Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Cartoon for July 3

Much as they did in 1992, liberals are imagining that the Democratic nominee will be the Liberal Avenger.

Posted by at

28 comments:

  1. ClownstotheleftjokerstotherightJuly 3, 2008 at 7:07 AM

    Excellent TREK reference!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aggie DudeJuly 3, 2008 at 8:58 AM

    This argument is a victory for conservatives every time: At least you know where they stand (sort of), and allows them to win elections with outrageous ideological positions that have been known to be moronic and ineffective for centuries.

    Consequently, this is why Pat Buchanan loves to quote 18th Century English philosophers....it's the last time his ideological ilk had anything reasonable to say.

    I knew dozens of people my own age who voted for Jesse Helms because "at least you know where he stands,"

    I suppose it's my fault for putting the cart before the horse, believing that maybe we're emerging from the dark cloud of ideological purity tests.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thomas DaultonJuly 3, 2008 at 10:35 AM

    Geez, this is sooo sooo true, (plus a Trek reference to boot! Thanks ! !)

    However, it wasn't just 1992 when that happened. Even as late as 2000, when I posted stuff on my website about how Al Gore was proposing a larger military budget and more Star Wars than George Bush, people would write me and say (and I quote) "He'll drop all those things once he gets into office, he's only saying that to fool the hicks in the South, you have to read between the lines."

    Sorry, Aggie Dude, I think it might actually be more intelligent to vote for [or against] a candidate because "you know where he stands" rather than voting for him because you fantasize that he agrees with you. At least it's realistic. I think, I hope, I pray, that the last eight years of unresponsiveness on the part of the Democrats has really taught people a lesson: when a candidate expresses support for something, {like, say, telecom immunity or bombing Iran}, -- even conditional support -- then what it means is that they support it. So if you do not support that idea, and the idea is important enough to you, then you might consider voting for someone else, or else the policy you disfavor is likely to pass with the help of your vote.

    Corollary: if you think your favorite candidate is lying or exaggerating or otherwise misleading voters with his statements, and that you know his "true" stance, well the odds are better than even that you are the one being deceived, not the other voters.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJuly 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM

    No vessel under any condition, emergency or otherwise, is to visit Talos IV.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AndersJuly 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM

    I'm pretty sure even Hitler had slogans about bringing about some not-entirely-determinable Change and uniting people of all classes and social backgrounds... And yes, I saw what you were doing with the 'Hello-Kitty' banners :D

    ...And henceforth, Godwin's law is in play...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Natasha Yar-RouthJuly 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM

    Obama is at best a moderate conservative who, now that he's won the nomination, is drifting right.

    The only real reasons to vote for him are that he will make better judicial nominations then McCain would and the large number of racist wingnuts who will suffer apoplexy when he is sworn in.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Reverend Mr. SmithJuly 3, 2008 at 5:23 PM

    Hey, natasha yar-routh, that's EXACTLY why I'm voting for Him too, and the only reasons.

    Did anybody hear about the latest Obama controversy? He was speaking in Philadelphia and accidentally touched the Liberty Bell, healing the famous crack. (rim shot, sad trumpet sound, audience groans)

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousJuly 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM

    If the O man keeps "swinging to the center" Huckabee!Huckabee!Huckabee! Dude you should join Angel and I, buy a gun and get ready. After all if you get in a fight and the other guy is beating on you. Do you say, Please Stop. Or do you swing back? Either way the fight is going to end.

    ReplyDelete
  9. korean draculaJuly 3, 2008 at 7:26 PM

    T-Dault nails it where the entire "progressive" internets fails. Conditional support is support; this is why we attach the word "support" to the end. Being English speakers, you'd think more people would've caught on.

    Read the comments on Daily Kos or any other left-of-paleolithic blog. Every other post is full of delusional projection. To everyone out there in internets land saying he's just doing it for the lulz and the votes, go re-learn English. You've got a cranial artery with a dangerous HOPE/CHANGE blockage.

    ReplyDelete
  10. EdwardJuly 3, 2008 at 7:51 PM

    ...racist wingnuts who will suffer apoplexy when he is sworn in.

