Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Hot dang! | new olympic sport Next »
“I disagree with what you say and I’ll defend with my life your right to do so”
Who is that in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Hueydoc
 | Nightshift100 on Progress Poker |
 | El Jefe on Has This Certain Ring to … |
 | Vikavid on Better Than Coffee |
 | Duncan on GREECE |
 | !neoritter on Progress Poker |
 | Geary on GREECE |
| Geary on GREECE |
 | itsybit on GREECE |
 | formeraide on GREECE |
| itsybit on GREECE |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Amen
…in magic land.
* – Available to white Americans only. Not available to black Americans, hispanic Americans, Alaska, or Guam.
you need help
Your delusional. Please explain how this is true.
I’m listening to you. That proves it
Not entirely true…. although you forgot to mention the District of Columbia.
Of course it’s not entirely true.
Very little in life IS entirely true, and socio-political trends are NOT among these trooths.
So… he’s fairylee rite, eyed say.
An also yur vry troo about WASHINGTON DC. Taxation w/o representation sux!
** – additional fees may apply.
You are an idiot.
okay said person might be, and you’re vapid for not being able to say what you mean in a different way.
moving on!
this is true some times. i really don’t think it is most times.
like Valerie said, if u believe that, u need some serious help
You’re a retard, minorities have more rights then whites these days.
like what persay?
they get a free translator at Californian hospitals!
I’m sorry, how is this a lol? it’s not that I agree (or disagree) with the sentiment, it’s just not funny. nor does it seem like it’s supposed to be.
I thought this website was supposed to be for laughs. it’s gotten way too serious.
Tell me about it. I love heated political debate and biting satire, but the bottom line is that this is a humor site. The lol we’re commenting on should at least TRY to be funny, whether or not it succeeds is beside the point. This isn’t an inspirational pictures site.
I think this is one of the few ones that’s actually serious as opposed to satire and irony.
Yay on the Voltaire though.
Voltaire?
Hmmm…
When getting Cheeky, just remember how tasty a buttock can be…
Drop ‘em and smile, baby.
An’ lets call ‘em military rations, jus to be in keepin wit teh theme.
Your comment makes sense because the MRE’s I had to eat in the 90′s always did taste like ass.
I agree.
As much as this isn’t a lol, this is one of the best things on this site.
Which is more of an indictment of how crappy punditkitchen is.
the only reason why i’d laugh at this
is because the quote is wrong.
“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
-Voltare.
sorry…
so glad someone caught this.
Except Voltaire didn’t say it.
The phrase “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. With good reason. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude. It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre. (http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm)
It’s still a great sentiment.
I read it as being “I’ll defend with my life your right to disagree with what you said too”.
Yeah, I got that too… grammar, people.
Should have been ‘…but I’ll defend with my life your right to say it.’
How about:
“I’ll defend with my life those statements of yours with which I do not agree.”
– of course dat kinda don have muchufa ring to it…
You don’t even have the quote right.
Except that the U.S. military doesn’t do much to defend the rights of people who say things it doesn’t like.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html?th&emc=th
Yes it does. The NYT just likes to tell lies about it.
TIME too?
You make me sad, you lonely person.
How dare you, sir! The New York Times and Time magazine are just propaganda rags! We would all be better off if we listened to the wise words of some guy on the internet.
This is true, though it’s meant as parody.
“Some guy on the Internet” is balanced by some other guy on the Internet, and they all fact-check each other, providing a good source of information.
The mainstream media are far more monolithic — they share similar viewpoints for the most part, and they rarely admit to their errors of fact.
On the Internet, we get everyone’s point of view. In the MSM, we only get the view of a small clique of like-thinking journalists.
You’re quite right! Like there’s this nice group of people who opened my eyes to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. The media wants to hide that fact, but luckily we have the interwebz to tell us the truth!!!
Though I cried the day they posted that the moon landing was fake, Jesus is Horus and the banks are enslaving us.
internetz eleison…
*blink*
*blink blink*
Did he just call interenet forums a good source of information?
Information like cats ride invisible bicycles and eat cheeseburgers while worshipping ceiling cat and stealing hot dogs from ‘goggies’ and helping a walrus find his missing blue bucket?
yes XD
lol, but I don’t think that’s what he means. I think (and please correct me if I’m wrong here) that the point is that here, unlike in the media, there are no pressures to write what will get you more money, a promotion, etc. This lack of restriction is also why there are lots of lols and lies, but if you can sift through that you will find some legitimate arguments from both sides.
I am really sick of wingnuts who think that journalists who tell the truth consist of “a “Small clique of like thinking journalists”. It’s a huge group of people brought up in all parts of the world, being educated at different institutions with different points of view. Just because they shine light on the actual truth instead of sugar coating it to make the GOP look good (ala Fox News), they are left biased.
