islander wrote: 

Think about the Danish newspaper publishing those cartoons that members of the Islamic community found offensive.   

 Proclivities wrote: 

A commercial printer will print almost anything for a fee. Many a sign that attacked Mr. Bush in the most vile, vulgar and pernicious manner, looked to be professionally done.

 islander wrote: 

Indeed. Offended when anyone is compared to Hitler, more so, a US President as the comparison.

 musik_knut wrote: 
So if you were offended by the Bush/Hitler images, then you should also be offended by the Obama/Hitler images right? Else you would also be practicing hypocrisy.

I am actually offended by both, but also think that they are well covered by free speech. Blatant hyperbole and offensiveness are the shock tools to get people to acknowledge your message when the content can't stand on its own.  No one ever promised that you (the larger you/we/all of us)  wouldn't be offended.

 EleventhMan wrote: 
what about 'em?
 

 oldviolin wrote: 
and the potatoes...don't forget them!  

 oldviolin wrote: 

When we outlaw myopia, only the trees will have eyes...

 musik_knut wrote: 
I think the word you're searching for is "us."

 musik_knut wrote: 
I agree with your points.  I took issue with Durbin's assertions back then as well, and there certainly are "zanies" on both sides.  I am all for free speech, and it is the right of those (or any) protestors to voice or depict their dissatisfaction.  What I find offensive is that some "commercial" or "professional" entity would produce such an offensive graphic: that wasn't just some hand-made sign produced by a disgruntled individual.

Who among you objected to those side by side photos of Hitler and Bush? Free speech can be offensive to our senses but it cannot be stifled. Those who would protest unfavorable depictions of Mr. Obama and remained silent when the same was done to Mr. Bush or any with whom they disagree, practice hypocrisy at its highest and most transparent level. And who made a greater vulgar use of a holocaust comparison than did Sen. Durbin, D-IL, who compared US Guards at Gitmo to guards at Auschwitz and Buchenwald? Both sides have zanies among them and both have those who express raw hatreds, too.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Unfortunately, they can..and will.  It's particularly classy to trivialize the holocaust for narrow-minded political agendas.  It's unlikely that those feeble-minded "patriots" made many of those posters by themselves, so who did?

Could people go any lower?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/the-12-most-offensive-sig_n_347398.html?slidenumber=fnxv9Uzi%2Ffk%3D

Just wow:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/11/tea-party%E2%80%99s-takeover-gop

Ummmmmmmm.....no

This space reserved for nonsense to be uttered today concerning the Nobel Peace prize award, and it's most recent recipient - call me a prophet

 Lazy8 wrote: 
...and that's another BIG point to Mr. Lazy8! 

 Atman wrote:
 
Um, dandy. But a thread titled "RightWingNutZ" probably isn't the place for this particular discussion...tho I appreciate the irony of discussing a book that "fosters deep listening, respect, and empathy and engenders a mutual desire to give from the heart" in a thread mocking a particular political faction.

 Atman wrote: 
"Capitalism", a documentary and basic polemic film, opens against "Zombieland" and "Toy Story 3D" and "The Invention of Lying" and still manages to garner a solid showing?  Very respectable.  Plus, it's getting good basic reviews from both viewers and "authentic" reviewers.

I think Michael has done another acceptably good job.

I think that another wingnut has been exposed.