    Ummmm you better look at the racist nuts in your party that wouldn't vote for Obama. Last I checked Obama had a tough time with white working class Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousJuly 3, 2008 at 10:25 PM

    "Obama is at best a moderate conservative who, now that he's won the nomination, is drifting right.

    The only real reasons to vote for him are that he will make better judicial nominations then McCain would and the large number of racist wingnuts who will suffer apoplexy when he is sworn in."
    - natasha yar-routh

    So it's "Bill Clinton II: Electric Booglaoo"...I fear that McCain will choose a real asshole as Veep, then die, leaving us in a worse position (like invading Canada because they use vinegar on their French fries.) Obama will be the symbolic candidate "proving" that the US has overcome racism, which will be useful when the Chinese (with German help) finally buy America and turn it into a theme park.

    I always though Pike should have had a funky computer voice, or been able to beep out Morse code. Me, I'd want the computer to give me James Earl Jones's voice if I was a limbless, radiation-scarred wreck permanently stuck in a thought-contolled wheelchair.

    - Strelnikov

    ReplyDelete
  12. Aggie DudeJuly 4, 2008 at 5:39 AM

    Anders,

    Your analogy is really off. Hitler had very clear plans and made them clear at the time. There is a substantive difference between the rhetoric of the two leaders, in that there is very little evidence to suggest Obama is going to veer the country so wildly off course as Bush has done with the US or Hitler did with Germany.

    Imagine what our country would have been like if someone of GW Bush's qualifications had scooped up the 1932 election? Someone who cynically uses fear and war mongering to shadow their personal greed and professional incompetence might have used the economic turmoil in the United States to make a hard right into the politics of bigotry, leading to militarism and ethnic cleansing in the US as well (though our record is not stellar in that regard, it's not quite up to the standards of National Socialism).

    I just don't understand how people can take Ted's satires here to work their way into believing Obama is not the better choice this November. I think he has remarkable potential, and he is no more or less faulty than many of the leaders who have turned extraordinary after being elected.

    We have a faulty electoral system, faulty electorate, and faulty candidates. To quote Barry Goldwater, "..Grow up..this is your party" Or perhaps Americans have given up to the extent that they want our current leaders to just stay in power indefinitely? That way the neo-cons can talk themselves into believing the ship isn't sinking, and the rest of us can self-righteously point our fingers and say "we told you so!"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ted RallJuly 4, 2008 at 8:41 AM

    Obviously Obama is a better choice than McCain. Obama, for one thing, is a sentient, organic life form.

    But oh, how I long for Edwards. Were Obama as serious about earning the votes of the Democrats' progressive base as McCain is about earning those of the Republicans' right-wing base, he'd at least name Edwards as his veep.

    This all highlights the problem of a two-party system: Sure, one choice is better than the other. But it still sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. EdwardJuly 4, 2008 at 8:53 AM

    Happy Independence Day Marxists. The rest of us will be out enjoying the day while you high minded deep thinking nuanced types will ponder how much America sucks. Enjoy your bitterness!

    ReplyDelete
  15. ClownstotheleftjokerstotherightJuly 4, 2008 at 8:59 AM

    "sentient, organic life form." LOL!

    But, would Edward even settle for the #2(in every sense of the term) spot twice in a row?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Aggie DudeJuly 4, 2008 at 9:34 AM

    Oh happy HAPPY day!!!!! Happy 4th of July to all, Jesse Helmes is DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thank you for your snipe, Edward. . . is your first name John? as in..John Edward (not to be confused with John Edwards)? that would be funny.

    I do celebrate the 4th of July, thanks for trying to make it sound like I'm not an American, I know that's what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousJuly 4, 2008 at 10:01 AM

    Aggie,

    I don't follow Pat Buchanan, so I don't know which 18th century philosophers he likes to quote. If he's quoting people like John Locke or Thomas Payne, he should go right on quoting them until someone listens. Both the right and the left can use a dose of common sense. (Pun only partially intended.)