*insert eyeroll here*
I am really sick of people who think that a small clique of like-thinking journalists whose political leanings are almost unanimously Democratic, somehow produce “truth”.
Like Dan Rather and his fake memos, these mainstream journalists have been exposed as partisan shills again and again, yet the faithful libtards still feed at the trough.
Do some research on the many false media stories that surround politically charged events. You might learn something.
^^^
this.
My impression of you is that you make far less than $250,000 a year. I say that because you’re “spreading the faith” so steadfastly as a wingnut, which means you’re grievously ill informed about reality. Now, the alternative is that you do in fact make excess of a quarter million a year, and somehow are afforded the time to advance political mythology which will benefit you personally to the exclusion of 95% of America.
So which is it? Because if you are below the quarter mil mark I’m always fascinated about why someone would support a political agenda that is not only false but also would actively work against their own well being. Did you buy into the idea that if you act like the oppressor the oppressor will accept you? Because that’s not how you get a raise – it doesn’t work like that.
Pretty much all the left-dominated media are propaganda outlets not worth reading. But the NYT stands out as one of the worst.
Apparently this didn’t post earlier, but we’ll try one more time. You’re frustrating enough to post on.
Looking through this site, anytime something disagrees with your point of view, you call it a lie. Have you noticed this? Discounting TIME magazine? NYT? Fine. Yet you hold so steadfastly to Fox news. News sources are inherently biased – but why do you point out the ones that don’t serve your arguments?
Hypocrite.
You have no idea what truth is. No one does, especially not someone who only believes one side. You take what they feed you just like everyone else.
But that’s ok! If you let it go.
Just let this site be funny again, for the love of God.
What do you mean, “again”?
If ya don’t think the site has ever been funny, then why do you come here? Do you enjoy people revealing you’re stupidity? Do you not realize you’re being made to look like a buffoon? Do you think your misguided attempts at lauding the merits of the right are effect….oh shit, it all makes sense now.
Stupid and doesn’t realise it. No clear goal for his actions. Long tradition of innefective actions.
Evil Pundit is Dubya in disguise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6/10. Could use more exclamation marks.
It can be if you just ignore the comment section.
Surprisingly, when its not making dumb jokes about bush and old jokes about mcmain, douchenozzles are just annoyed.
If you think the U.S. military is pro-free speech, read the July 26 New York Times article on how the military treats embedded journalists.
You’re seriously citing the New York Times as a source? It’s a junk paper.
Click my name for the ruth about that story.
Ruth or consequences?
Ruth, please. She’s nice.
Err. I would hesitate to call the NYT lies and then espouse your loyalty to the oh-so-unbiased Fox news. As someone who makes their living in political science, don’t pull that crap.
In fact, lurking through this site… you do it all the time. Any time someone states anything you disagree with, you call it lies. McCarthy-ism isn’t what we like to model ourselves after now, is it?
Well, as they say. Your ego’s like your stomach, it shits what you feed it.
RV-
Eventually, you will learn it is pointless to argue with Zombie Mouthpiece. His brain has fact-repelling teflon shielding. You may as well try teaching box turtles Sanskrit…
My box turtle prefers French, the language of love. He thinks it’ll help him find a lady box turtle.
Nice. Fact-repelling teflon shielding. Why do i know so many people like that?
Cause you’re in the south?
True, it’s indeed very dangerous, since information is thé most important weapon on today’s battlefield (if not any battlefield ever). But, it’s very easely abused to cover up stuff, mistakes or simply awfull things that no sane person would approve of. It’s a dangerous line to walk, and lots of times I think that they’re not just holding back information, like battle-plans or whatever, for there own protection.
I agree. Remember an embedded journalist named Gerald Rivera? (I’d like to forget him but he is everywhere. sigh..) Anyway, he gave away the position of the soldiers he was embedded with. They need to protect themselves from such moronic behavior.
Except the issue in the times article isn’t someone revealing a battle plan. It’s photographers being restrained from photographing combat, ostensibly because it provides information to the enemy. Note that write-ups of these attacks appear all the time, so it’s not like this is classified information. The military just doesn’t want the public to see photos of what a war actually looks like.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
Photos are just as damaging as laying out a battle plan for the enemy to read.
One photo can tell my enemies: What weapon I’m carrying (they now know it’s maximum effective range and can work outside of it), How many rounds I carry, whether or not I carry grenades (markings on the side tell them what type), what style body armor I’m wearing (there are different types, each with their own unique weaknesses), what unit I’m with (patches), what rank I am, my name, whether or not I wear prescription glasses, even what kind of boots I’m wearing.
