I'm proving is your lack of knowledge of the Bill of Rights. It joins the ranks of the multitude of subjects you have no knowledge of though you posture yourself a prodigy of."

like your backward intrepretation of carbon lag which assumes that CO2 would be freezing instantly from the atmosphere into ice core when infact it does take about years, hence the lag ( http://www.mapcruzin.com/... ) and the its a greenhouse gase which means it amplifies the effect of heat by trapping it.

never thought of myself as a prodigy but hell, you make me look that good i guess...lol
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/24/2009 06:14 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
"
IE, it was INTREPRETED as such more than 200 years after it was penned down in which it actually does say specifically say for the purpose of A WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA to ensure a free, people like yourself INTREPRET the following part which reaffirms the form rather than a seperate right to bare arms beyond the purpose of a well organized militia."

The bill of rights only DEALS in individual rights! It was written that way you idiot!

"like your backward intrepretation of carbon lag which assumes that CO2 would be freezing instantly from the atmosphere into ice core when infact it does take about years, hence the lag ( http://www.mapcruzin.com/... ) and the its a greenhouse gase which means it amplifies the effect of heat by trapping it."

LOL..it DOES freeze instantly into the ice core you moron! The ice traps bubbles of atmosphere, that's how they know how much CO2 was in the atmosphere at the time the ice was frozen. That article does not dispute that.

Nice try Genius.

 
  by: Rayn     02/24/2009 07:14 AM     
  Guys...  
 
...can we please chill it with the personal insults? Shortnews is a place for civil discussion, not for petty personal insults.
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     02/24/2009 07:49 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
"yes i can, and you have laws to prove it."

This is where you stfu Havoc. You don't have any laws, otherwise you would have cited them. But here, I'll cite some to make you look more like an ass...I mean...more than you already do yourself.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...

"at least i have morality."

Really, you don't. You favor taking people's rights which is a bit....shall I say, Kim Jong-Ilish.

"not at all, only from publishing hate speech and slander."

Oh well certainly, I agree with that. Only take away people's rights when it hurts other people's feelings. Good plan. That should leave us with....oh, no rights at all...

"the jesus one might have been distasteful but i could hardly see how it was offensive and certianly not blatantly so"

No I was offended, and I say it was hate speech.

"no, bill-o is a propaganda shovelling douche bag"

Agreed

"bush was a nazi, he just perfered the american flag to the swastika."

They're both Nazi's. With both of their preferred policies of Nationalism.

"like what calling them the asshole, inbred racist they are... "

That's hate speech as you have so clearly defined. Obviously, people have some sort of pre-concieved phobia against the KKK, which may just be in poor taste due largely to the media's contribution. They gather peacefully, and they discuss their bigotry amongst themselves. There is nothing wrong with that and the fact that people hate on them with their hate speech is just simply not protected by the First Amendment.

" the last tiome was evidently too long and complex for you:"

No, your spelling was just too short and horrific.

"1: free speech is NOT absolute, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE HATE SPEECH"

Yes, it is. Thank's for posting NOTHING to back that up.

"2: i found nothing directly offensive in the lazy jesus cartoon"

I found nothing offensive about this cartoon.

"are you missing someing, perhap the capacity for reason."

Dude, I'm going to buy you a dictionary for your birthday.

"and yet you understaood it well enough to make yet enother ignorantaly defensive post,"

Haha, ohh....thanks for that. Look, you clearly have no point. Well, you half-way have one, but you have no substance, no real-life events that give your points validity. It's just you...bitching about the system.

"which was not penned to harm or unduely offend others, contrary to whatever you may think."

Hmm...see, I don't remember suggesting the Bill of Rights was penned so people could make fun of each other, rather so that when people made fun of each other...people couldn't do anything about it, except make fun back. Thanks Havoc for zero insight. I think your individual purpose is better recognized watching the Saw movies. Your reasoning seems to have a lot more in common with total crap.
 
  by: blac   02/24/2009 07:56 AM     
  What happened to  
 
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
(Or, as you may have misheard, Voltaire)


This is the perfect example of what this topic is about. Free speech perfectly embodies that sentiment, and vice versa.
What Blac is attempting to bring up regarding the KKK is that sentiment exactly. 99.999% (not a real quote) aren't the violent lynching crazed (and to paraphrase) imbred assholes that they're so widely know to be.
So they have a set of ideas. The majority of people believe that their ideas are wrong.
At one point, a majority of people throught that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the planet, Aryans were the way to go, Jews were the devil, and that social ailment could be fixed by laws.
Some people still believe that, it's true.

