Republican Congressman accused of pederasty - Page 8

**Trooper** · 10-15-2006, 09:08 PM

anyone else lost in what he is trying to say? cause i cant follow his logic or his reasons

**CingularDuality** · 10-15-2006, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

In all this back and forth, I can't help but think we're left to agree that the government is not, in fact, known to have violated Foley's personal privacy. You can't responsibly make a cartoon like that and defend it with "lololo no one REALLY expects "the government" to spy on a Congressman! That's ridiculous! Ducks don't talk!11"

The cartoon's viewer is asked to accept the unsolicited injection of plausibility that is not supported by the reported facts. It's like changing the pool joke to ride on your hate for three folks who haven't yet earned your disdain. The humor just dies.

Well, I found it funny. To me, the foundation was that Dems were up in arms over spying on terrorists domestically and that a Repub was caught in a sexual misconduct scandal involving electronic communications. The ridiculous part that makes it funny is the part where the gov't spies on a Congressman and the Democrat is OK with it...

If you don't find it funny, that's fine. Some jokes aren't meant for everyone.

Oh, and did you know that brains are pink? Check my sig for more info!

**Wyzcrak** · 10-15-2006, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trooper[SNPR]

anyone else lost in what he is trying to say? cause i cant follow his logic or his reasons

A duck, a horse, and a five dollar bill walk into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey Duck! It's seltzer for you tonight!"

LOLOLOLOLOL, right? Zany!!

No. Not LOL. If you laugh out loud at that, everyone else in the room is going to look toward you confused, with an awkward look on their faces. They're going to be quiet, strangely, left only to wonder what personal need you're meeting by laughing at a joke that makes zero sense given what's known.

Nothing about *anything* tells you that the bartender has cause to refuse alcohol to the duck! Before we can even *consider* the comedic value of a duck being cut off by a bartender *at all*, we're left trying to figure out what reality the joke is commentating on.

If you change "duck" to "Irishman", it (the "reality" the joke is commentating on) starts to make more sense, because the audience ("society") accepts, fairly or not, that Irish guys drink too much.

Jokes which find their humor in social commentary *must* offer commentary about what *is* (by *some* degree). It's fundamental to what makes it unique from other humor.

**Wyzcrak** · 10-15-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Well, I found it funny. ... Some jokes aren't meant for everyone.

True enough. To find that joke funny, though, you have to buy into the "reality" that "the government" spied on Foley. Buying that argument is critical to the contrast that enables the humor. Short of someone (*anyone* beyond the cartoon itself) presenting that reality compellingly, I'm left to wonder what drives your need to accept it (and laugh at commentary on it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Jokes which find their humor in social commentary *must* offer commentary about what *is* (by *some* degree). It's fundamental to what makes it unique from other humor.

**CingularDuality** · 10-15-2006, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

True enough. To find that joke funny, though, you have to buy into the "reality" that "the government" spied on Foley. Buying that argument is critical to the contrast that enables the humor. Short of someone (*anyone* beyond the cartoon itself) presenting that reality compellingly, I'm left to wonder what drives your need to accept it (and laugh at commentary on it).

Now you're back to saying that you must believe that ducks can talk in order to accept a joke as being funny...

It sounds to me like you're trying to say that the cartoon is implying that some spook is in reality spying on a Congressman's emails and that Democrats now think that's fine, when that is actually the ridiculousness that forms the punch line of the cartoon.

**Wyzcrak** · 10-16-2006, 01:23 AM

It's making fun of the Democrats, no? For allowing in the Foley case what they so vehemently opposed when the Terrorists were being spied on?

**Switchcraft** · 10-16-2006, 05:19 AM

I don't think it's got so much to do with "allowing." It's just that Democrats don't seem nearly as bothered by the idea of going through a political opponant's personal communications as they are with the idea of the military listening to communications with terrorists. You may call it an unsupportable argument, but I don't think so. If "principle" was really what it was about, they would be calling for people to settle down, not talk about it, and allow a court of law to investigate and decide if there was probable cause to issue a search warrant to sieze the original communications, no?

**CingularDuality** · 10-16-2006, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

It's making fun of the Democrats, no? For allowing in the Foley case what they so vehemently opposed when the Terrorists were being spied on?

It's making fun of ducks, no? For talking when they usually don't?

No, the cartoon isn't making fun of Democrats for allowing anything. Where in the world did you get that?

**Wyzcrak** · 10-16-2006, 09:34 AM

Cing, to suggest that ducks talk is patently and obviously farcical. The same can't be said for the idea that "the government" is reading some guy's email. To compare the two too exactly ignores that key difference. I compared them to make the point that you can't have the joke itself lay down the premise (ducks drink too much). It has to already be there (Irish people drink too much). A talking duck joke and political humor (should) come with two different sets of responsibilities and expectations, and the cartoon shouldn't just *tell* us that "the government" is reading dude's email.

