Hey, when I go to your site with my firefox 3 browser I get reditected to http://www.lunarpages.com/. I have scanned for malware and spyware and did not find any. Is your site redirecting unkown browsers to this other site? It only seems to happen with your site so far. O,r is something else fishy going on?
Ben Dover
· 1 year ago
I swear, that happened to me two days ago. I'd get on ABlog and within a minute or so I'd be kicked off and directed some site that wanted to scan my pc for spyware, free of course. I tried everything to get rid of it but couldn't even find it and it seems to have just gone away on it's own, go figure. And I'm running firefox as well. Hmmmm.
zihuata
· 1 year ago
what version of firefoxare you running? Where are you being redirected, what isthe url? Does it happen with any other sites that you go to?
. This happens to me every time! I can not get on the site's main page with firefox 3...
Ben Dover
· 1 year ago
Hi - Running firefox 3. And it didn't give me a URL either, just an opening page, update box, urgency message and seemed to be trying to run an exe.file on it's own. Firefox and my firewall stopped that, but every few minutes it would reappear and knock me off ABlog. And no, it didn't happen with other sites. But like I said it just disappeared as fast as it appeared, and I haven't seen it for two days now. I've never had a problem with ABlog and I figured it must be a bug in the firefox system. That's about all I can tell you really.
zihuata
· 1 year ago
I cleared the cache and private data and it went away. A previous attempt to clear cookies did not fix it. Maybe some 'cache poisining' or something...
J
bunnyjump
· 1 year ago
HaHaHa....and it's true, too!
HereinDC
· 1 year ago
. Oh I get it. Notice how Cindy doesn't look like her usual hot tranny mess. . I get it, that's funny.
greenleegazette
· 1 year ago
It'd be funnier if he called her a c*nt.
HereinDC
· 1 year ago
but he did call her a c*nt. so that wouldn't be funny....it's just stating the truth.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
ALL of the little things in that picture are true... except that it'd be chimpy's picture over the mantle, not cheney's.
brilliantatbreakfast
· 1 year ago
I wonder why they made the woman look like Hillary. At first I thought it was Hillary, then I thought it was Carly Fiorina. So this one doesn't work either. Back to the drawing board.....
lynchie
· 1 year ago
OT: seems the reason the Dems voted for immunity is they were afraid they would also get sued. Since Pelosi, Harman and Rockerfeller knew about the illegal activities. In addition the same crew were informed of the intent of the CIA to do rendition and waterboarding and approved that as well. Rockerfeller was the most active in getting the immunity bill presented time after time.
Four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
Identically, numerous key Democrats in Congress -- including Rockefeller and Harman -- were told that Bush had ordered the NSA to spy on American without warrants and outside of FISA. None of them did anything to stop it. In fact, while Rockefeller wrote a sad, hostage-like, handwritten letter to Dick Cheney in 2003 (which he sent to nobody else) -- assuring Cheney that he would keep the letter locked away "to ensure that I have a record of this communication" -- Harman was a vocal supporter of the illegal NSA program. Here's what she told Time in January, 2006 in the wake of the NYT article revealing the NSA program:
Some key Democrats even defend it. Says California's Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."
So now we have a government which breaks the law, finds out they did something illegal and then pass a bill to protect themselves. I like it. I guess this also falls under satire.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
that was my view all along... the Dems went along because they were afraid they'd be taken down too.
what pisses me off is... weren't they paying attention? why didn't anyone scream about the program at the time they were informed?
If you know someone comitted a crime (a HUGE crime), and you let them get away with it later... you're abetting.
.
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
The New Yorker is guilty of indulging in political pornography.
Then, so is Fox News on a daily basis.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingram, Coulter, are all porn stars.
SeekTheTruth
· 1 year ago
Difference is, all this stuff is TRUE.
DAB
· 1 year ago
...and therefore it's COMMENTARY, not SATIRE. Jeez, now we even have cartoonists who don't get the difference!