So yes… photos of soldiers in combat can be just as deadly.
As a soldier preparing for deployment in December to Iraq (challenge me, I dare someone), I can tell you – as a Combat MOS – I want my enemy to know as little about me as possible. And don’t think for one second that, even as a firm and sworn supporter of the Constitution and BOR, I wouldn’t drop a journalist for potentially revealing information that could harm myself or my brothers. Because… guess what. I’m coming home after my year. And that’s that.
Scouts Out.
So, what’s the harm in potentially revealing a battle plan, after the battle has already taken place?
What’s the harm in letting them know what equipment we use when it’s probably fairly common knowledge already based on what they’ve found on fallen soldiers?
I can understand the name part, but your boots or if you’re wearing prescription glasses or not? While information may be the most important thing on a battlefield, not all information is useless.
(Oh shit, The journalist took a pic of me drinking diet coke, now the terrorists are going to know that I’m trying to watch my figure!!!!!!!)
Why are your so-called “enemies” enemies in your mind?
Cause you invaded and occupied their land? Murdered tens of thousands of them, tortured countless people, raped many others, and ruined tens of millions of lives?
Or because someone told you so?
Asshole.
Whether or not you agree with our occupation of Iraq (and I personally don’t) our soldiers have a job to do, and their safety should be paramount. Neither Rusty nor any other soldier decided to just go invade Iraq. They went because theyre ordered to do so as part of their job.
As far as I’m concerned, you’re the asshole.
Fact of the matter is, those journalists don’t have a RIGHT to be there with that unit. The Armed Forces are doing them a favor by having them along to see whats going on. So yeah, if some guy with stripes on his sleeve tells a journalist to shut the f**k up somewhere in Iraq, cool. And you know that the journalists are much safer with a unit than on their own. Otherwise you’d see alot more beheading videos. (But the way journalists behave these days, I’d welcome that.)
Given that our tax dollars pay for the military, and that its actions directly affect both our lives and our image abroad, I think it’s absolutely necessary that journalists have the greatest access possible to our nation’s military, same as any other part of the government. A free press with access to the government is an absolute necessity for the prevention of tyranny. And regarding your comment on “how journalists behave,” I’ll give the advice I always give: If you think media bias is such a problem, why don’t you go out there and report it yourself?
Before I even begin, Zoriah Miller is inarguably an excellent photographer and an asset to humanitarian causes… but there’s just something about that article that does not sit right with me.
We know people are dying over there, so what exactly are they censoring? Beggars can’t be choosers, and in this case Mr. Miller was lucky the military was willing to babysit him and protect him while he was there. It’s war, not a playground; it’s certainly not a place for people who feel the need to whine about things not being fair. War is not fair, just like how hunger and disease can be unfair. To cry about censorship is a slap in the face to soldiers who have died because of a lack thereof.
Actually Freedom of Speech only means you have the right to question your government. It doesn’t really mean you can say whatever you want. For instance slander is illegal. YOUR rights end where MY rights begin. You have the right to call someone a lying bastard, but don’t be surprised if he/she kicks your ass for it. That’s how it works. You can question your government and government officials. That’s all the First guarantees.
BTW… that’s why you “don’t have freedom of speech” in the military. Because you work for the government. It’s like badmouthing or questioning your boss. It’s just not done. Well, without getting into trouble or fired anyway.
Yeah…it’s not so much that I think we can never have seriousness, but the quote in this one just doesn’t make sense. Is it supposed to be serious? Is it supposed to be making fun of the serious quote??
I think they’re going after a quote that’s usually attributed to Voltaire. The English version differs because it was translated from the French, but it’s basically “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” That makes a little more sense, I think.
“attributed to Voltaire”: historical minutiae WIN!
I cannot at this instant draw up the name of the woman that coined the phrase, but it was written as an abstract to describe a related series of essays Voltaire wrote.
Not many people know this.
Oic. I know people usually say Voltaire said it, but I also know that famous people often get credited with things that significantly less-famous people say.
I know it’s just splitting hairs really, but I’ve always heard/read the quote as “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will, to the death, defend your right to say it.” I know that’s pretty much exactly what you put (hence, the splitting hairs), but I think it sounds better that way.
But I’ve also been drinking tonight and am feeling overly… overly… overly something. I dunno, lol.
Aww, don’t feel overly something.
You’re possibly right. In any case, the original quote was in French, so any English version is an approximation anyway.
