The Political Cartoon/Image/Meme Thread

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 12,854 comments
  • 606,374 views
Ah, so you meant he phoned it in to an agency that may well attempt to prevent such a "publicity stunt"--that wasn't clear in your vague notion of recollection. I can't help but notice that there was no mention of media outlets being given a heads-up, though, and that really makes sense since there was already a substantial media presence at the location.

I'm given to understand that media tends to make use of cameras, both still and video, to document occasions of all sorts, and that would explain the existence of graphic evidence of the incident. Maybe they weren't given advance notice after all.
 
Ah, so you meant he phoned it in to an agency that may well attempt to prevent such a "publicity stunt"--that wasn't clear in your vague notion of recollection. I can't help but notice that there was no mention of media outlets being given a heads-up, though, and that really makes sense since there was already a substantial media presence at the location.

I'm given to understand that media tends to make use of cameras, both still and video, to document occasions of all sorts, and that would explain the existence of graphic evidence of the incident. Maybe they weren't given advance notice after all.
I suppose there wasn't really any need to notify the media ahead of time of this poorly planned publicity stunt since the paraglider actually had the word Greenpeace printed on it.
 
I suppose there wasn't really any need to notify the media ahead of time of this poorly planned publicity stunt since the paraglider actually had the word Greenpeace printed on it.
Oh absolutely, as a publicity stunt it was very poorly planned; "I'm going to alert people that may stop my actions but not alert people that may broadcast my actions."
 
Oh absolutely, as a publicity stunt it was very poorly planned; "I'm going to alert people that may stop my actions but not alert people that may broadcast my actions."
Poorly planned might be the wrong word. Stupid idea is probably more apt. He's lucky he didn't get shot.
 
No he isn't. As I pointed out in the article you linked;
What do you think a terrorist would do if they wanted to pretend they weren't a terrorist? They'd call and say they weren't a terrorist just a happy-go-lucky GP activist out for a joyride or publicity stunt. You don't get to violate restricted airspace just because you call ahead and tell the authorities you are violating restricted airspace.
 
What do you think a terrorist would do if they wanted to pretend they weren't a terrorist? They'd call and say they weren't a terrorist just a happy-go-lucky GP activist out for a joyride or publicity stunt. You don't get to violate restricted airspace just because you call ahead and tell the authorities you are violating restricted airspace.

Come to think of it, he could have been a nuclear equipped paraglider!?!
 
Come to think of it, he could have been a nuclear equipped paraglider!?!
He could have been anything that's kind of the point. We know in hindsight it was nothing but I'm sure tensions were quite high on site at the time. Tensions are also quite high among the various political factions in the U.K., Europe and the United States. We've already seen plenty of street violence and sooner or later it'll could erupt into some kind of politically motivated violence against the various symbols and icons of the respective movements. Nobody in their right mind wants that. IMO it was a stupid stunt that I'm sure got lots of laughs and support on Twitter and spawned countless likes and hashtags, probably even some donations to Greenpeace, but could easily have ended in tragedy. In a rational world I would have expected bi-partisan support for how foolish this truly was.
 
He could have been anything that's kind of the point.

Except he couldn't and wasn't.
If you really think there was even the slight possibility of him or anyone else being a danger and therefore being allowed anywhere near an aircraft to perform the stunt, after having informing the police of said stunt then you really are not aware of how the police (in the UK at least) work.

I've also seem pretty limited support for this stunt/protest on this forum and saw nothing of it on twitter, even from people who where at the London balloon protests.
 
Except he couldn't and wasn't.
If you really think there was even the slight possibility of him or anyone else being a danger and therefore being allowed anywhere near an aircraft to perform the stunt, after having informing the police of said stunt then you really are not aware of how the police (in the UK at least) work.

I've also seem pretty limited support for this stunt/protest on this forum and saw nothing of it on twitter, even from people who where at the London balloon protests.
Is it really that hard for you to put yourself in the situation as it unfolded in real time? Can you really not see that, at the time, in real time, this could have been viewed as a potential threat? Do you really think a phone call saying you're not going to do any harm is somehow going to allay all fear and anxiety of the situation? Given the number of people who just go bonkers lately and start shooting up and killing people for seemingly no real reason I imagine the situation on the ground was extremely tense and I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out later that they considered shooting him down in some way, shape or form.
 