This isn't some nameless duck we're talking about here, but real people. I can see the cartoon asking me to laugh about something that, for some reason (right or wrong), is accepted (Irish people drink too much). But it's interjecting a reality that isn't elsewhere observed (ducks drink too much/"the government" is reading dude's email) just to force the laugh from me. That's fine when it's a talking duck. It's funny, or it's not, and no decision I make is influenced. When it aims to influence my action in our system of government, it's irresponsible and harmful.

Great post, Switch. I think the two situations are sufficiently unique that they needn't be compared just as that cartoon compares them. I respect where you guys are coming from, nonetheless. I can see how the cartoon would be very accommodating to anyone served by the two situations being perceived as similar to the degree that the cartoon argues them to be.

**Sirusblk** · 10-17-2006, 12:37 AM

I was always under the impression that a page surrendered e-mails and instant messenger conversations, and that all additional information was secured with a warrant or with Mark Foley surrendering them.

Besides with a court case all evidence would be admissible otherwise. Wouldn't it, unless my time spent watching Law and Order has taught me nothing.

I'd have to say I'm with Wyzcrak with this one. The political cartoon has missed it's mark which is supposed to poke fun on the Democrat's stance. The information it trys to convey has no foundation. So while it may be funny initially to some, it would have been funny to everyone had it been remotely true.

With political cartoons it's hard to be funny to everyone, 'cause statistaclly speaking you're gonna turn off half your readers anyways, especially when the information is false. Now if there was a political cartoon bashing the way our president speaks... I think almost everyone could agree on that being funny.

When I think of politics, I think about it the same way I do with religion. I'd rather not be forced, guilted into, or shamed into it. I'd rather make up my own mind and having a political cartoon like this is a mild insult to many as well as an broader insult on all our intellegences'.

-Sirusblk

**TheFeniX** · 10-17-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Well, I found it funny. To me, the foundation was that Dems were up in arms over spying on terrorists domestically and that a Repub was caught in a sexual misconduct scandal involving electronic communications. The ridiculous part that makes it funny is the part where the gov't spies on a Congressman and the Democrat is OK with it...

I didn't find he cartoon funny either. Mainly because the first panel was completely untrue. I've never heard from a Democrat who wasn't for "wiretaps" on actual domestic terrorists. What most Democrats (and I as well) have an issue with is that pesky Bill of Rights being violated.

While there's seemingly nothing wrong with the second panel, it belies that an illegal search lead to Foley's scandal. It didn't. Only his own idiocy did.

**CingularDuality** · 10-17-2006, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

What most Democrats (and I as well) have an issue with is that pesky Bill of Rights being violated.

You're confusing our constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure in judicial proceedings with the need to gather intelligence to protect our nation from the very real threat of terrorism. Time and again, lawyers and judges have made clear that the President's wiretapping program was not unconstitutional. Do you know something about the Bill of Rights that everyone else is missing?

Edit: Damn, it's a hijack! That's OK, I was tired of talking about that dumb cartoon anyway. I don't think we're getting anywhere with that discussion...

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-18-2006, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

You're confusing our constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure in judicial proceedings with the need to gather intelligence to protect our nation from the very real threat of terrorism. Time and again, lawyers and judges have made clear that the President's wiretapping program was not unconstitutional. Do you know something about the Bill of Rights that everyone else is missing?

Edit: Damn, it's a hijack! That's OK, I was tired of talking about that dumb cartoon anyway. I don't think we're getting anywhere with that discussion...

Hijack continued then.

The actual threat must be known to allow said intelligence gathering. I don't think those lawyers and judges would still agree that the President could wiretap just because he is afraid or because he wants to. There has to be some actual threat.

Do we know what the real threat is? There are people, well respected leaders, that say their are no sleeper cells in the U.S.A. (see http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...tml#post578071)

While there might have been a period of time after 9/11 where we where clueless meaning some of these methods where necessary. But are those methods still necessary knowing what is now known? Is fear being used for other purposes?

And why doesn't our government, after five years with billions of dollars spent and massive amounts of lives lost, know what the threat is and where, exactly, it is?

Of course maybe they do know. And of course it could be that they are not doing the wire tapping now but allow the story to continue to keep those wishing to harm us on their toes.

It could be that the current administration is smarter and more competent than those stupid liberals think?

Nothing actually points to this but hope remains eternal.

**TheFeniX** · 10-18-2006, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

You're confusing our constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure in judicial proceedings with the need to gather intelligence to protect our nation from the very real threat of terrorism.