The sad joke is not in the comment or photo- it’s reading the douchebag “support the troops” comments here.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re talking about. I guess some of the comments could be about supporting the troops, but in general, they’re just commenting on the picture itself. Aside from all of that, why wouldn’t you support our men and women in arms? While it’s true that I very strongly disagree with the current war, it is not their faults that they are there. It is the fault of one man and one man only: the so-called Commander-in-Chief. Our troops need as much support as we here at home can give them. Imagine what their lives over in Iraq must be like and how much worse they would be if they thought that we back home don’t at least wish them well.
Well, coming from a red state (and being a blue guy) where the only two things in town are an air base and a really big rodeo thingy that goes on at about this time (name the town…. anybody?) I have come to the following conclusion:
Support our troops, by hating this administration and war.
Hmmm… somewhere in Wyoming? Cheyenne Frontier Days? I think the military base there is Air Force.
YES!! I went and googled it. Warren Air Force Base and Cheyenne Frontier Days!!
I used to live outside Denver growing up and have fond memories of the rodeo. We used to go to the National Western Stock Show at the Denver Coliseum in January. The weather was either butt-ugly cold or unusually warm and a way to mark the turning of the year. Lots of denim and cowboy boots and manure.
And yes, support the troops by making sure that their needs are tended to both over there and once they come home; body armor, benefits, the whole ball of wax.
Yup. Spot on.
What the hell are they going to do with balls of wax?
Thank you, you may be a douchenozzle, but this crotchwaffle is very happy with what you say here.
Again, a douchenozzles is annoyed, and yet when we complain about ´bush is dumb´you say get over it.
Well in imagination land, you can have your cake and eat it to.
sorry, the only douchebag here is you baby huey
If only they weren’t so uptight about the disagreements. The whole “…protect and defend…” part of the oath (I am a veteran myself) indicates a need to PROTECT OR DEFEND. In Afghanistan they are doing this and the leadership (Mr. Bush) has failed them, but in Iraq they are neither protecting or defending, and are, in fact, complicit in war crimes.
The US used to stand for something…….we could be counted on to fight wars that were just, and for the right reasons.
Somehow I doubt history will judge the Iraq adventure as just, right, ethical or legal. Unless those pesky WMD’s finally show up…….
You believe too many lies. The troops inIraq are not complicit in war crimes, but are defending the people of Iraq against war criminals.
The initial invasion was a warcrime.
What occured in Abu Ghraib was a warcrime.
Don’t try to claim that all of the troops are innocent of this.
The invasion was not a war crime. It was a continuation of an existing war, that started in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
A couple of minor incidents in Abu Ghraib might have been war crimes. They were investigated, tried and punished as appropriate.
Ignoring that the major point of the war was to get rid of WMDs that didn’t exist, the US did not have UN approval to invade.
Stick this in Wikipedia: Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#Criticisms
What is there in that article that you disagree with? Specifically.
PiMan, I have to warn you. Don’t bring up facts while arguing with evil pundit. It makes him cry.
The point of the war was ORIGINALLY to get rid of WMD’s, but they couldn’t find them, so then the reason for this criminal act was that they were supporting Al Qaeda, but they couldn’t find any evidence of the either, so THEN the reasons we came up with were stopping human rights abuses (Cause iraq is the ONLY country in the world that abuses human rights) imperialist expan… I mean spreading democracy, becuase apparently Iraq is the ONLY country in the world that isn’t a democracy, then their oil reserves, then it was because, in President Shrubs own words, “They tried to kill my dad”. I really love that reason, they tried to kill one old man, so he sends in thousands upon thousands of young men (Many of which are also fathers) to get revenge. Anyways, the reasons for the invasion are constantly changing as the old ones become invalid.
Learn some history.
The reasons for the 2003 invasion of Iraq were stated in the resolution of Congress on the issue. WMD was only one of those reasons.
Try googling it.
I’m still looking for an answer here.
Stick this in Wikipedia: Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#Criticisms
What is there in that article that you disagree with? Specifically.
Why don’t you look at the resolution of Congress first?
I have no qualms that the war was legal under US law, but it was not under international law.
International law is irrelevant.
And that is the biggest problem with the US.
Above its dangerous gun laws, heartless healthcare system, poor public schools, and lack of restriction of cults.
The unilateral US government is the biggest problem.
It isn’t a problem, it’s a feature.
It’s both
So even if they did orignally have more than one reason, the point is those reasons have changed as the war gets less and less popular. It’s time to stop making excuses for this criminal act, and end the War on Terror ™
Just googled it, Among other things I found the rantings of some anti-war nutjob.
“Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion… and you allow him to make war at pleasure.… The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.”
-Abraham Lincoln
Ah yes, Abraham Lincoln.
Another Republican who started an unpopular war.
Ah no, the south shot first.
Wait…
we’re still fighting the Gulf War????
Well, makes sense, I guess since Vietnam won’t go away, either.
