Thanks to EarlG's GOP Convention Backdrop "Photoshop Fun" thread!




rocktivity

Perhaps we should take a crack at it:

[center][/center]

Despite a vast increase in Federal funding, Romney's (2002) Olympics ended in a DEFICIT

Romney commissioned official (2002) Olympic pin in his image and likeness

Romney Adviser's 'Anglo-Saxon' Comment 'Stunningly Offensive,' Obama Side Says

Mitt Romney's Olympics blunder stuns No 10 and hands gift to Obama

London mayor mocks Romney at Olympic rally

Don't talk about Ann Romney's fancy Olympic horse. Don't even THINK about it.

Carl Lewis on Mitt Romney: 'some Americans shouldn't leave the country'

Olympic Minister Laughs When Asked If Romney Will Carry The Torch

Ann Romney's horse fails to win dressage but avoids offending British

Click on the pic for more toons:




You're welcome, Mitt!


rocktivity

Conventional wisdom is that all but 8% have their minds firmly made up. I think conventional wisdom may be wrong. The logic the seasoned watchers use is simply that in "normal election cycles" (if there is such a thing anymore)...I think that could be very wrong this year...

I've always said that the polls should be taken with a pillar of salt. But since 2005, I've also said that "conventional" election watchers have been loath to acknowledge that there's new skin in the game: the Internet has given the voters themselves the power to shake their dependence on the MSM and define their own roles within the election cycle:

2005: The MSM has been perfectly happy to go along with Bush's fake news videos, scripted press conferences, prepackaged talking points, and payoffs. More important, they were also able to dismiss the Will Pitts, Greg Palasts, Daily Kozes, and Mike Malloys as part of a luntatic fringe who commanded neither credibility nor respect. But then the Gannongate swung open!

To use a now archaic journalism term, the MSM got scooped, caught completely flat-footed missing a story that anyone over the age of twelve with an Internet connection could have put together. Even worse for them, the authors of Gannongate did what journalists are SUPPOSED to do -- TELL THE TRUTH completely, accurately, comprehensively, and objectively. The MSM's response was to accuse bloggers of working in basements in their pajamas and looking at the world "through a pinhole"...


2007 (by DU-er PlaidAdder): In a recent address to NYU journalism students, NBC’s Brian Williams bemoaned the fact that his hard-fought climb to the top of his field is now being undermined by "people who have an opinion, a modem, and a bathrobe...(N)ow I'm up against a guy named Vinny...who hasn't left (his) efficiency apartment in two years...” What really gets Brian’s goat is the fact that Vinny’s ever-widening audience consists of...intelligent, self-motivated people who have a wacky penchant for wanting the facts...

Brian just doesn’t get it. Day after day, he serves his pre-digested, warmed-over, corporate-endorsed, nutrition-free pablum, and he wonders why the world is beating a path to Vinny’s Place, where the news is served pipin’ hot by a guy who probably doesn’t even have a personal manicurist. Maybe Brian should use his alleged journalistic prowess to do an in-depth report on why Vinny’s rise to the top was so inevitable...


2008: (The MSM has) got two problems: McCain's flagrant disrespect for them, and the blogosphere... The...GOP couldn't care less if the MSM doesn't like getting only 90-second peeks at McCain's medical records...But the MSM also knows that the less they fight back, the less credible they become, and the more their viewers will turn to--WAIT FOR IT!!!--the blogosphere for information that has at least a nodding acquaintance with reality and truth...


2009: ...Fortunately, we DIDN'T have to judge the election by who "won" the daily news cycles: thanks to the blogosphere providing us with a "public option" of sorts, the MSM couldn't "push" McCain "ahead" the way they could have a few short years ago. If we'd had to depend entirely on the MSM news cycles, a LOT fewer of us would have learned that the Clintons also had ties to Wright and Rezko, that there were plenty of controversial clergypeople in the McCain/Palin camp, and that Joe the Plumber WASN'T a plumber...

And since the last presidential election, we "little people" (including the "vinnies" ) have been given even more skin in the game via increased social media capabilities, and pollsters have only recently come up with a way to reach people on their cell phones!


rocktivity

...(W)hy is it that so much right-wing political humor just plain doesn't work -- even for its target audience?...I think..(it)...has to do with the basic conflict between comedy and authority...(D)isrespect for authority is the foundation of real comedy...

Mocking the powerful has the positive effect of reminding everyone that though these figures may be powerful, they are not superhuman, and can be resisted/outwitted/defied; it also has the therapeutic effect of validating the anger and pain we feel as we suffer for these people, and reminding us that in fact, it's not us, it's them.