My point is (not siding with anyone), who is to say that someone isn't right? Why take away their freedom to express how they feel. That's censorship.
 
  by: polkaspotted   02/24/2009 08:21 PM     
  N.Y. Post Owned By Rupert Murdoch  
 
Owner of The "Fair and Balanced" Fox (News?).

Hmmmmmm
 
  by: ichi     02/28/2009 06:06 PM     
  @rayn &blac &ichi  
 
"The bill of rights only DEALS in individual rights! It was written that way you idiot!"

and when did militia become a individual, as that is the stated purpose of the amendment.

"LOL..it DOES freeze instantly into the ice core you moron!"

oh my bad, here i was under the impression that to be in the ice core it actually has to fall in the form of percipitation... oh wait... BECAUSE IT DOES.


@blac

"Really, you don't. You favor taking people's rights."

no, only that be be excerised responsiblely.

"Only take away people's rights when it hurts other people's feelings. Good plan. That should leave us with....oh, no rights at all..."

only if it intended to incite hate based on slader, libel or otherwise gross misrepresentation... but hell that goes back to morality.

"No I was offended, and I say it was hate speech."

fine, on what grounds?...lol

"That's hate speech as you have so clearly defined. Obviously, people have some sort of pre-concieved phobia against the KKK, which may just be in poor taste due largely to the media's contribution. They gather peacefully, and they discuss their bigotry amongst themselves. There is nothing wrong with that and the fact that people hate on them with their hate speech is just simply not protected by the First Amendment."

actually, they largely meet peacefully (so long as only white people are there) brag their crimes and mistreatments of non-white... there's nothing inherently peacefully about them they're organization exists solely to hate others... i not sure about now, but they used to be deemed a domestic terrorist organization.

"I found nothing offensive about this cartoon. "

the presenter the the bill being shot isn't offensive... so if you discovered the cure for cancer and the was cartoon release with the newspaper headline penciled in of you proclaiming the cure, and holding the paper theres a monkey holding the paper being shot by a guy saying "maybe they'll think twice about finding a cure"...

you wouldn't find that offensive?



@ichi

"N.Y. Post Owned By Rupert Murdoch"

thats reason enough to boycott it.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/28/2009 06:35 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
"and when did militia become a individual, as that is the stated purpose of the amendment."

I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you dude.

"“Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology. All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body."
http://www.law.umkc.edu/...

By the way, you have still yet to tell me, if it was written in such a way that only people in a militia could be armed, why is it that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison etc.. didn't take the guns of those that were not in militia's? How do you explain their quotes in support of individual gun rights?

Face it.. you lost. The Bill of Rights defines individual rights.

"oh my bad, here i was under the impression that to be in the ice core it actually has to fall in the form of percipitation... oh wait... BECAUSE IT DOES."

"An ice core is a core sample from the accumulation of snow and ice over many years that have re-crystallized and have trapped air bubbles from previous time periods."

"In addition to the isotope concentration, the air bubbles trapped in the ice cores allow for measurement of the atmospheric concentrations of trace gases, including greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...

There is no lag dude. The atmospheric bubbles are from within that time period.
 
  by: Rayn     03/02/2009 11:36 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
"no, only that be be excerised responsiblely."

Nope, you favor taking them away in hopes to create a utopia.

"fine, on what grounds?...lol"

Maybe I like Jesus, so I was offended.

"actually, they largely meet peacefully (so long as only white people are there) brag their crimes and mistreatments of non-white... "

Bragging about something that you may or may not have done is not violent. There are no laws against that.

". there's nothing inherently peacefully about them "

There is nothing inherently violent about your example, try again later.

"they're organization exists solely to hate others..."

Which is okay, as long as you aren't hurting other people or other people's property. I'm certainly not condoning the KKK's malpractice, but you can't do anything about a group of men who wear sheets on their head and talk about hating black people. Now, you can do something about a group of men who wear sheets on their head and shoot black people, or destroy black people's property but the former, nothing can be done.

" so if you discovered the cure for cancer and the was cartoon release with the newspaper headline penciled in of you proclaiming the cure, and holding the paper theres a monkey holding the paper being shot by a guy saying "maybe they'll think twice about finding a cure"..."

That's a terrible correlating example. How you managed to equate politics to finding a cure for cancer is beyond anything logical. This is you we're talking to here, though. But you know what, I wouldn't be offended. If I was a cancer patient, probably....But at the end of the day, would it matter? I mean, that cartoon would not erase all hope for a cure. I'm sure if you had cancer you'd hardly care about the cartoon so long as your cancer was gone. Even still, if you were a cancer patient...there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it other than bitch. Because there are laws that protect the cartoonist.

Overall, you have no point other than moral obligation. So I would appreciate if you got your religion away from me.
 
  by: blac   03/03/2009 07:34 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com