another round of TERRIBLE POLITICAL CARTOONS

[Samuel]

The second one is a valid satire of the fact that a right to abortion, gay marriage and socialized medicine is read into a document that is hundreds of years old and the authors of which had no knowledge of any of these things. It's an anachronistic reading of the document used to legitimize contemporary positions.

We don't exactly use the origional constitution to make these decisions. Accumulated constitutional law and the amendments makes the version that the government uses radically different that the origional. Although the changes being made are simply logically working out the consequences of some of the rules. If all states have to recognize legal documents from other states, marriage is a legal document and a state allows gay marriage... than other states have to recognize the right for gays to marry.

The third one does satirize a certain subclass of the liberal intelligentsia that puts on excessive gloves when dealing with Islam - for instance, there's the fact that many American newspapers refused to print the Danish Muhammad cartoons although they wrote about them in great amounts.

They didn't want to piss of the Muslim world more than they already have?

[bobalot]

The second one is a valid satire of the fact that a right to abortion, gay marriage and socialized medicine is read into a document that is hundreds of years old and the authors of which had no knowledge of any of these things. It's an anachronistic reading of the document used to legitimize contemporary positions.

So what? The constitution doesn't explicitly give anybody the right to drive a car. That doesn't mean it is explicitly forbidden. Constitution worship is retarded.

The third one does satirize a certain subclass of the liberal intelligentsia that puts on excessive gloves when dealing with Islam - for instance, there's the fact that many American newspapers refused to print the Danish Muhammad cartoons although they wrote about them in great amounts.

Can you actually provide a shred of evidence that this subclass is significant? Can you also prove that "liberal intelligentsia" was responsible for American Newspapers refusing to print the cartoon?

[Zed]

The second one is a valid satire of the fact that a right to abortion, gay marriage and socialized medicine is read into a document that is hundreds of years old and the authors of which had no knowledge of any of these things. It's an anachronistic reading of the document used to legitimize contemporary positions.

So what? The constitution doesn't explicitly give anybody the right to drive a car. That doesn't mean it is explicitly forbidden. Constitution worship is retarded.

Ofcourse it is. On the other hand, the Constitution is also the basis on which Prop. 8 was struck down.

The third one does satirize a certain subclass of the liberal intelligentsia that puts on excessive gloves when dealing with Islam - for instance, there's the fact that many American newspapers refused to print the Danish Muhammad cartoons although they wrote about them in great amounts.

Can you actually provide a shred of evidence for this?

I just gave you an example: the Danish cartoons. For a more concrete one, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html .

[Gil Hamilton]

As to the first one: I don't see a genuine moral argument to be made against polyamory; most of the moral arguments defending gay marriage can be extended to polyamorous marriages. It only becomes problematic in a legislative sense when one realizes the various practical issues involved, e.g. what happens if one person out of a marriage chooses to marry another, what are the risks involved when criminal cartels engage in marriages in order to obtain certain rights in court, et cetera.

There is no moral argument against polyamory. That's not illegal and does occur somewhat more regularly than most people expect. Polygamy is illegal for everyone, not just a particular group, and the valid reason being is alot of how a "marriage" interacts with the government is via taxes, which would get weird if you let a large group of people into a marriage contract. I suppose you are right that large groups of criminals could "marry" to gain the ability to not be compelled to testify against each other in court.

However, I can't think of any moral argument against a living arrangement where more than two consenting adults freely live together as spouses and collectively raise a family. Not all "polygamous" relationships have to be old "one man with multiple wives who are largely his servents" arrangement. That's where the political cartoon above is making the strawman, because the implicit statement is that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, all bets are off, as though Prop 8 was holding back the flood gates. The only way it could be worse there is if the guy was holding a sheep and said the same time.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ofcourse it is. On the other hand, the Constitution is also the basis on which Prop. 8 was struck down.

No, it's not. Did you even read the decision? The basis was the decisions of previous Supreme Court cases - specifically Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Romer v. Evans - and how they defined judicial interpretation of the 5th/14th Amendents (Due Process and Equal Protection). If Master of Ossus shows up he can give a more thorough breakdown, as well. So, yeah, learn what the fuck you are talking about before spewing this garbage.

[Zed]

Ofcourse it is. On the other hand, the Constitution is also the basis on which Prop. 8 was struck down.