Mocking the vulnerable is just bullying, and all it does is pander to the audience's worst instincts. Right-wing pundits in the main either don't understand this rule, or have a seriously warped understanding of who's vulnerable and who's powerful... link

And here are some thoughts I had about Jon Stewart, Steve Colbert, and their ill-fated competition, Fox News' Half Hour News Hour:


Right-wing humor is restricted to mocking the vulnerable because it can't mock its own power structure without holding itself accountable. Left-wing humor is rooted in pointing out how dangerous, phony, hypocritical, immoral, or just plain illegal the inherent authoritarianism of conservatism is. And while that may present a problem for "professional" political comedians, we "amateurs" are doing just fine!


rocktivity

Well, if you're a American before you're a Republican, how come you didn't do twenty-minute commercials about George Bush II taking credit for this:



Or this?



After all, the military made those things happen, not him!


And since you consider intelligence leaks to be so loathsome, did you stand up for these folks?




It hasn't been that long ago since you ran this game on us with John Kerry. This time around, however, we understand what it's really about: you are trying to take Obama's foreign policy/military success off the table since the Republicans have nothing to counter it with. But we've learned from Kerry's mistake of refusing to "sink" to your level. So much for your "American issue." Swiftboat us once, shame on us; swiftboat us twice, shame on YOU!


rocktivity

"...For the Mormon, loyalty and the welfare of the church are more important than the principle of honesty, and plausible denials and deception by omission are warranted by an opportunity to have the Mormon organization seen in the best possible light."

So that's it.

Something has been bothering me about Romney that I've been unable to articulate. I thought it might have something to do with his Mormonism, but didn't know enough about Mormonism to figure it out. Well, I didn't realize how I right (or perhaps I should say right wing) I was.

Mitt has brought back so many memories of George II's arrested development: his absence of conscience; the lack of self-control and empathy; the paranoia; the "living in the moment" manipulativeness; and of course, the knee-jerk lying. But what's disturbed me most about Romney is that he seems to be operating on a entirely different level -- and it turns out to be a heavenly one.

For the record, I define any religion that involves the worship or studying of Jesus Christ to be a form of Christianity. And for the record, I've always defined Rethugs who insist that God blesses their brand of politics as being particularly reprehensible. But again, Romney is bringing something "above and beyond" to the game, and thanks to you, WestSeattle2, I finally understand what it is:

The Romneys are masters of lying without sinning.

It's why Mitt doesn't even attempt to be embarrassed when he's caught in a lie. It's why Ann has said, “It’s Mitt’s time. It’s our turn now.” With or without the endorsement of their Mormon elders, the Romneys are not operating on the basis of right or wrong, good or bad, true or false: there is only what will get them into the White House versus what will not. Since ANYTHING they say or do is pre-emptively absolved, they don't trouble themselves with guilt or accountability because their God doesn't require it -- and their God has decided that Mitt should be President...


rocktivity

This is a how a Venn diagram works:





This, published by the Romney campaign, is NOT how a Venn diagram works:



Its lack of accuracy is beside the point. Venn diagrams are not flowcharts -- the intersection of the circles is supposed to represent the elements that the circles have in common. Like this:



Mitt obviously needs our help. So here's a diagram blank you can download:



I purposely made it 600px wide so you'll have room for lettering -- please shrink to about 400px before uploading. So let's give Mitt and Ryan a hand -- and you're welcome to do some for Obama/Biden, too!


rocktivity

Here's a DU thread on the subject from 2005:



Women should find this policy to be equally offensive and discriminatory -- how dare you presume to conscript me into impromptu baby-sitting duty just because I'm a woman! And may I point out that I might be a pedophile myself?

If the airlines really cared about the safety of unaccompanied minors, they'd seat them where the flight attendants could take turns sitting with them, even if it means sending an extra one along...oops, unless the policy discriminates against MALE flight attendants, too! But even that would be better than the airlines "depending on the kindness of (female) strangers!"



P.S. Why does this always happen AFTER takeoff? Shouldn't the flight attendants know where their unaccompanied minors are sitting beforehand?


rocktivity

...and two albums later in 1987, one of the best...




rocktivity

Obama is not bullying the bullies. He's just standing up to them. Which is what you should always do with bullies. Obama standing up is the only thing bullies fear.

I was speaking of bullies in general. The last thing bullies want is a fair fight because what they "fear" is it being discovered that they don't have what it takes to win. They "solve" that potential problem by preying upon those who appear to be either too scared or too vulnerable to fight back.

Mitt thought that defeating Obama would be as simple as damming him with both his race and Bush II's sins. Mitt's fatal error was in not realizing that he has far more vulnerabilities than Obama, who naturally started preying upon them purely in self-defense. And what is the Romney camp's response? To paraphrase the title of this very thread, "He's fighting back, and he's winning -- NO FAIR!!!"

Bullying is wrong. Bullying back is when you have no other line of defense is a line of defense.


rocktivity