Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for November 01, 2010

  1. Bill 1960
    Vista Bill Raley and Comet™  about 14 years ago

    So it’s all coming out now, is it?

     •  Reply
  2. 220px charles bowles aka black bart
    Steve Bartholomew  about 14 years ago

    Yeah, real subtle.

     •  Reply
  3. Deviant avatar
    Orion-13  about 14 years ago

    Almost as subtle as the MSM’s shilling for any Democrat, including the now-out-in-the-public phone conversations plotting to make up stories to damage non-Democrats at the polls.

    Almost as subtle as even MSM execs admitting that the MSM was totally in the tank for Obama.

    So…one station shills for Bush, the entire rest of the media shills for any Democrat. Seems fair and balanced to me, sure.

    Orion

     •  Reply
  4. Brockmonarch100
    ronebofh  about 14 years ago

    Orion-13 makes less sense than the spammers.

     •  Reply
  5. B3b2b771 4dd5 4067 bfef 5ade241cb8c2
    cdward  about 14 years ago

    Orion-13, you think the so-called MSM shills for Democrats only because they don’t fawn all over the GOPers. There’s a bit of a difference.

     •  Reply
  6. Andy
    Sandfan  about 14 years ago

    All TV news is a joke, but I have to wonder why all the hand wringing about Fox. Are the liberals so doctrinaire that they can’t abide a single opposing viewpoint?

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    Allison Nunn Premium Member about 14 years ago

    wonder what a short tank woman looks like?

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    JosephBidenJr99  about 14 years ago

    Orion-13 struck a raw nerve among the Dan Rather libs.

     •  Reply
  9. Jackcropped
    Nemesys  about 14 years ago

    I guess that by being the only network at the time that didn’t schill AGAINST Bush, Fox became the de facto network that schilled FOR him.

    Perhaps in retrospect, Fox should have joined the pack by selling Obama themed merchandise in its sovenier gift shop (NBC/MSNBS sells 29 items, including Obama Action Figures and “Yes, We Did!” t-shirts), or manufactured false evidence against Bush as CBS did. Then again, perhaps not going there was the right thing, as it’s rating and financial statements appear to validate.

    Of course, Garry (“Palin Doll Plots Death of Sleeping Children”) Trudeau never schills for or against anyone. Nope, never.

     •  Reply
  10. Me at 5
    NDeeZ  about 14 years ago

    JosephBidenJr99 said, about 1 hour ago

    “Orion-13 struck a raw nerve among the Dan Rather libs.”

    So I guess a years-old reference is all you got? It seems to me. if there was a provable “liberal bias,” it would be easy to keep your references current.

     •  Reply
  11. B w catpaw
    joefish25  about 14 years ago

    I facelifted my bar and it looks great!

     •  Reply
  12. Jackcropped
    Nemesys  about 14 years ago

    billdog, a schill is a fish, and congratulations! You’re the first sucker I’ve baited and caught today, and only 45 minutes in.

    I guess you had to say something, but when the discussion turns to comments about spelling instead of comments about substance, it’s like you’re running up the white flag.

     •  Reply
  13. Missing large
    charliesommers  about 14 years ago

    @sanfan … There is a vast difference between an opposing viewpoint and a lie. Example; Fox news pundits said nothing to contradict the two people who stated there was no terrorist attacks on Bush’s watch. They conveniently forgot about 9/11.

     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    silver29512  about 14 years ago

    shill    [shil] Slang –noun

    a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

    schill - no dictionary results

     •  Reply
  15. Missing large
    rotts  about 14 years ago

    Doppelspammerflaggen!

     •  Reply
  16. Cheetah crop 2
    benbrilling  about 14 years ago

    All: The only thing that bugs me more than spam is people who make comments about the spam’s content. Don’t you realize it will be gone soon and your posts won’t make any sense?

    Bildog: Be careful in posts criticizing people’s spelling. You misspelled syllable. (“Sylable” in case he has edited it.)

     •  Reply
  17. Mugc
    Frankr  about 14 years ago

    Orion13:

    I think you mean MSNBC. MSN is Methylsulfonylmethane

     •  Reply
  18. Jollyroger
    pirate227  about 14 years ago

    Yeah, reeeaaal subtle.

     •  Reply
  19. Rhadamanthus
    craigwestlake  about 14 years ago

    Just an update: I took action today with the appropriate persons. Now we will see if anything happens with the spam.

     •  Reply
  20. Missing large
    saw4fire  about 14 years ago

    It’s not just MSNBC (the worst offender), but NPR and the broadcast networks all fawned over Obama. The nomination, in front of those styrofoam Greek columns in Denver was comparable to canonizing Obama as a saint for that crowd.

    http://tinyurl.com/2f2y8x9 shows Mallard’s version.

     •  Reply
  21. Possum
    Possum Pete  about 14 years ago

    Maybe Nemesys meant Curt “The Big Schill” Schilling - another republican toolbag.

