Favorite editorial cartoons: July 2009

[Gee-Perwin]

Robb, it's newsworthy if a member of the GOP has affairs. It's just expected that liberals have affairs, so it's not news when they cheat on their spouses and go to hookers. I think it's actually condoned.

It has to do with hypocrisy. The GOP has constantly touted itself as the "party of family values" yet they just keep having sex scandal after sex scandal. No one is saying the democrats don't have their own sex scandals, but they also don't go around claiming to be holier than thou.

Saying they are the party of family values is like saying Dems are the anti war party. It's all a bunch of crap from both sides.

Why can't more politicians talk like this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSRvnXtrmtE[/youtube]

 

[Duke Frost]

Robb, it's newsworthy if a member of the GOP has affairs. It's just expected that liberals have affairs, so it's not news when they cheat on their spouses and go to hookers. I think it's actually condoned.

It has to do with hypocrisy. The GOP has constantly touted itself as the "party of family values" yet they just keep having sex scandal after sex scandal. No one is saying the democrats don't have their own sex scandals, but they also don't go around claiming to be holier than thou.

So if a Democrat cheats on his wife, it's not hypocrisy? How about standing up before the state, God and friends and family and promising you'll be true to the one you're marrying? Adultery is adultery, and it's no worse if a Democrat or Republican does it.

So if you don't set standards for yourself (or your party), it's okay to be a slimeball. That's what I have learned from your response.

Scott

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Robb, it's newsworthy if a member of the GOP has affairs. It's just expected that liberals have affairs, so it's not news when they cheat on their spouses and go to hookers. I think it's actually condoned.

It has to do with hypocrisy. The GOP has constantly touted itself as the "party of family values" yet they just keep having sex scandal after sex scandal. No one is saying the democrats don't have their own sex scandals, but they also don't go around claiming to be holier than thou.

So if a Democrat cheats on his wife, it's not hypocrisy? How about standing up before the state, God and friends and family and promising you'll be true to the one you're marrying? Adultery is adultery, and it's no worse if a Democrat or Republican does it.

Absolutely, on an individual basis, sure it's hypocrisy, which is why hardly anyone supported the democrats who did those things, such as McGreevey and Spitzer and so on. (If you could read my old posts from the Clinton days, you will see that I was harsh on him as well, especially for not only cheating on his wife but for lying about it. You might remember...)

Just like it's hypocrisy for Jesse Jackson to claim to be a man of the cloth who apparently ignores one of the Ten Commandments.

Scott, you know me better than that. If there is one thing I value, it's honesty and truthfulness. People who say one thing and do another bug me to no end.

The key here is that there is a group -- the GOP -- that constantly proclaims they are the "party of family values" while criticizing the other party for contributing to the decline in family values for supporting gay marriage and so on. The party then deserves to be called hypocritical when it does not live by its own mantra, just like the Catholic church should take the blame for preaching against sin while looking the other way while its preachers molest children.

 

[Robb G]

so... the entire party cheated on their wives?

 

[Mike Ventrella]

so... the entire party cheated on their wives?

The entire party agreed with the mantra that they supported "family values" yes. Many (not all, fortunately) in the party continue to do this even when they themselves have been caught cheating (such as Gingrich and Guliani, for instance). If a party adopts a platform and then doesn't live by it, then yeah, sure, they deserve to be called hypocrites in the general sense. It doesn't mean every person in the party is one though.

 

[Duke Frost]

so... the entire party cheated on their wives?

The entire party agreed with the mantra that they supported "family values" yes. Many (not all, fortunately) in the party continue to do this even when they themselves have been caught cheating (such as Gingrich and Guliani, for instance). If a party adopts a platform and then doesn't live by it, then yeah, sure, they deserve to be called hypocrites in the general sense. It doesn't mean every person in the party is one though.

I find it funny that an aethiest brings up the ten commandments. You should also bring up then that God, especially in the form of Jesus Christ is a forgiving God. And that man is fallible and flawed and a sinner and that it if he is truly repentant, he will be forgiven. So one can be a religious person, cheat on your spouse, and continue to be religious without being a hypocrite. A sinner, yes, but not a hypocrite.