Hangtown Danile
· 1 year ago
So glad to know you have an open mind...
Maldoror
· 1 year ago
They forgot to include McCain sticking his hand down the pants of an underage Vietnamese prostitute.
jeffg166
· 1 year ago
Now that's funny. And, oh, too true.
Butch1
· 1 year ago
Irony challenged, indeed, I just find the so-called humour in bad taste and wish we could stay on the topics that are the real importance in this election. The sheeple eat this stuff up and I saw a recent right-winged blog site that ran a question about this picture of Obama et al. The percentage was huge coming from people who thought that at least some of that picture was correct. If this were the only reason to keep the "humour" out of reach of the cretins, I think we should. I don't take the picture literally and I can see what the New Yorker was trying to do. That's fine if you deal with a gene pool that has IQ's in the three digits. Someone commented on Olbermann's program that if this pic was on a right leaning magazine, the subscribers would laugh at the joke and the left would still be outraged. I speak for myself and it being satire or not, I found it in poor taste and giving the right more leather upon which to chew.
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
yes, that is the point of all of this, The New Yorker, and this McCain portrayal. It is ALL nonsense when we have pressing issues to consider. Unfortunately, both of these cartoons represent how people actually vote. We are a country of Anti-intillectualism.
I weep for the future of this country until we reward our teachers, and enlighten our kids.
Butch1
· 1 year ago
Well said!
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
Gracias-
kl8n
· 1 year ago
OK, I feel a little less like I'm drowning in a sea of stupidity now. Leave it to Horsey to put my exact thoughts into cartoon form.
Jim Olson
· 1 year ago
Yes, it's satire, and many A-blog readers get it. But a lot of Americans don't, and will misconstrue the intent, or the facts. You can still hear people say that they won't vote for Obama because he is a Muslim. Absurdist political satire like this is simply beyond the comprehension of much of America, and the New Yorker should have exercised some better wisdom.
KerrynowCampau
· 1 year ago
They should have shown Cindy shoving those pills into her mouth
Black_in_SacCA
· 1 year ago
Except that's not the cover of the National Review is it? So Horsey's point is moot. Where are examples of McCain's racism and sexism and temper? Is burning a copy of the Constitution the same as flag burning? Why not a picture of Hitler? Why isn't Mrs. McCain dressed like a crack addict or giving oral sex for a hit or selling government secrets for a hit? The image falls so short in comparison to the Obama cover that it's not even funny.
e_five
· 1 year ago
Almost, but not quite. Obama's not a Muslim, doesn't burn flags, doesn't have a wife that carries a machine gun, and doesn't idolize Osama bin Laden. Whereas McCain IS old, Cindy DID have a prescription drug addiction, McCain IS in the same party as Cheney, and he DID sing "bomb bomb bomb Iran." Where is something that ISN'T true about McCain to match all the things that aren't true about Obama? How about McCain chewing on a baby's severed leg while shooting an eight ball? I've seen some e-mails charging that McCain is a canibalistic ghoul on speed, so it must be true and/or hilarious.
Joe Perez
· 1 year ago
Uh, I think you folks have your blinders on. Yes, McCain is old. But he is NOT in a wheelchair. Yes, Cindy had an addiction. But NO she doesn't offer McCain dozens of pills to help him get through the day (so far as I know). McCain would NOT have a picture of Cheney on the fireplace at the Oval Office. He apologized for his joke about Iran.
All those things in Horsey's cartoon are, you know, exaggerations, lies, stereotypes as they might be painted by an enemy? Just like the New Yorker cartoon? Get it?