     •  Reply
  22. June 27th 2009   wwcd
    BrianCrook  about 14 years ago

    I read today’s Doonesbury strip at the Doonesbury website & then turned to Gocomics, thinking, The first comment will try to justify Fox by saying that the other networks were AGAINST Bush-Dick. I was wrong. It was the sixth comment, about two hours after the first. Since then, though, the claim that the non-Fox channels were either against Bush-Dick or for President Obama has reared its ugly and misguided head multiple times.

    Let us be clear: The problems with Fox News are

    (1) It is biased.

    (2) It denies that it is biased.

    (3) It promotes only one view.

    (4) It distorts or ignores facts.

    To state this neither ignores nor denies that the mainstream media lean toward the right. They are slightly biased in that direction. Of Fox News’ four problems, the mainstream media share at least the first two. The mainstream media’s bias, however, is much less than that of Fox, and we, occasionally see & hear discussion that presents a fair view with a hope of getting at the truth.

    Across the spectrum of mainstream media, Fox News stands at one of the greatest distances from getting at the truth or of being fair. Thus, Doonesbury’s joke that Roland thought that Fox News shilled for Bush-Dick subtly.

    I encourage all to turn off their televisions and take up reading—and not just books by Fox pundits. Try a few intelligent magazines and newspapers: Harper’s, The Nation, The Progressive, National Review, The New York Times, The Washington Post, & The Wall street Journal, &c.

     •  Reply
  23. June 27th 2009   wwcd
    BrianCrook  about 14 years ago

    A note on grammatical & orthographical correction: I applaud anyone who tries to get other opiners actually to read & proof-read their remarks. I find that most of the semi-literacy & unintelligibility comes from the regressive remarks, which, unfortunately, re-enforces notions that regressive political stances stem from lack of education, perhaps even stupidity, carelessness, and lack of consideration of others. One doesn’t want to feel this way, but when people don’t make their remarks readable it is the equivalent of entering the elevator reeking of body odor. This becomes, unfortunately, the aura of the right-wing.

     •  Reply
  24. Turkey2
    MisngNOLA  about 14 years ago

    Ok, so what do you call networks that don’t report on the fact that Bryan Lentz, a Democrat candidate in the state of Pennsylvania put forth a “shill” candidate in his race against Pat Meehan in order to draw voters away from his opponent rather than trying to convince them to vote FOR him.

     •  Reply
  25. B3b2b771 4dd5 4067 bfef 5ade241cb8c2
    cdward  about 14 years ago

    ^I’m not in Pennsylvania, so that wouldn’t be in my area news. However, show me the documentation for this. I’m trying to figure out how you get a “shill” candidate. And if I understand you to mean he got someone else to run as a third candidate in order to draw voters away - well, that’s a strange but not dishonest tactic. And unless you can show proof of it, it’s not a newsworthy rumor. And even if it is true, what makes it newsworthy?

     •  Reply
  26. Missing large
    rjbelt  about 14 years ago

    Isn’t it amazing that with Fox shilling for Bush and every other news outlet dumping on him America elected him anyway…twice.

    And what about the free ride Obama got past Hillary and McCain in 2008?

     •  Reply
  27. Missing large
    rjbelt  about 14 years ago

    Isn’t it amazing that with Fox shilling for Bush and every other news outlet dumping on him America elected him anyway…twice.

    And what about the free ride Obama got past Hillary and McCain in 2008?

     •  Reply
  28. Falconchicks1a
    RinaFarina  about 14 years ago

    …yawn… flagged the last two comments, which were spam - so what else is new?

     •  Reply
  29. Bla   version 2
    FriscoLou  about 14 years ago

    Now that Karma has stated her preference for the “Giant Pelosi’s”, we can turn back the tea on Tues.

    Go forth and vote. What’s the worse thing that can happen?

    I still think Buster Posey has the best baseball name in the Majors.

     •  Reply
  30. June 27th 2009   wwcd
    BrianCrook  about 14 years ago

    Yes, Belt, that is amazing, because, except for Fox’s shilling for Bush-Dick, none of what you said happened.

     •  Reply
  31. Turkey2
    MisngNOLA  about 14 years ago

    psychward, if you don’t see something seriously sleazy about one candidate putting up another with opposing views to his own to try and siphon off votes from his main competitor, I shudder to think what sort of ethics you’d expect from the persons you elect to represent you. A person who would do that obviously believes that his political stance is not sufficient to win the election at hand, and therefore works to subvert the will of the majority of voters in his district. I’d say the same about any Republican candidate who did the same thing. And of course we do have an historical basis to look at how elections can be influenced by third party candidates. When President Clinton was elected over President Bush (the elder) he was elected with a plurality of votes and not a majority. One could truly say in that election that the majority of voters voted against President Clinton, (and at the same time of course, say a majority also voted against President Bush), but the major difference in that election is that Mr. Clinton ostensibly had nothing to do with Ross Perot’s candidacy.

    Edit to add link to story:

    http://tinyurl.com/26ktajf

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Doonesbury