And by your logic, the entire Democratic party is a bunch of drunk drivers that kill women by driving off a bridge. I think that's just about the biggest political 'bye' in history. But he's a Kennedy, so even manslaughter (or perhaps even vehicular homicide) is forgiven.

And by your logic, every American who is against murder is a hypocrite, because there are murderers in America.

The cartoon and the logic are flawed.

Scott

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Oh good grief.

Look, if a company proclaims that its products are safe and it turns out they are not and the company knew it, then the company is hypocritical. It doesn't mean every single person in the company is.

If a LARP claims it treats everyone the same and it turns out that the owner allows all his friends to get XP for no reason, then the LARP is hypocritical. It doesn't mean everyone in the LARP is.

If the Democratic party claims to be the party that is against wasting money and yet a lot of its members create unneeded pork for their districts, then they would be hypocritical too.

Whenever a group proclaims they stand for something and then prominent members of that group do the exact opposite then yeah, of course, then that group is hypocritical, especially if they do nothing to rid themselves of those members who do not follow what they preach. I mean, that's just logical. That's the absolute definition of hypocrisy.

You're trying so hard to criticize the cartoon that you're throwing common sense definitions out the window.

 

[Duke Frost]

Oh good grief.

Look, if a company proclaims that its products are safe and it turns out they are not and the company knew it, then the company is hypocritical. It doesn't mean every single person in the company is.

If a LARP claims it treats everyone the same and it turns out that the owner allows all his friends to get XP for no reason, then the LARP is hypocritical. It doesn't mean everyone in the LARP is.

If the Democratic party claims to be the party that is against wasting money and yet a lot of its members create unneeded pork for their districts, then they would be hypocritical too.

Whenever a group proclaims they stand for something and then prominent members of that group do the exact opposite then yeah, of course, then that group is hypocritical, especially if they do nothing to rid themselves of those members who do not follow what they preach. I mean, that's just logical. That's the absolute definition of hypocrisy.

You're trying so hard to criticize the cartoon that you're throwing common sense definitions out the window.

If you say so Mike. You sure get frustrated when people don't agree with you.

Your first example is not valid. A company's product represents the entire company. If the GOP passed a law that made adultery legal, that would be a more parallel comparison.

In your second example, say the VP of Operations was doing this and the president didn't know, that makes the VP hypocritical, not the whole larp.

Your third example is entirely fantastical and has absolutely no grounding in fact in any universe, so is not valid.

While the actions of members of a group certainly reflect on that group, they do not characterize the entire group. And again, by your logic, all of the Democratic party goes to high price hookers and commit manslaughter.

You want the entire GOP to be hypocritical, so you like the cartoon and are seeing it with a very biased viewpoint.

At the end of the day, all these cartoons do is galvanize their base (just like Rush Limbaugh's show does) and leave the majority minority of independent voters a little bit more disillusioned by the whole system.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

So, apparently Scott, if a party proclaims it stands for something, and then evidence shows that it doesn't, it cannot be criticized? It is never hypocritical? What does it take?

My argument is that if members of that group do things counter to what that group stands for and the group does little to nothing to remove those members, then yes, the group is hypocritical. It is saying "We stand for this, except when we don't."

I have not said here once that the actions of one member reflect on the group as a whole, and in fact, I have said the exact opposite. However, when the group refuses to criticize or remove that member, then yes, the group has in effect approved that member's actions.

You are being so defensive that you are (a) mistaking the clear things I have written and (b) arguing in a way that I truly don't believe you agree with. Ignore the GOP part of it, and just ask yourself if a group stands for something and its members ignore it, shouldn't the group be criticized? Aren't they being hypocritical?

Take PETA, a group neither of us likes. The leadership of PETA was found to have euthanized many pets instead of finding them homes as they promised. The group did not demand that the leadership be removed. How is that not hypocritical?