No, it's not. Did you even read the decision? The basis was the decisions of previous Supreme Court cases - specifically Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Romer v. Evans - and how they defined judicial interpretation of the 5th/14th Amendents (Due Process and Equal Protection). If Master of Ossus shows up he can give a more thorough breakdown, as well. So, yeah, learn what the fuck you are talking about before spewing this garbage.

You're telling me that it's not based on the Constitution, but on court cases defining the interpretation of the Constitution? Wasn't that... my entire point?

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're telling me that it's not based on the Constitution, but on court cases defining the interpretation of the Constitution? Wasn't that... my entire point?

You said, "The second one is a valid satire of the fact that a right to abortion, gay marriage and socialized medicine is read into a document that is hundreds of years old and the authors of which had no knowledge of any of these things. It's an anachronistic reading of the document used to legitimize contemporary positions."

This is a vast oversimplification at best, and a gross misunderstanding of the process at worst. No one is "reading" these into the Constitution. If you had actually read the decision, instead of buying into Fox News talking points, you would realize that the judge used existing legal precedent. He's not adding anything into the Constitution or the law that wasn't there, he's making a logical determination based on the existing law of the land. Once again, read the fucking judge's decision, which is freely available online, before making claims about it. That cartoon is no more a "valid satire" than just saying, "RAR LIBERALS RUINING AMURICA."

[Crossroads Inc.]

Speaking of "RAR LIBERALS RUINING AMURICA."

RAR!!! Liberals destroy Economy!


RAR!!! Obama Destroys everything!


Yeah Hanging people is fun!


Can't go a day without getting Ground Zero in!

And finally another Chuck Asay "cartoon" that crosses over into Chick Track territory!

[Zixinus]

RAR!!! Obama Destroys everything!

Isn't it actually a local issue? I mean, it's about what to do about certain areas in New York. That sounds like a problem for New York, no?

Image
Can't go a day without getting Ground Zero in!

Now this is just not witty. It isn't even making it clear how the idea (building a mosque near "ground zero") was supposed to be hurtful.

And finally another Chuck Asay "cartoon" that crosses over into Chick Track territory!

I simply don't get that one. I mean, the answer to the gunman's question is "dead people".
And which "IAM" is he referring to? The French Rock band? Institute of Advanced Motorists? What?

[Crossroads Inc.]

This has got to be up there with Glenn McCoys infamous cartoon of Obama whacking aborted fetuses in a dumpster.

[DrMckay]

Not a terrible political cartoon per se, but Kate Beaton's latest satirizes the dumbing-down of images used in media (use of unnecessary labels,) in this comic

Code: Select all

[url]http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=277[/url]

Pretty good criticism of the Chuck Asay stuff...

[Kanastrous]

^^ looks like Obama is driving a stake through the hearts of 9-11 victims so they don't rise to suck the blood of the living.

Weird.

[Isolder74]

Lets add that the cartoonist has neglected to add the muslim tapdancing on the grave. He's just standing there.

I hate this no mosque garbage so much especially because it's not even being built anywhere really near Ground Zero just on the same island as Ground Zero.

[Kanastrous]

He's standing there smiling evilly. That's an adequate substitute for a tap dance.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The Community Center two blacks from where the Twin Towers were... I'm sorry... The Ground Zero Mosque has not only become the latest shriek fest by the right, but morphed into a bizarre template like the oil disastor that is increasingly having other issues put onto it.


Love this one just cause it comes right with the OMG! Ground Zero is sacred ground!!!


This is a good one, not because of the shrieking OMG! Pelosi nonsense, but the assertion that its 'good Americans' who are against the Community Center.


Same thing here. Questioning the protesters makes you a wacky nuthead... But the Protestors themselves are just good patriotic Americans.


And this is a good one if just to display what so many people THINK the community center is going to look like. Seriously turn on Faux News and you'll here people talking about a huge building with minarets domes and Muslim crescents everywhere.


Tossing this one in just because its a great example of the right wing mentality that any, ANY criticism against them means your an overly PC liberal Hippy nutjob. But of course THEY are free to call Obama a Traitor as good patriotic Americans.

[Uraniun235]

RAR!!! Obama Destroys everything!

It's probably already obvious to everyone by now but I think it bears repeating: Chuck Asay really does completely buy into trickle-down, he really thinks that if we just "got out of the way of business", we'd magically all have jobs and everything would work itself out.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It's probably already obvious to everyone by now but I think it bears repeating: Chuck Asay really does completely buy into trickle-down, he really thinks that if we just "got out of the way of business", we'd magically all have jobs and everything would work itself out.