The 1991 didn’t end in 1991. It was only a ceasefire, which was repeatedly violated by Saddam’s regime.
History isn’t a strong point with libtards. If they could remember what happened yesterday, they wouldn’t be douchenozzles.
You can’t really blame the troops themselves for the invasion. Abu Ghraib on the other hand, I agree that that one is largely on the soldiers. Also on the commanders who condoned/permitted it.
Personally i’m sick of all the “I support the troops but not the war”, “Bush lied, people died” and all the other bumper sticker repeaters out there spouting off about how this war is wrong, or we’re in it for the wrong reasons, or all the other crap I hear from people who sit in their nice cushy chairs in their nice air conditioned homes thousands of miles away from the people that are actually there and KNOW what’s going on. I don’t comment on wether this war is right or wrong or wether or not Bush is the devil…. because quite frankly.. there’s a lot going on that I don’t know about. And without all the information… i’d just be guessing.
I think Lallz had it right. The misquote is a deliberate jab at the current military stance on free speech.
Afraid not- I made this LOL to point out the fact that while they are doing their best over there and even dying, it’s so Liberal douchebags here can have the right to make fun of them getting their legs and arms blown off.
“Pacifists- Freedoms Parasites” – anon
We already had free speech in this country and we were in no danger of losing it. Seeing as my brother is in Iraq I support the hell out of the troops but I don’t pretend that he or anyone else is over there fighting for freedoms I already had and wasn’t going to lose.
End it with victory!
Define what a victory in this war would consist of.
A stable, democratic Iraq that was not a haven for terrorists.
It’s getting pretty close to that now.
I agree… here’s a radical idea…. Why don’t we let the warfighters fight the war instead of letting the politicians fight it? If the generals on the ground in Iraq were allowed to let the sergeants do their job.. we’d be much better off I firmly believe. (Yes, I know this sort of goes against my last posting on this thread, but what the hell… everybody’s doing it right? lol)
And what are you basing your opinion that we’re ‘close’ to a stable democratic Iraq. The idiotic ramblings of Fox Noise?
Try again. The only freedoms of ours endangered by this war are freedom of privacy, freedom to travel throughout the country without undue hassle, freedom to disagree with the government, etc. Not one of those is endangered from overseas, but rather domestically by ultra conservatives.
Sometimes the greatest patriots are those with the courage to disagree with their government.
The people endangering our freedoms are the radical leftists who try to shout down, ban or shut down every point of view that disagrees with them.
Considering you have just very aptly described the right-wing members of the media and government, I have to think you are a bit confused. I didn’t see leftists calling people un-American traitors for opposing the war in Iraq. Nor did I see them passing various “anti-terror” laws that do little to limit terrorism and much to hamper those same freedoms. Don’t get me wrong, I think radicals on either end of the spectrum have it wrong (this would seem to include you), but I try to give each one the proper credit for what they have wrong.
“If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.” – Ben Franklin, one of the greatest American Patriots.
It’s the leftists who riot and try to forcefully shut down any speech they disagree with.
Leftists and rightists are equally likely to riot, but leftist are more likely to make it a peaceful demonstration.
I have one question though. Do you agree with the USA PATRIOT Act? Do you think that the freedoms it restricts are a good trade off for the security it is supposed to bring? Do you think it has brought you that security?
I don’t know the details of the Patriot Act.
But I note that freedom of speech and political dissent have not been restricted at all since it was enacted. So it seems pretty harmless.
Google it. It’s legalised fascism
I agree with your aomment about leftist ‘riots’ being more likely to be peaceful protests, but I have one question. Wouldnt’ that make it, not a riot?
For what its worth, considering the website you constantly plug, and that fact that it is just as skewed, albeit in a different direction, as the “Liberal Media Bias” it claims to expose, I think you need to open your eyes as much as those evil radical leftists that are threatening your freedoms. When will people learn that just because a media outlet is counter mainstream, that doesn’t make it right?
Pretty much ALL media is not about reporting news or facts, but rather about shaping people’s opinions. And unfortunately, most people (I am not saying this includes you, I don’t know you well enough for that) prefer to get their opinions that way to thinking for themselves. That applies to both sides, more so to the extremes of the spectrum.
Well, I agree with almost all you say.
However, I don’t constantly plug one website. Just in the last day or so, I’ve started to place links under my name, because they don’t get held up by the spam filter there. Before that, I only linked to my own blog.