He could have been anything that's kind of the point. We know in hindsight it was nothing but I'm sure tensions were quite high on site at the time. Tensions are also quite high among the various political factions in the U.K., Europe and the United States. We've already seen plenty of street violence and sooner or later it'll could erupt into some kind of politically motivated violence against the various symbols and icons of the respective movements. Nobody in their right mind wants that. IMO it was a stupid stunt that I'm sure got lots of laughs and support on Twitter and spawned countless likes and hashtags, probably even some donations to Greenpeace, but could easily have ended in tragedy. In a rational world I would have expected bi-partisan support for how foolish this truly was.

Is it really that hard for you to put yourself in the situation as it unfolded in real time? Can you really not see that, at the time, in real time, this could have been viewed as a potential threat? Do you really think a phone call saying you're not going to do any harm is somehow going to allay all fear and anxiety of the situation? Given the number of people who just go bonkers lately and start shooting up and killing people for seemingly no real reason I imagine the situation on the ground was extremely tense and I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out later that they considered shooting him down in some way, shape or form.

In all honesty that's not how the police in the general eu countries work. They most of the time wouldn't shoot before an immediate threat imposes itself. Flying over a no fly zone without visible weapons is not an immediate threat so no need to shoot just yet.
I believe this is the correct thing to do as the police does not choose nor enforce a sentence, let alone the dead penalty for flying over a no fly zone.

A person is innocent until proven guilty there was no reason to assume he was guilty of terrorism and the breach of the no fly zone wouldn't call for deadly force.

But that's just my reasoning wondering about yours.
 
Said to have first been produced in the 30s.

IMG_20180716_205534.jpg
 
It's a funny cartoon, but even if the story (the golden one that is) were true I don't think it would make any difference anyway:).

Indeed.

Unless he likes to pee on children and they have that on tape, who gives a rats ass what the man does for his pleasure.
 
Indeed.

Unless he likes to pee on children and they have that on tape, who gives a rats ass what the man does for his pleasure.
If I were to run for office I'd be damn glad this kind of tech wasn't as pervasive or cheap 10 or 15 years ago:sly:. I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and said that Bill Clinton forever changed the landscape as to what was acceptable in a President. He got his cigar given the special treatment by an intern while leaving a fond memory on her dress and his supporters determined that was fine, there was nothing to see, it's between a husband and wife, move along. The cat was out of the bag 20 years ago and it's not going back in. :) I do enjoy a good cigar though. Moreso in the post-Clinton era:lol:
 


What a riot.

I mean...it's very clearly a political cartoon--it just happens to be animated and have actual Trump sound bites playing over it.

Many thanks to @Johnnypenso for pointing this out to me, as I am neither on Twitter nor do I pay any attention to NYT.
 


What a riot.

I mean...it's very clearly a political cartoon--it just happens to be animated and have actual Trump sound bites playing over it.

Many thanks to @Johnnypenso for pointing this out to me, as I am neither on Twitter nor do I pay any attention to NYT.

I'm very happy to have you join me in pointing out the hypocrisy of the left-wing media. Good for you:tup:👍
 
I'm very happy to have you join me in pointing out the hypocrisy of the left-wing media. Good for you:tup:👍
Misinterpretation and misrepresentation of comments and blatant vapid hypocrisy are the only things I expect from you and that's all you've offered there--you really can't help it, can you?
 
I'm very happy to have you join me in pointing out the hypocrisy of the left-wing media. Good for you:tup:👍
I know you're fond of drawing comparisons with what Obama supporters would do in the same situation.

However, as far as I know there weren't any howls of outrage ("faux", or otherwise) from the left when a cartoon depicted Barack Obama as a gay bride. It was just a metaphor.

Why single out Trump for special pleading, let alone use it as a stick to beat all left-wing media with?

10997680-standard.jpg
 
Last edited:
I know you're fond of drawing comparisons with what Obama supporters would do in the same situation.

However, as far as I know there weren't any howls of outrage ("faux", or otherwise) from the left when a cartoon depicted Barack Obama as a gay bride. It was just a metaphor.

Why single out Trump for special pleading, let alone use it as a stick to beat all left-wing media with?

View attachment 751815
A Google search reveals 9 results. Obviously it never hit the mainstream. 9 results on Google is the equivalent of a needle in a haystack...inside of a domed stadium full of haystacks. I did find this in my search though which was also pretty funny:

Biden-Gay-Marriage600.jpg
 
A Google search reveals 9 results. Obviously it never hit the mainstream. 9 results on Google is the equivalent of a needle in a haystack...inside of a domed stadium full of haystacks. I did find this in my search though which was also pretty funny:

Biden-Gay-Marriage600.jpg
It still seems like a metaphor to me but I'm glad I gave you the chance to make another random jab at Obama.

Going back to current events:

15darcy-babytrump2jpg-47daf3faa2f63a86.jpg
 
Back