    Also, if Bush had taken power in 1932 would he have done so by accusing his opponent of being a Red for creating public works projects for the needy and unemployed? Would he then flip flop and enact a much more draconian set of economic controls? Would he stack the supreme court to make sure that these unconstitutional programs get passed? Would he give military support to colonizers and dictators in order to thwart arguably worse colonizers and dictators? Would this ensure U.S. involvement in a bloody war? Would he hold loyal U.S. citizens in interment camps without Habeas Corpus?

    I submit to you that Bush is every bit as good as his 1932 counterpart. Its his buddies Blair, Musharraf, and Bin Ladin that lack the flair of their WW II vs War on Terror counterparts.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AngeloJuly 4, 2008 at 10:38 AM

    Last I checked Obama had a tough time with white working class Democrats.

    Yeah, 'cause Alan Keyes did so well.

    what a tool.

    enjoy Independence Day, if you can afford to.

    ReplyDelete
  19. EdwardJuly 4, 2008 at 12:14 PM

    Aggie,
    I have never accused you of not being American. However, that you would celebrate the death of anyone makes you a hate-filled American in my opinion. You have plenty of company over at Democrat Underground. Very high-minded and intellectual of you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. EdwardJuly 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM

    BTW Aggie, can you say "Independence Day"? Or is "4th of July" less nationalistic (or racist since you believe they are both the same).

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousJuly 4, 2008 at 1:13 PM

    Aggie,

    John Edward and John Edwards, I always get the two confused. I know one is a charlatan who often appears on TV and helps you talk to your dead loved ones. The other is a charlatan who helps you collect the full cash redemption value for your dead loved ones. He often appears on TV too and also gets you money for your retarded loved ones. Which is which?

    ReplyDelete
  22. AngeloJuly 5, 2008 at 4:51 PM

    Edward said: Obama had a hard time getting the white vote.

    angelo said: Alan Keyes.

    edward said: ...

    ReplyDelete
  23. EponymousJuly 5, 2008 at 8:20 PM

    Aggie,
    I have never accused you of not being American. However, that you would celebrate the death of anyone makes you a hate-filled American in my opinion.
    Edward,
    If you were alive in '45, would you have celebrated the death of Hitler? For similar reasons, I can celebrate the death of Jesse Helms.

    ReplyDelete
  24. AnonymousJuly 7, 2008 at 1:12 PM

    "This all highlights the problem of a two-party system: Sure, one choice is better than the other. But it still sucks."

    Ted,
    I have been reading your column for some time, and reading the comments to them as well, but have not heard any mention of Ralph Nader, there I said it. What are your thoughts and why isn't any one talking about him?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ted RallJuly 7, 2008 at 1:58 PM

    I may end up voting for Ralph again, if for no other reason that voting tactically is stupid. From what I hear, he's polling six percent--not bad for a guy who can't get covered in the media even if he seizes a TV station at gunpoint.

    The media decides who gets to be a "real" candidate, and "third party" candidates don't rise to the level of getting ignored. Look at what they did to John Edwards. Down the memory hole!

    Of course, Edwards is a dangerous man. If elected, he wouldn't give a shit about vested interests or getting reelected. So he had to be deprived of coverage. Same thing happened to Huckabee on the right.

    Bottom line: the two parties collude so that there are really only two choices. Only revol--er, reform--will change that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. AnonymousJuly 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM

    Ted,
    First, thank you for responding. However, if true candidates for change are to ever get their message heard, it is forums such as this where they could (and should) be discussed. There are many intelligent people that post hear. Why not more talk about rev--, reform. Or true reform.

    ReplyDelete
  27. AngeloJuly 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM

    "Why not more talk about rev--, reform. Or true reform."

    We all need to become conservative so we can help this country utterly destroy itself. Then, it wont matter what we say. Things will change for the better, and for the long term.

    VOTE McCAIN.

    ReplyDelete
  28. AnonymousJuly 10, 2008 at 9:50 AM

    "if for no other reason that voting tactically is stupid" -- Ted Rall


    This pretty much sums up everything wrong with you in one sentence. Thanks for the encapsulation!

    BTW, how's that been working out for you...?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)