The most interesting thing about Horsey's cartoon is what he's saying about the difference between the liberal media and the conservative media. It's inconceivable that the National Review would attack its own horse, but leave it to the self-flaggelating liberals at the New Yorker to shoot their own horse.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
the big difference between THIS satire (National Review) and the New Yorker's cover?
all the mccain stuff is true. His wife was (is?) a pill popper, his policies will essentially burn the Constitution, he's old, and he made the joke about 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran'...
the only thing wrong with that cover is that it should be a picture of bush over the fireplace, not cheney... and maybe joe lieberman should be licking his toes.
moreleesafer
· 1 year ago
Very proud of the P.I. today.
econprofes
· 1 year ago
Just to add to the excellent point e_five brought out, a survey brought to light that 13% of Americans believe the right wing lie that Senator Obama is a Muslim. When he has never been a Muslim, his father was an atheist and his mother was a Christian turned atheist and his grandparents where Christians.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
there's another point to be made there... one question that will never be asked in the MSM.
what the fuck difference does it make if he's christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddist, Athiest or whatever?!!?
those 13% are the ones that voted against integration... or their parents did, and they learned to fear/hate from them.
I suppose that some of us always need someone (or some group) to hate.
I imagine if the GOP disappears... we'd have to find someone to vent our anger at as well. although, there will always be organized (read: powerhungry) religion to fear/hate.
econprofes
· 1 year ago
You're correct, it should not matter but Senator Obama should be judged by what he is and the fact remains he is not a Muslim. If someone has a problem with Senator Obama because he is from African decent that would be unfortunate but it is true fact about Senator Obama. If someone has a problem with Obama because he is a Muslim is also unfortunate but this is also an incorrect assessment of him.
Subject: [Disqus] Re: It's satire, get it?
Indigo
· 1 year ago
Oh, satire . . . it's still a mistake.
PeteWa
· 1 year ago
It's not satire when it's true. It is ironic that a different cartoonist doesn't know the difference, though, so I guess that is funny.
unrepentant_expat
· 1 year ago
I've always had my suspicions, and now I've got my proof... The bastards a communists!
Great mirror --thanks. They hit it -- better than all the verbose punditry.
mirror
· 1 year ago
The muppets side bit reminded me a of sock puppets and concern trolls for some reason...
FunMe
· 1 year ago
I think a brilliant idea would be to have a Democrat go on one of "those" shows where they are saying there is nothing wrong with the New Yorker cover.
The Democrat would be calm, cool & collected and make the points why it is wrong. The main reason, being is that they are lies.
Of course "those" fake TV people will continue to argue the opposite.
The Democrat would say it is wrong because there are lies. And a better comic would be one with the truth.
Then out of nowhere, the Democrat will take the National Review cover and point the truth of every piece on it.
Now THAT would be brilliant!
jr
· 1 year ago
kudos to David Horsey
Rujax
· 1 year ago
Horsey is the best!
KISSman
· 1 year ago
Now THIS comic made me laugh. The difference in this satire is that it's just the truth exaggerated. With the Obama cover, it's lies exaggerated. All this New Yorker cover did is give the righties an image to post around the web and make T-shirts of.
SeaRod
· 1 year ago
The issue I take is that in a country where the "Reality Show" has been elevated to Fine Art status, the nuance of satire is lost on the masses.
dougg
· 1 year ago
How about one for the right wingers of Bush and his homosexual prostitute Jeff Gannon?
rosebud
· 1 year ago
yeah but that's all true, he'd love to bomb Iran, she was or is an addict, they'll follow on from where Cheny left off, and they'll continue to trash the constitution!
The Obama one, none of it is true!
Stroszek
· 1 year ago
This isn't the equivalent.
Cindy McCain was actually a drug addict. John McCain is actually an old guy who supports the policies of Dick Cheney.
I'm with you Stroszek. While I find this response by Horsey near perfect, it could have been slightly more accurate if it also depicted Cindy simultaneously dumping a bottle of (stolen) vicodin down her gullet. That would have helped to include the additional theme that Sin-Deed Stepford-McCane is one classy effing bitch... After all, not every multi-millionaire with a bad dope habit would have been crafty enough to get their smack on for free by using their position with a charity to steal medications intended to obviate the bodily sufferings of the poor.