There are websites that disagree with the MSM from both sides. MediaMatters from the left, NewsBusters from the right. We should pay attention to both — bnut I am admittedly partisan, preferring the Right view of things. :3
I do find it funny that people accuse much of the mainstream media to be liberal biased (some of it is), without looking at the driving forces behind the mainstream TV (and some print, though I don’t know their ownership) media. ABC is owned by Disney, which is a somewhat conservsative organization, NBC is owned by GE, a multi-faceted company with a huge defense-contractor arm (and thus a vested interest in seeing wars continue), Fox is owned by Ruport Murdoch, who is almost a fascist he is so conservative, CBS, while probably the most liberal of the big 4, is tied to Westinghouse Electric, which is also a defense contractor. This is not always a factor in what is reported, but it does show why media ownership matters.
As for the website thing, thats all I’ve seen from you, so its the only conclusion I can draw.
Disney is a conservative company? Are you smoking crack? They are one of the most progressively liberal companies on the face of the planet. For example, they were the first major corporation to offer spouse benefits to gay and lesbian members of the their workforce.
The importance of media ownership is exaggerated. It’s not the owners who produce the news, it’s the journalists — and these are overwhelmingly left-biased.
And who do these journalists work for? The right wing owners who can decide not to renew their contract if they don’t like what their pet journalists are saying.
Katie is the most expensive pet of them all, looks like.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/23/cbs-violates-its-own-standards-and-practice-by-altering-online-transcript-of-mccain-interview/
The owners aren’t “right-wing” as you seem to believe. Ted Turner, Pinch Sulzberger and the Viacom guy are as left as they come.
And contrary to your propaganda, the main thing owners care about is profit. It’s still the journalists who make the news, and they are overwhelmingly left-leaning.
The viacom guy? You don’t even know his name, yet you claim to know his political leanings?
Ass.
Explain to me where freedom of travel with undue hassle is the constituation, and I´ll show you a paragraph that a supreme court judge would find either hilarious or make them cry.
Wow.
Constitution, my gosh… I´m having a bad day.
Wow… I think it’s a nice quote, even though I’m not American. Where I come from, free speech is allowed only if it doesn’t touch on anything important.
Oh, it will be like that here soon…
Right after Obama wins….
It’s usually attributed to French author Voltaire, but may have been coined by his English translator.
I can’t think of a war yet that has been just, right, ethical or legal
That all depends on which side you are looking at it from. Wars are always terrible, and are generally started due to injustice, greed, etc on the part of one party or another. However, are you going to sit there and claim that it is not just, ethical, right, or legal for a country to defend itself (and in many cases its allies when there is a threat to itself by extension) when invaded? A wise man once said something to the effect of “War is one of the most terrible human inventions, and unfortunately, one of the most necessary.”
You’re the kind of person who’ll gladly hand a bear their legs to eat, aren’t you?
I have to dissagree with you here Debbeh. I think the current war is idiotic and criminal, but WWII was just, right etc, American Revolution, Just a couple examples. I do however think WWII was the last war REALLY worth fighting.
lol Are you really telling me that some white slaveholders being pissed off because taxes were too high was a “just, right” motivation for war?
and i agree – this site isn’t funny anymore.
*faylz 2 c da “Funny Political Pictures and Commentary”*
wuts wit awl da freekin Jingoism neways?!
Please, learn to speak English.
You’re criticizing someone using LOLspeak on one of the ICHC affiliate sites?
Clue-Fail
That’s… not funny.
GOOD CALL.
O_O is this meant to be… touching? Wow.
It is like the site has given up trying to be funny.
Being ex-military and having grown up around it, I find the irony of so many soldiers defending such rights and lacking them for themselves (which I can attest to personally) kind of funny, if by funny you mean so psychotically depressing to the point that there’s nothing to do but laugh.
I laughed at this. It was a nervous go-to-a-calm-party-where-a-yelling-match -breaks-out-between-an-odd-drunk-couple-that-no-one-knows-well laugh but still… Very apt.
There is no irony in sacrifice. Irony deals with an unexpected occurance.
Why would one not expect to sacrifice one’s option of saying whatever you want whenever you want, in exchange for the responsibility of stewardship of arms and military responsibility?
Well if we are “truly” going by voting here at PK, like everyone says, then this is what people voted for, right? I don’t remember voting or even seeing this one in the voting line up though…
perhaps turn it around and its that soldiers are dying defending and fighting a war they don’t all believe in. whether they agree with bush or not, they don’t exactly have a choice in the matter anymore.
cept…..voluteering for the military.
Cept … they know what they’re doing, and many re-enlist.
The last thing I want to see when I come for my lulz is more American propaganda. And I’m an American. :S
LOL, same. Especially when it’s written in such terrible English. That BS gives us Americans with brains (example: the ones that did not vote for Bush) a bad name. Even though I’m not terribly fond of Europeans grouping all Americans as Southern hillbillies with 5 teeth and a Dale Jr tattoo, all I can really do is stand to the side, point at them, and say “yeah, that’s a minority fighting to be the majority…”
Except that the Americans who voted for Bush were a majority, not a minority.
