It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ted Cruz Blasts Washington Post Cartoon of Daughters as Monkeys

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ApparentlyStupid

Do we have your permission to just move on with our day? Some of us don't like to lower ourselves down to drama queen status and roll our eyes.




posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t
SOOOOOO 5 hours ago.


Yea, so was that post you just quoted.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
He's got his little kid in the commercial snarking on Clinton. She says:

"I know just what I’ll do she said with a snicker. I’ll use my own server and no one will be the wiser.”

So Cruz could have his kids delivering the content in all his ads and they would be off limit to satire? If he can't stand the heat he shouldn't be using his children this way which was exactly the point of the political cartoon.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: DelMarvel

At least he has the jingle bells to do it in a time when everyone so afraid of insulting sharia law, the caliphake and iiissslllsss.


I don't see what that would have to do with anything even if it was true.

The guy made a snarky commercial using his little kids to sully cultural holiday icons and score political cheap shots. And claim he is "defending Christmas" to boot. What a slimy Grinch.

How about a video with his family wishing all Americans Merry Christmas? As he's such a good Xian and wants to be POTUS and everything.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT



The overwhelming percentage of syndicated political cartoonists in the U.S. are liberal


What statistic are you referring to when making such a statement?

Have a source for that? I'd like to read it.


I know from experience. Trust me...or not (your choice).


So in other words you are talking out of your ass while trying to make a salient political point.


Are you saying you can understand the words that come from someone's ass? Looks like we've got a fart whisperer on our hands.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT
No apologies necessary. You had a good point. Definitely made me sharply inhale and consider my conviction to defend.
I would counter that the responsible use of free speech is more about abstaining from lying, and not about stifling offense.
I see your point that the artist may have violated the T&C's of his employment but that's an entirely different discussion.


edit on 23-12-2015 by ApparentlyStupid because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t
SOOOOOO 5 hours ago.


Yea, so was that post you just quoted.


Yeah I was being silly...



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
So.......

Some American politician is offended by a satirical cartoon that has been published of someone he holds dear?

Je suis Washington Post.

Freedom of speech is paramount isn't it?

Now..... let's have a fundraiser for followers of Islam offended by satirical cartoons published of someone they hold dear.

Oh saw-ree.....I forgot.....they're Muslims.....we're allowed to mock/disrespect/incite them and their religious beliefs but NO ONE no matter who they are is allowed to mock some American politician...?

Seriously!?!?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408


Do as thou wilt



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
[snip]
edit on 23-12-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: HumberWarrior
So.......

Some American politician is offended by a satirical cartoon that has been published of someone he holds dear?

Je suis Washington Post.

Freedom of speech is paramount isn't it?

Now..... let's have a fundraiser for followers of Islam offended by satirical cartoons published of someone they hold dear.

Oh saw-ree.....I forgot.....they're Muslims.....we're allowed to mock/disrespect/incite them and their religious beliefs but NO ONE no matter who they are is allowed to mock some American politician...?

Seriously!?!?







First I've heard... Nothing puts a liberal into a fit of rage quicker than saying something mean about a radical muslim, illegal mexican, or disagreeing with a black guy.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ApparentlyStupid
a reply to: LSU0408


Do as thou wilt


A thousand thanks!



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, you went back and edited your post after your fallacy was shown. You added:


The fact is, that both sides stoop to this below the belt "attack their children" tactic and you and I both know it regardless of how severely they insult the children or not.


To adjust your narrative. You even said:


(OMG! Political correctness right?)


Attempting to indicate that anyone who was mad about the children being depicted as animals was just them being sensitive. Trump move?


Lol. That was sarcasm. Good job reading too far into my posts. You REALLY want to have an argument with me when there is nothing to argue.

Keep at it. Your posts are amusing. I'm getting a good laugh.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, you went back and edited your post after your fallacy was shown. You added:


The fact is, that both sides stoop to this below the belt "attack their children" tactic and you and I both know it regardless of how severely they insult the children or not.


To adjust your narrative. You even said:


(OMG! Political correctness right?)


Attempting to indicate that anyone who was mad about the children being depicted as animals was just them being sensitive. Trump move?


Lol. That was sarcasm. Good job reading too far into my posts. You REALLY want to have an argument with me when there is nothing to argue.

Keep at it. Your posts are amusing. I'm getting a good laugh.


That was ugly.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Not really. He does that in every thread he is in. That's how he usually tries to get out of a thread and make it seem like it was his idea. "Hey, I've been thoroughly shown to be wrong on every level, but now I am going to resort to childish tactics because I suck at debating".

In this case however he started going back and editing the structure of his posts to make it seem like he wasn't being biased. Poor form, poor form. That is intellectual dishonesty.

Edit: P.S. I went to edit in some links in my previous post and accidentally deleted it. It is located in his quote though except for the second half.

Ultimately Krazy is far left and doesn't even understand how biased he is. He was called out and tried to edit his post to seem less biased. (Notice he did not deny that he edited the content of his posts.

Here are some of the links I was trying to add in of his recent posts:

Calls republicans Bigots

Defending Obamacare quite rabidly in this post

Blames the Republican Governor even though the city and state are run by Democrats

Krazy's deal is he TRIES so hard to seem balanced, but he isn't. His attempt to minimize the depiction of children as animals here is just more icing on the cake.

He is weak though, so it's easy to see through his facade.
edit on 23-12-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
If I'm his opponent, I would piggy back off this by taking the sound bites from videos, such as this behind the scenes footage with Cruz pushing his mother to tell personal stories she's not comfortable with around 1:20 of the video, and slam him with it. May not be nice, but done right it has the potential to be damn effective. Want to know how you can make it have even more impact? Buy two prime-time add slots back to back. First partner with some non-profit promotes awareness for child abuse or going after the child trafficking industry. Run your add attacking Cruz for using his children in his adds for political gain then follow that with one promoting the non-profit to leave an after image. Now not only have you lobbied to gain support from the groups supporting the non-profit, but, you are also subconsiously making Cruz's use of his children even worse. Don't need to link them to being animals.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

Wow, you should go work for a campaign. That was genius



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
First off, Cruz is an idiotic, despicable excuse for a human. That said, it's not his kids' fault he is what he is... they should be left out of it. It's not like they get a choice about being involved in any of this.
edit on 23-12-2015 by Blazemore2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: roaland
a reply to: sosobad

bc when i opened the site today that rightwing terrorist thread was still on the front page and i just couldn't resist lol


wow...one thread??????........the outrage!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The Guardian US is trying to attack ol Teddy based on his formal wear now too LoL!

Guardian Hit Peice

It seems that the left is shifting their attacks from Trump to Ted after the bookies have shown who the real threats are from the GOP.

Not that I think its going to matter against Hillary




top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join