Becka4
· 1 year ago
Yep like stated previously there is some truth in this cover. So while not "pretty" it is satire. He is older, he did say bomb Iran, he is connected to the Bush/Cheney stuff, she did have a drug problem. HOWEVER the difference is the Obama's cover DID NOT have ANY TRUTH. Barack is NOT a Muslim, neither of them are or have ever been terrorists. There is NO connection to Osama Bin Laden. They both are patriotic NOT flag burners. NO satire (since NO truth), offensive sterotyping (most Muslims are not terrorists) AND re-playing the lies and smears that they have been forced OVER and OVER again to combat. NOW they have to do it AGAIN OVER AND OVER AGAIN since it was regurgitated.
DougStamate
· 1 year ago
The New Yorker cover does qualify as satire; it represents Sen. Obama as everything the right-wing says he is while, in reality, he is none of those things. The fake National Review cover is only exaggeration and, while it may be amusing, doesn't qualify as satire. Everything depicted in the NR cover is based on fact and can be stretched to a point that may be funny, but it will never be satire. For the New Yorker to do a satirical cover on McCain they would have to portray him as something he isn't - a rabidly drugged-out, hippy peacenik still living in the '60 (still living in the '60's may be partially true) say, and giving the Black Power salute during his Inaugeration Parade. Or, better yet, show a cow with McCain's face in a corral. The cow is looking at a cowboy (GWB) who has branded it (mavericks are unbranded cattle). That might qualify as satire since McCain has spent his entire career pretending to be a political maverick while he never has been. Not certain, though. But to be an "exact" counterpart of the Obama cover, it would have to be based on the FALSE images the left is trying to spread to convince voters that McCain isn't what he says he is. The left isn't doing that; it's operating on the presumption that simply telling the TRUTH about McCain will convince voters he isn't what he says he is. As for the NYer cover reinforcing beliefs held by some people about the Obamas; most of those people would be digging frantically to find something else anti-Obama if the right weren't so accomodating.
grapecranberry
· 1 year ago
Has it occurred to anyone that these 13-percenters may not know what a Muslim is? Lots of people don't know the difference between Muslim, Islam, Arab, Farsi or anything else in that part of the world. I myself am no expert, but I at least know not all Muslims are terrorists or militants or extremists. They likely don't. When they do these polls, they should also ask people to define Muslim.
All Comments
. This happens to me every time! I can not get on the site's main page with firefox 3...
Running firefox 3. And it didn't give me a URL either, just an opening page, update box, urgency message and seemed to be trying to run an exe.file on it's own. Firefox and my firewall stopped that, but every few minutes it would reappear and knock me off ABlog. And no, it didn't happen with other sites. But like I said it just disappeared as fast as it appeared, and I haven't seen it for two days now. I've never had a problem with ABlog and I figured it must be a bug in the firefox system. That's about all I can tell you really.
J
Oh I get it. Notice how Cindy doesn't look like her usual hot tranny mess.
.
I get it, that's funny.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/...
Four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
Identically, numerous key Democrats in Congress -- including Rockefeller and Harman -- were told that Bush had ordered the NSA to spy on American without warrants and outside of FISA. None of them did anything to stop it. In fact, while Rockefeller wrote a sad, hostage-like, handwritten letter to Dick Cheney in 2003 (which he sent to nobody else) -- assuring Cheney that he would keep the letter locked away "to ensure that I have a record of this communication" -- Harman was a vocal supporter of the illegal NSA program. Here's what she told Time in January, 2006 in the wake of the NYT article revealing the NSA program:
Some key Democrats even defend it. Says California's Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."
So now we have a government which breaks the law, finds out they did something illegal and then pass a bill to protect themselves. I like it. I guess this also falls under satire.
what pisses me off is... weren't they paying attention? why didn't anyone scream about the program at the time they were informed?
If you know someone comitted a crime (a HUGE crime), and you let them get away with it later... you're abetting.
.
Then, so is Fox News on a daily basis.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingram, Coulter, are all porn stars.
I weep for the future of this country until we reward our teachers, and enlighten our kids.
