Oliphant's latest.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Hmm.
I know we've all thought it before now (Faux's agenda being what it is) but this is the first time that I've seen it as a cartoon. If anyone digs up a previous instance it would be interesting to compare.

Comments

[chasovschik.livejournal.com]

You guys look the wrong way. Birthers are nothing. There are more important things. There is his signature legislation and the way he handles it. There is his approach to international affairs. There is his staffing achievements. He actually gave a lot of material to thing about.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

There is his signature legislation and the way he handles it.

What about the way he's handling it is wrong? Is he handling it wrong, or are opponents who gladly promote that special needs children and the elderly will be killed off by government decree wrong?

There is his approach to international affairs.

What about his approach to international affairs is wrong?

There is his staffing achievements.

What about his staffing achievements is wrong? Is the manner in which his staffing achievements are disputed wrong, as well?

Is it right to claim people put on his staff are out to destroy America?

So far the strong majority of his opponents seem to focus on conspiracy theories, xenophobia, and declarations of which people are and are not "true Americans".

Is that a sign that the President failed, or that America itself is failing?

[chasovschik.livejournal.com]

1. Want to blame his opponents only? For starters, that would mean he underestimated his opponents. He did, actually. And that wasn't his only mistake - he got wrong his allies too.

2. His approach is unrealistic. Other than that it's OK.

3. What's wrong with his staffing achievements? Even you have to know that by now. If his appointee is vulnerable to whatever critics can find, that means it was a mistake. Even if you personally think that appointee's views are great.

4. Wrong. You actually ignore strong majority of his opposition and focus on freaks.

5. When you say that the President is too good for his country, you have to look at the situation again. Maybe you are missing something.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Want to blame his opponents only?

No, but so far I support what the President wants to do and see the opposition resorting to fear tactics and smear campaigns, as opposed to actually addressing the issues.

For starters, that would mean he underestimated his opponents. He did, actually. And that wasn't his only mistake - he got wrong his allies too.

He did? I think we were all well aware that the right likes to play dirty and deal with fear tactics. Sadly, a good portion of this country only listens to fear tactics. While I regret that the administration doesn't counter with their own fear tactics in order to accomplish the goals I support, that's not how I want progress made in this country anyway.

His approach is unrealistic.

Yes, I suppose the President's biggest failure is expecting Republicans to actually support things in a nonpartisan manner.

What's wrong with his staffing achievements? Even you have to know that by now. If his appointee is vulnerable to whatever critics can find, that means it was a mistake. Even if you personally think that appointee's views are great.

The fact that they're vulnerable to fear tactics and smear campaigns is a non-issue. Everyone is vulnerable to those things when the general public easily falls for them.

Wrong. You actually ignore strong majority of his opposition and focus on freaks.

I didn't know that Republican senators, governors and talking heads were all collectively freaks.

When you say that the President is too good for his country, you have to look at the situation again. Maybe you are missing something.

Like?

[chasovschik.livejournal.com]

Yes, you want to blame opponents only. Pretty sad. That's a first sign of loser, you know?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

good response