I won't repost it, but check this link out for a true example of just how deluded Chuck's belief of "economics" are:
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/ ... 070728.jpg

Oh one other thing I didn't notice earlier about the pic you reposted Uraniun, But the image of Obama with his foot on the necks of those "people" is a direct use of the line by Rand Paul that "Obama has his foot crushing the neck of BP" when Rand was bitching about how mean Obama was to the oil company. Which is a good bet that Chuck Agrees with Rand 100%

[Isil`Zha]

oops! Factual error! Actual proposed site of mosque near ground zero. (About - it was the only address I could find for the actual proposed site.)

It's not actually on ground zero...

[Crossroads Inc.]

Another round up of hysteria over the "Ground Zero Mosque!!!"






That last one there... That wholeheartedly encapsulates the true emotions the far right feel right now... It isn't just that Evil Muslim Terroists are building a "Mosque" on "ground zero". it is that they, as always, live in Fear that the act of opposing such horrors will in turn open themselves as targets. That at any moment a group of Liberal "Gestapo" will crash through the door and whisk you all away to evil Liberal Concentration camps.

Also, there is of course the "Help Im being oppressed" aspect of this.
How many 'cartoons' have we see that play to this? Of the moment anyone stands up, and begins to call out the Far right for what they truly are, racists, bigots, homophobes, that we see a slew of "cartoons" mocking the very notion of calling them on this. How many cartoons of the angry black thug calling the helpless innocent tea party bad names? Or off the mad, mindless Liberal calling everything he sees names and good Americans just rolling their eyes. That when people stand up and again and again call your side "Racists, Bigots, Homophobes' that maybe, JUST maybe there is a Reason why they do this...

[End Rant]

Ok, Lets do a Chuck,

One of Chucks Staples is his "NEWS ITEM!" cartoons. he hears about something, gets all indignant about it, and then usually concocts some utterly half-backed strawman/slippery slope cartoon indicating his 'view point'
Now as we all Chuck is a rabid fundi. This was the man who the night after Obama's election drew the now infamous "Open the Bloodgates!' And it is well known his opinions on sex. Here we see his natural ZOMG!!! reaction to a sensible situation, passing out condoms and contraceptives, met with his standard "Evil Liberals infecting good American Families!"

And finally we have this

Why do I consider this TERRIBLE? Purely for the implication that McCain was only "acting" conservative for the Arizona primaries (which he won handily).
There very idea that there are those in the Right Wing who still see McCain as "Too Liberal" or a 'RINO' as enough to churn my stomach.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't know about the last one being TERRIBLE. That's about right. McCain did have a hard primary race from Hayworth, and really did up his conservative rhetoric alot in order to keep himself viable here in Arizona. He did so even more with the presidential race, sucking up to the christian right and Falwell even though previously he didn't precisely have very nice things to say about them. Hayworth gave McCain a closer primary than it rightfully should have been, and part of it really was the view that McCain only really had shifted to the right in order to keep getting elected now that the conservative grassroots guys are feeling their oats (hence Hayworth's somewhat snide motto "J.D. Hayworth: The Consistent Conservative" that have been on all the picket signs around town).

In fact, I'd even consider that a good political cartoon, since McCain's hypocrisy is that pretty transparant.

[PeZook]

Also, it's actually clever. It doesn't treat the reader like a mouth-breathing idiot.

[Johonebesus]

Is it just me, or does the kid in the condom cartoon look a bit androgynous? Since he/she mentions "Bobby," is there a potential dig at gays too?

[PeZook]

Is it just me, or does the kid in the condom cartoon look a bit androgynous? Since he/she mentions "Bobby," is there a potential dig at gays too?

I wouldn't put it beyond Asay to rage on gays as well, but I doubt he's that subtle. More likely, he just can't draw worth shit (his people have really odd proportions...just about the only person he can draw consistently are old ladies, for some reason)

[Shroom Man 777]

They should just relocate Mecca to the 9/11 site and just be done with it. Then every September 11, all the Mohammedians can have their Ramadan there and all the Americans can shut the fuck up.

[Kanastrous]

Oh gawd. Does our future hold cartoons of thousand of Muslims circumambulating Ground Zero...?