But keep on living in your fantasyland if you can’t cope with reality.
Excuse me, but get your facts straight. Gore won the popular vote in 2000
but Bush won the electoral vote after the SC’s decision on Florida’s recount.
Bush won the popular vote in 2004, after voters had had four years to judge his performance. So get your facts straight.
Haha, yes, that’s what American voters do, judge the performance of their elected officials. What a joke.
So you hate democracy?
Okay …
Actually, that doesn’t matter in either case, as America is NOT a democracy as a form of government. Rather, we are a Republic. (Note that democracy can denote both a specific form of government and a more general type of government). In a Republic, we elect representatives to make our decisions, both about who governs us and specific laws. In a true democracy, the majority always rules, in that case, popular vote WOULD matter. In a Republic (IE the US), it does not.
Both fall under the broader democracy, but there are very important and specific distinctions between the two.
We do not directly elect the president in the US, rather we elect the people that elect the president. We merely tell them who we want them to vote for. In some states, they are required to follow that mandate, in others, they are not.
I take your point.
I wasn’t directing that exactly at you, just continuing the chain to show how silly it is to argue for 8 years over the popular vote, when it doesn’t even matter.
Well, you still made a very good and well-argued point.
It’s not like he had much competition in ’04. Literally EVERYBODY I talked politics with around election time in ’04 if they were voting for Bush their reason was “At least he’s not Kerry” And if they were voting for Kerry their reason was “At least he’s not Bush”
So basically, based on what I gathered, people weren’t voting FOR either candidate as much as they were voting AGAINST the other one.
And to dumb this down for EP, They weren’t voting for bush because they liked his policies, they voted for him because they didn’t like Kerry.
In the state where his brother just HAPPENED to be governor no less.
Reality? Who says the majority of the people can’t be dumbasses?
They could be. After all, there’s a possibility they might elect Obama.
The majority of people might not even vote at all, and almost certainly less than 50% of eligible adults will vote for Obama (as with McCain)
They re-elected a semi retarded war mongering primate after all.
I do to- but it’s always jammed packed with “I hate Bush and McCain” propaganda !
This caption is LAME!!!!!!!!!!!
Those solders are like “This suck! One weekend a Month my rear end”
That would have been a good caption.
Unless you happen to say that you’re a terrorist.
Because terrorism is free speech, right?
Do you even read what you type?
Acts of terrorism are not free speech, but talking about and promoting terrorism is.
But if you “say that you’re a terrorist”, it’s a confession to a crime.
True, but a crime you may not have committed. It is possible to call yourself a terrorist but not be guilty of any crime.
Freedom to lie. (well, most of the time)
Freedom to lie only applys to elected officials. primarily of the republican party.
Is there no basic literacy test to join the army? Or is this supposed to be LOLspeak?
Nice try at “teh lolz?”
If you were being serious, no, there is no basic literacy test to join the military. However, you do have to have at least your G.E.D., and you have to earn a certain score on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test that tests word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, mathematics, mechanics, electronics, general science, etc., so one would assume that you would be able to read and write to some extent.
I know this is a political humor site but good grief people!! Did we forget the humor part? The Right seems to hate the Left and the Left seems to pity the Right. Just make a funny and get on with it.
This is not funny — and doesn’t seem like it’s supposed to be. I come here for a smile. That’s what this site is supposed to be about, right? Let’s keep it light and funny. I’m sure there are other places for serious political discussion.
Recaptioned to match reality: http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/view.aspx?ciid=1644194&g=1
That’s sorta what I was taking away from it, too. ;-/
WOW.. that just SCREAMS liberal coward. “I’m gonna give the responsibility and blame for my actions to you.” Remember, it’s not my responsibilty to raise my child.. it takes the whole village…. that’s why he’s so screwed up and always in trouble… it’s Joe’s fault down the street. Not mine.
Recaptioned to match your paranoid tinfoil-hat hallucinations, you mean.
gag me
No one is forcing soldiers to go off and fight a war. There is no draft. It’s their own choice to go there and kill themselves and others. “What if they held a war, and no one showed up?” I guess we’ll never know! Whatever.
HT… dont talk about the soldiers dying… u dont know what its like to lose someone like that!!! Tim Lee, lost both his legs… yet he’s so proud of it… Shane Bebee lost his life at the age of 20… and knowing him, he’d do it again anytime! and try having a father who you’ve never seen walk bc he broke his neck over there…. DONT TALK DOWN ABOUT OUR VETERANS!!!
