Favorite editorial cartoons: May 09

[Mike Ventrella]

 

[Mike Ventrella]

 

[Mike Ventrella]

 

[Agahi]

 

[Mike Ventrella]

 

[Robb G]

I like this one. it's a good representation of the mindset of most liberals I know. They literally do believe all republicans are fat white racist christian hicks with barns full of assault rifles and IQ's of 50-60 who hang on every word of people like Rush, Bush, Cheney, etc... while they themselves are educated, refined, civilized, able to meet all problems with diplomatic, intelligent, non-violent responses. Look at the way reps are depicted in every single comic mike posts here. 80% of them will fit into 1 or all of the categories I listed. I guess it's good that libs are the open minded ones then...

 

[Ezri]

I don't think all liberals think that all republicans are right wing nutjobs.

As is the case in so many other areas, the handful of loud, extreme personalities just get most of the attention. And whether it's a republican or a democrat extremist spouting stuff, you can bet the moderates on the other side are going to be annoyed. Hell just because I'm a democrat doesn't mean I agree with every left-wing super liberal there is out there.

Sadly I have met enough extremists on both sides of the coin to know that these stereoypes are based on some truth. Again, not to imply that everyone is like that, but they're out there.

 

[Robb G]

true, i just am not a fan of propagating this kind of bias. I would say these cartoonists (some of them) are themselves extremists as they are propagating the stereotypes. How does it help us as a society to focus so much on these extremist viewpoints? how is it different than posting racist comics and us all having a good chuckle about the sterotype depicted there? is it because the target of the jest has chosen the ideology rather than being born into it? don't get me wrong, i am all for freedom of speech and press (hahaha like we have a real "press" anymore) so post away, but I contemplate the value of these things.

 

[Duke Frost]

I read the other day that for the first time that independents are the largest minority amongst voters, something like 36 or 38%. Of these, most are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

So maybe there's hope. Maybe if people keep moving in this direction, then there will be a third choice that could actually win. Neither Dems nor Repubs can win without the independents, but independents are afraid to "waste their vote" on a third candidate.

Both dems and repubs are mired in years of history and bias. They are the old guard...and instead of moving to be more moderate and tolerant, both are moving more to the extreme, at least that's how the media portrays them.

Maybe we'll see that third, moderate party in our lifetimes. Change like this is glacial though, and it may take longer than that. But change can happen. After all, we haven't had a whig president in quite some time.

I agree wholeheartedly with Robb though, these types of political cartoons just set any progress back by even further polarizing the readers instead of bringing tolerance or understanding. But then again, it's a lawyer posting them.

Scott
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

 

[Mike Ventrella]

I agree that when either party moves too far to either side, it's bad for the country, and it's not the way to win elections. I know some may think Obama is a crazy liberal, but I think he's a pretty moderate guy -- he doesn't even support gay marriage.

There are certainly wild eyed crazies (on both sides) who hurt legitimate discussion. The cartoon above is criticizing the Rush Limbaugh / **** Cheney extremists on the right who see anyone who is to the left of them as communists and radicals, while not realizing that they are the ones who are the radicals.

 

[Duke Frost]

Even if the president is moderate, he can only do so much. Obama sure has proven liberal in spending our (and our children's) money. It's still way too early to judge him though.

Scott

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Even if the president is moderate, he can only do so much. Obama sure has proven liberal in spending our (and our children's) money. It's still way too early to judge him though.

Scott

By that standard alone (spending money), Bush was a liberal!

 

[Robb G]

Even if the president is moderate, he can only do so much. Obama sure has proven liberal in spending our (and our children's) money. It's still way too early to judge him though.

Scott

By that standard alone (spending money), Bush was a liberal!

he was. bush was a shitty shitty conservative. he was the kind that preaches the religiosity and builds bigger government. worst kind there is.

 

[Duke Frost]

Even if the president is moderate, he can only do so much. Obama sure has proven liberal in spending our (and our children's) money. It's still way too early to judge him though.

Scott

By that standard alone (spending money), Bush was a liberal!

I'm pretty certain Bush isn't in office anymore. So how is this relevant?