Um, when that information to "protect our nation from the very real threat of terrorism" is obtained via "unlawful search and seizure," there's not much confusion: unless it's Bush trying to spell "Constitution" or "Rights."

Quote:

Time and again, lawyers and judges have made clear that the President's wiretapping program was not unconstitutional.

Sure would like to see some evidence. Oh wait, I'll get it myself.

"In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the NSA program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy." Stupid founding fathers and their fore-sight. Damn un-American if you ask me. I'm gonna start my own country... with HOOKERS... and BlackJACK... you know what... forget the country!

Quote:

Do you know something about the Bill of Rights that everyone else is missing?

George Bush and Co != "everyone else." I'm going to go a step further here and admit that, unlike our current administration, I acknowledge that the Bill of Rights exists as more than toilet paper in the fight against "teh eval turrests."

Quote:

Edit: Damn, it's a hijack!

BOOYAH!

**Wyzcrak** · 10-18-2006, 12:59 AM

Again with the derisive sarcasm in this forum.

10-15-2006, 09:08 PM	#106 (permalink)
Trooper Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In my wifes house......if she says i can Age: 25 Posts: 8,520	Re: Republican Congressman accused of pederasty anyone else lost in what he is trying to say? cause i cant follow his logic or his reasons

10-16-2006, 01:23 AM	#111 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,138	Re: Republican Congressman accused of pederasty It's making fun of the Democrats, no? For allowing in the Foley case what they so vehemently opposed when the Terrorists were being spied on? __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

10-16-2006, 05:19 AM	#112 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 30 Posts: 859	Re: Republican Congressman accused of pederasty I don't think it's got so much to do with "allowing." It's just that Democrats don't seem nearly as bothered by the idea of going through a political opponant's personal communications as they are with the idea of the military listening to communications with terrorists. You may call it an unsupportable argument, but I don't think so. If "principle" was really what it was about, they would be calling for people to settle down, not talk about it, and allow a court of law to investigate and decide if there was probable cause to issue a search warrant to sieze the original communications, no?

10-16-2006, 09:34 AM	#114 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,138	Re: Republican Congressman accused of pederasty Cing, to suggest that ducks talk is patently and obviously farcical. The same can't be said for the idea that "the government" is reading some guy's email. To compare the two too exactly ignores that key difference. I compared them to make the point that you can't have the joke itself lay down the premise (ducks drink too much). It has to already be there (Irish people drink too much). A talking duck joke and political humor (should) come with two different sets of responsibilities and expectations, and the cartoon shouldn't just tell us that "the government" is reading dude's email. This isn't some nameless duck we're talking about here, but real people. I can see the cartoon asking me to laugh about something that, for some reason (right or wrong), is accepted (Irish people drink too much). But it's interjecting a reality that isn't elsewhere observed (ducks drink too much/"the government" is reading dude's email) just to force the laugh from me. That's fine when it's a talking duck. It's funny, or it's not, and no decision I make is influenced. When it aims to influence my action in our system of government, it's irresponsible and harmful. Great post, Switch. I think the two situations are sufficiently unique that they needn't be compared just as that cartoon compares them. I respect where you guys are coming from, nonetheless. I can see how the cartoon would be very accommodating to anyone served by the two situations being perceived as similar to the degree that the cartoon argues them to be. __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

10-17-2006, 12:37 AM	#115 (permalink)
Sirusblk Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Orange County Age: 19 Posts: 927	Re: Republican Congressman accused of pederasty I was always under the impression that a page surrendered e-mails and instant messenger conversations, and that all additional information was secured with a warrant or with Mark Foley surrendering them. Besides with a court case all evidence would be admissible otherwise. Wouldn't it, unless my time spent watching Law and Order has taught me nothing. I'd have to say I'm with Wyzcrak with this one. The political cartoon has missed it's mark which is supposed to poke fun on the Democrat's stance. The information it trys to convey has no foundation. So while it may be funny initially to some, it would have been funny to everyone had it been remotely true. With political cartoons it's hard to be funny to everyone, 'cause statistaclly speaking you're gonna turn off half your readers anyways, especially when the information is false. Now if there was a political cartoon bashing the way our president speaks... I think almost everyone could agree on that being funny. When I think of politics, I think about it the same way I do with religion. I'd rather not be forced, guilted into, or shamed into it. I'd rather make up my own mind and having a political cartoon like this is a mild insult to many as well as an broader insult on all our intellegences'. -Sirusblk __________________

10-18-2006, 12:59 AM	#120 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,138	Re: Republican Congressman accused of pederasty Again with the derisive sarcasm in this forum. __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links