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what these a**holes do here. They are truely Freedoms Parasites. They live high off of the blood of others and contribute nothing but filth and disgust to their host. These are the children of the Hippies that spit on returning wounded Vietnam vets….
DONT CALL OUR SOLDIERS A**HOLES!!! IF U DONT SUPPORT THEM THEN GET THE H*** OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!!! U DONR DESERVE TO LIVE HERE!!!!
Calm down. As seen on this site not long ago “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
He has the freedom to say whatever he likes, regardless of your opinion of what he says.
I wasn’t calling the soldiers A**holes- I was calling the idiots on this website who make fun of them A**holes. Take a Xanax, girl.
oh crap im sorry!! i really read wrong!!! im really sorry!!!! please forgive me…its just i was a coastguard bratt, my uncle is in the army, and my bff & my bf are in the Marines…. and i just get upset with ppl talkin about them…sorry im so used to hearin ppl down them….
What are you, 9? Ease up on the exclamation point sweetie. As an Army brat I gotta tell you that you’re making DOD schools look bad.
yeah i just went & read it again & i saw what it said… i read it earlier this mornin at lik e3am when i was sick….im really sorry
No prob- and yes, I am a Veteran.
ya know what i agree with the picture……. u people always rag on our troops & u dont know what they face over there!
IT WAS THEIR OWN CHOICE TO FACE CRAP “OVER THERE”! No, I DON’T support them. If they had been drafted and were dragged to war kicking and screaming, that would be different. But that is not the case. They chose to go fight and come back with raging cases of PTSD. I HAVE NO SYMPATHY.
Hey, let’s stick *you* in a poor family with no way to afford college, a school system that frankly sucks, and no way to get out of there without having the army/marines/navy seals pay for it. Or better yet, give you a sense of patriotism.
I hope the next terrorist attack only hits idiots and ingorant people like yourself.
Or maybe even ignorant people. <<’ Sorry for the typo.
crazy emerson…. we u refering to me or HT? (sorry i couldnt tell, and dont mean to sound rude to u)
u should support them…. they’re helping you…. which i dont see y they should! yes they chose to go over there… because the love their country and dont like seein ppl mess with it! if u dont support your own nation’s troops… then get out of our country!
yeha i agree with Kurt… some of them did make the wrong desision but alot of them went over there for the right ressons…. but still… if u cant point out the good & the bad then support ALL of them!!
I think the quote is Voltaire. It’s one of my very favourites – inspirational, yes? I figured people wouldn’t like this caption, but I think it’s all right for things to be slightly more serious.
I believe we should support our troops by bringing them home.
left or right, this rings true across the board
that’s funny, but it wasn’t very well phrased…
it’s a shame, ’cause it seems that very few people got it.
I love this. It goes right along with the girl in my office who looked at my Obama bumper sticker and said, “Well, my husband is in Iraq defending your right to dumb opinions”. Wrong on about 90 different levels, sigh.
This is tipical American shit.
Ahhh; the French!
Ahhhh, state encouraged racism.
Nah, not state encouraged. They manage to piss everyone off all by themselves!
This is a misquote. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. “- Voltaire (french philosopher)
So…. missed the ten or so previous post that already said this, did we? Huzzah for redundancy I guess.
And a couple of posts correctly saying that Voltaire didn’t say this at all. Not even in French.
I don’t agree with your dirty doings here, but I will defend with my life your right to do it!
Well isn’t this ironic… An inspiring pic about freedom to disagree turned into a HUGE argument about how free we REALLY are
Molder needs to get a grip of life, because this is a very meaningful picture and quote. So if he or she doesn’t like it then they can just stfu because its the soldiers sacrifice that allows you and me to say whatever we feel like it and express our opinions.
As some people mentioned, the (corrected) quote is NOT from Voltiaire.
Its is from Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
It’s something she said in a book that, in her opinion, is something that Voltaire would say or have a similar opinon about.
Again….Awsomness
See
a href=”http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/08/08/funny-pictures-battle-budy/”>more cat pictures
That’s very admirable. When and where did you serve? Thanks for your service.
getting bullshited into invading, through our fear, a middle eastern country that actually posed no real threat to us instead of at least going after the ones who attacked us just for the sake of big oil and fat old white politicians does not have much to do with keeping my right to disagree or agree with anything
i support the troops and deeply respect them and thats why they should be taken out of a bullshit war and some people shoudl be put to justice
fdssdfsadfadsfsaads
asdasdasdasdsad
ASDASDASDASDASDASDad
Erm…
This was probably already said (but I lost interest at about the 20th comment) but I believe the quote is incorrect. I do like the sentiment, but it’s: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” as Evelyn Hall originally penned it. It has a nicer ring than what you have. No offense.