 

[jpariury]

Saying they are the party of family values is like saying Dems are the anti war party. It's all a bunch of crap from both sides.

What is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? A Democrat blows; a Republican sucks. - Lewis Black

 

[Duke Frost]

So, apparently Scott, if a party proclaims it stands for something, and then evidence shows that it doesn't, it cannot be criticized? It is never hypocritical? What does it take?

My argument is that if members of that group do things counter to what that group stands for and the group does little to nothing to remove those members, then yes, the group is hypocritical. It is saying "We stand for this, except when we don't."

I have not said here once that the actions of one member reflect on the group as a whole, and in fact, I have said the exact opposite. However, when the group refuses to criticize or remove that member, then yes, the group has in effect approved that member's actions.

You are being so defensive that you are (a) mistaking the clear things I have written and (b) arguing in a way that I truly don't believe you agree with. Ignore the GOP part of it, and just ask yourself if a group stands for something and its members ignore it, shouldn't the group be criticized? Aren't they being hypocritical?

Take PETA, a group neither of us likes. The leadership of PETA was found to have euthanized many pets instead of finding them homes as they promised. The group did not demand that the leadership be removed. How is that not hypocritical?

So because I disagree with you I am defensive? But I'm not defending anyone. I'm not a Republican Mike, I'm an independent. I just happen to think the cartoon is crap. So because I disagree with you, I am wrong or at the very least "defensive". How typically political and polarizing. All that both parties do is point out how crappy the other is, with the help of cartoonists and other media. No one works together and everyone has a mindset of let's crucify the other guy instead of actually trying to fix problems.

I'm sure there are plenty of GOP leaning cartoons too...but no one takes the time to post them here.

I guess I find it hypocritical to point out all the flaws in one party and to post all kinds of cartoons about how much they suck while cannonizing the other party.

See JP's post above for the truth of the matter. Suck and blow.

Scott

 

[Mike Ventrella]

I am just trying to figure out what you're thinking Scott, and you certainly haven't answered me. When can a group be considered to be hypocritical? Is there any example you can think of?

 

[jpariury]

I find it funny that an aethiest brings up the ten commandments. You should also bring up then that God, especially in the form of Jesus Christ is a forgiving God. And that man is fallible and flawed and a sinner and that it if he is truly repentant, he will be forgiven. So one can be a religious person, cheat on your spouse, and continue to be religious without being a hypocrite. A sinner, yes, but not a hypocrite.

They probably shouldn't be a member of the clergy, though.

 

[Duke Frost]

I find it funny that an aethiest brings up the ten commandments. You should also bring up then that God, especially in the form of Jesus Christ is a forgiving God. And that man is fallible and flawed and a sinner and that it if he is truly repentant, he will be forgiven. So one can be a religious person, cheat on your spouse, and continue to be religious without being a hypocrite. A sinner, yes, but not a hypocrite.

They probably shouldn't be a member of the clergy, though.

Not necessarily. One of the apostles was a soldier that killed many people (can't think which one). Yet he became a right hand man of Jesus Christ.

Also, please note, I don't necessarily agree with this. But the precedent is there within Christianity that a repentant man can change and continue on with God's work, even as an apostle.

Scott

 

[Duke Frost]

I am just trying to figure out what you're thinking Scott, and you certainly haven't answered me. When can a group be considered to be hypocritical? Is there any example you can think of?

I'm thinking I'm sick of Democrats, Republicans and the sensationalistic media.

If it makes you feel better, I think Rush Limbaugh is a complete and utter *** too. Instead of being the face of the GOP, he should be hiding in shame.

So whether Democrat or Republican, infidelity to one's spouse is still the same. To me, you're making it seem okay for Democrats to cheat on their spouses.

Did Bill Clinton's cheating and lying make the entire Democratic party a bunch of hypocrites? After all, they didn't get rid of him either. And you don't get much higher up in a "group" than president.