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Even if the president is moderate, he can only do so much. Obama sure has proven liberal in spending our (and our children's) money. It's still way too early to judge him though.

Scott

By that standard alone (spending money), Bush was a liberal!

I'm pretty certain Bush isn't in office anymore. So how is this relevant?

The point is that you can't label something as being "liberal" when it was overwhelmingly approved by conservatives as well.

 

[Robb G]

that's a very 2 dimensional statement. bush was a social conservative, but an economic liberal. obama is a social AND economic liberal. economic liberalism is the problem.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

that's a very 2 dimensional statement. bush was a social conservative, but an economic liberal. obama is a social AND economic liberal. economic liberalism is the problem.

True enough on both of those things, although I disagree of course that economic liberalism is the problem. After all, it was uncontrolled capitalism and reduced regulations got us into this mess.

 

[Duke Frost]

that's a very 2 dimensional statement. bush was a social conservative, but an economic liberal. obama is a social AND economic liberal. economic liberalism is the problem.

True enough on both of those things, although I disagree of course that economic liberalism is the problem. After all, it was uncontrolled capitalism and reduced regulations got us into this mess.

"Economic liberals" decided everyone should be able to own a house (Bill Clinton anyone?) so banks were pressured into making loans they should have never made and regulations were relaxed. Greedy brokers made their commissions on loans that never should have been made and banks were left holding very bad mortgages. The banks also should have known better and never should have made these loans. It was an "economic liberal" that deregulated and pushed banks to make these loans. And uneducated home buyers snapped up these loans because they couldn't resist the carrot dangled in front of them, even if it was a carrot they couldn't afford. People were too lazy, too uneducated or just plain too dumb to do their research and realize they could not pay off these loans after their initial rates went up in 5-7 years. And now they are losing their houses.

People were spoiled and greedy on many fronts. It had nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with the darker side of human nature.

I bought my house at the top of the bubble...and I can still afford to live in it because I did my research and did not overextend my reach. When my real estate agent and mortgage broker told me I could buy a houst 100k or even 200k more expensive, I told them they were nuts.

Regardless, spending money because we don't have enough money is a ludicrous way to solve an economic problem. And that's what our "economic liberals" continue to do.

Scott

 

[Mike Ventrella]

that's a very 2 dimensional statement. bush was a social conservative, but an economic liberal. obama is a social AND economic liberal. economic liberalism is the problem.

True enough on both of those things, although I disagree of course that economic liberalism is the problem. After all, it was uncontrolled capitalism and reduced regulations got us into this mess.

"Economic liberals" decided everyone should be able to own a house (Bill Clinton anyone?) so banks were pressured into making loans they should have never made and regulations were relaxed.

I don't consider "relaxed regulation" as economically liberal, even if Clinton did it (any more than bailouts are fiscally conservative just because Bush did it).

People were too lazy, too uneducated or just plain too dumb to do their research and realize they could not pay off these loans after their initial rates went up in 5-7 years. And now they are losing their houses.

People were spoiled and greedy on many fronts. It had nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with the darker side of human nature.

I agree about the blame going around, but I do disagree that it has "nothing to do with capitalism." It just shows how there needs to be controls on capitalism. Without regulation, we get (historically) terrible working conditions, unsafe products and child labor, and more recently unfettered markets and speculation without support leading to our current economic situation.

Regardless, spending money because we don't have enough money is a ludicrous way to solve an economic problem. And that's what our "economic liberals" continue to do.

Scott

Well, you may recall from earlier posts here that I too disagreed with the bailouts -- although I do support investing in infrastructure and other projects that put people to work and stimulate the economy. That's different than merely handing out money to companies that were so poorly run they fell apart.

 

[Gee-Perwin]

Scott & Robb, check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Mar ... 1596985879

Thomas Woods does an amazing job of explaining why the free market works, and why we haven't had a truly free market thanks in large part to the Federal Reserve. We've had nothing but keynesian economics in charge of things for so long (R's & D's). This book challenges their school of thought and helps to explain to anyone why we should be following the school of Austrian Economics (hell, even I was able to understand).

This really is a must own if you want to learn about what's been going on.

While you're at it, preorder this sure to be awesome book:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/ ... 924&sr=1-1