All those things in Horsey's cartoon are, you know, exaggerations, lies, stereotypes as they might be painted by an enemy? Just like the New Yorker cartoon? Get it?
The most interesting thing about Horsey's cartoon is what he's saying about the difference between the liberal media and the conservative media. It's inconceivable that the National Review would attack its own horse, but leave it to the self-flaggelating liberals at the New Yorker to shoot their own horse.
all the mccain stuff is true. His wife was (is?) a pill popper, his policies will essentially burn the Constitution, he's old, and he made the joke about 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran'...
the only thing wrong with that cover is that it should be a picture of bush over the fireplace, not cheney... and maybe joe lieberman should be licking his toes.
what the fuck difference does it make if he's christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddist, Athiest or whatever?!!?
those 13% are the ones that voted against integration... or their parents did, and they learned to fear/hate from them.
I suppose that some of us always need someone (or some group) to hate.
I imagine if the GOP disappears... we'd have to find someone to vent our anger at as well. although, there will always be organized (read: powerhungry) religion to fear/hate.
by what he is and the fact remains he is not a Muslim. If someone has a
problem with Senator Obama because he is from African decent that would
be unfortunate but it is true fact about Senator Obama. If someone has
a problem with Obama because he is a Muslim is also unfortunate but this
is also an incorrect assessment of him.
Subject: [Disqus] Re: It's satire, get it?
http://www.creators.com/editorial_cartoons/2/42...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7YiNw5AMshg
The Democrat would be calm, cool & collected and make the points why it is wrong. The main reason, being is that they are lies.
Of course "those" fake TV people will continue to argue the opposite.
The Democrat would say it is wrong because there are lies. And a better comic would be one with the truth.
Then out of nowhere, the Democrat will take the National Review cover and point the truth of every piece on it.
Now THAT would be brilliant!
The Obama one, none of it is true!
Cindy McCain was actually a drug addict. John McCain is actually an old guy who supports the policies of Dick Cheney.
This is the only counter-satire I've seen that gets close to what the New Yorker published: http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5443/nymccai...
That would have helped to include the additional theme that Sin-Deed Stepford-McCane is one classy effing bitch...
After all, not every multi-millionaire with a bad dope habit would have been crafty enough to get their smack on for free by using their position with a charity to steal medications intended to obviate the bodily sufferings of the poor.
HOWEVER the difference is the Obama's cover DID NOT have ANY TRUTH. Barack is NOT a Muslim, neither of them are or have ever been
terrorists. There is NO connection to Osama Bin Laden. They both are patriotic NOT flag burners.
NO satire (since NO truth), offensive sterotyping (most Muslims are not terrorists) AND re-playing the lies and smears that they have been forced OVER and OVER again to combat. NOW they have to do it AGAIN OVER AND OVER AGAIN since it was regurgitated.
The fake National Review cover is only exaggeration and, while it may be amusing, doesn't qualify as satire. Everything depicted in the NR cover is based on fact and can be stretched to a point that may be funny, but it will never be satire.
For the New Yorker to do a satirical cover on McCain they would have to portray him as something he isn't - a rabidly drugged-out, hippy peacenik still living in the '60 (still living in the '60's may be partially true) say, and giving the Black Power salute during his Inaugeration Parade. Or, better yet, show a cow with McCain's face in a corral. The cow is looking at a cowboy (GWB) who has branded it (mavericks are unbranded cattle). That might qualify as satire since McCain has spent his entire career pretending to be a political maverick while he never has been. Not certain, though.
But to be an "exact" counterpart of the Obama cover, it would have to be based on the FALSE images the left is trying to spread to convince voters that McCain isn't what he says he is. The left isn't doing that; it's operating on the presumption that simply telling the TRUTH about McCain will convince voters he isn't what he says he is.
As for the NYer cover reinforcing beliefs held by some people about the Obamas; most of those people would be digging frantically to find something else anti-Obama if the right weren't so accomodating.