Scott

 

[Mike Ventrella]

I find it funny that an aethiest brings up the ten commandments. You should also bring up then that God, especially in the form of Jesus Christ is a forgiving God. And that man is fallible and flawed and a sinner and that it if he is truly repentant, he will be forgiven. So one can be a religious person, cheat on your spouse, and continue to be religious without being a hypocrite. A sinner, yes, but not a hypocrite.

They probably shouldn't be a member of the clergy, though.

Not necessarily. One of the apostles was a soldier that killed many people (can't think which one). Yet he became a right hand man of Jesus Christ.

Also, please note, I don't necessarily agree with this. But the precedent is there within Christianity that a repentant man can change and continue on with God's work, even as an apostle.

Scott

Reminds me of the Steven Wright joke:

"I knew God wouldn't answer my prayers for money. So instead I robbed a bank and then prayed for forgiveness."

 

[Mike Ventrella]

I am just trying to figure out what you're thinking Scott, and you certainly haven't answered me. When can a group be considered to be hypocritical? Is there any example you can think of?

I'm thinking I'm sick of Democrats, Republicans and the sensationalistic media.

If it makes you feel better, I think Rush Limbaugh is a complete and utter *** too. Instead of being the face of the GOP, he should be hiding in shame.

So whether Democrat or Republican, infidelity to one's spouse is still the same. To me, you're making it seem okay for Democrats to cheat on their spouses.

Did Bill Clinton's cheating and lying make the entire Democratic party a bunch of hypocrites? After all, they didn't get rid of him either. And you don't get much higher up in a "group" than president.

Scott

I never said anything of the sort, Scott, and in fact said the opposite. My critcism of Clinton is documented.

The point once more is not whether people cheat on their spouses, it's whether they hold themselves to be above that while criticizing others of the same -- and then proving to be just as imperfect as everyone else. It's the hypocrisy that is being criticized here.

Had the GOP not constantly claimed to be "the party of family values" while being just as unfaithful as any Democrat then there wouldn't be an issue.

Don't go criticizing other people's **** for stinking and claiming that your **** doesn't stink. That's the issue.

 

[Gee-Perwin]

The point once more is not whether people cheat on their spouses, it's whether they hold themselves to be above that while criticizing others of the same -- and then proving to be just as imperfect as everyone else. It's the hypocrisy that is being criticized here.

If you make an oath to uphold The Constitution, you SHOULD be above that. I think that oath is more important than the promise you made to your spouse. It is the ultimate promise you could make in this country, so it has to be above family & loved ones.

Also, please don't assume everyone in a party agrees with the rhetoric spouted out by the loudest mouths. That just isn't the case no matter what cable news says.

 

[TheSaint]

Its true to an extent though, the GOP has touted itself as the party of family values. The main party rallies against such things as gay marriage and things considered detrimental to the spirit of traditional family and yet our own leaders have trouble keeping it in their pants. And then providing favors or paying off the families of the mistress to keep things going further. It doesnt make the party look good publicly speaking and its contributing to our own ills when it comes to national elections. It makes us ALL look bad. The saying goes is all it takes is one bad apple. When a democrat does it, its bad but we expect it from them...democrats dont preach family values nearly as much as we do. Doesnt make it right, but it makes us the "moral guardians" of "family values".

As for the assassination editorial...are we really criticizing the previous administration for this? I mean seriously its a great idea and no I don't agree with telling Congress. We've gone out and targeted enemy commanders in the past what makes this so different that they need to be told? If we have to tell Congress every plan that needs to be implemented to fight a war what happens the next time the US finds itself engaged in a conflict not against terrorists but a hostile state. Its a clandestine operation for a reason, its not for congress to be told "Hey we got a plan to kill al-Queda leaders...." , what sense does that make because if thats how we're fighting this war we might as well tell them how they can get into the US without any problems as well because we certainly wont be able to kill them in the field.

 

[jpariury]

I think that oath is more important than the promise you made to your spouse.

I'm not so sure I agree. I'd like to think that if my word to my spouse came into conflict with my word to my constituents or an ideal, I'd uphold the former over the latter.