Political Cartoons

You people wouldn't have lasted 3 minutes in the 1940's. Back when the nation had to make REAL sacrifices in wartime. Back when civil liberties were ACTUALLY being restricted. The autopsy would state something along the lines of "Victim whined self to death".

Did anyone mention what party it was "violating" all those rights back then? Here's a hint kids, it starts with a D. And gee, what party was it that put over a hundred thousand American Citizens into concentration camps:
Without evidence or trial,
Without access to legal counsel,
Without ethnically sensitive meals,
Without special treatment of religiously sensitive items,
Without consideration of age or gender,
In brutal conditions often without sufficient protection from the elements that caused the deaths of thousands?

That would be the same party that got us into Vietnam, Haiti, Somalia and a hostage crisis in Iran.

From:

xigua.livejournal.com

Ethnically sensative meals? I'm sure the Japanese don't mind our food. :)

From:

kenwestervelt.livejournal.com

Parties are ran by people, not philosophies.

From:

"Victim whined self to death".

Considering the amount of whining that comes from your party, which currently holds all three branches of goverment, you all should have gone feet up around 2003.

No party is perfect and each one has made hideous errors in judgement, but for a guy who was supposed to bring back "Honor and Integrity" to the White House, your hero leaves alot to be desired.

(deleted comment)

From:

No, it was a necessary action to contain Communist expansionism. Unfortunately Kennedy didn't take it seriously. LBJ so utterly fucked it up that by the time Nixon got a hold of it there was nothing he could do to salvage it. Especially not when the KGB backed "peace movement" was tearing the nation apart back home.

(deleted comment)

From:

Don't know who you are, but I always like your comments.

(deleted comment)

From:

Do you have an art journal? I am a huge art fan!

(deleted comment)

From:

Whew- checked out those sketches. That is serious impressive! So I will be a dork (but also because I do not like when people do not ask me) may I friend you?

(deleted comment)

From:

Ok, but no laughing!! ;)

From:

nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com

but I often post art on my primary journal, johnraptor,

AHA! I KNEW it! >=(

(deleted comment)

From:

darkblood777.livejournal.com

Just don't make any icons of cute fuzzy cats, then your secret, which you're not really trying to hide, will be exposed! O_O

From:

Don't forget about the same party that is operating secret prisons in Europe.

From:

Still haven't seen a shread of proof that the "alleged" prisons exist. Or perhaps Ms. McCarthy doesn't want to admit she was caught passing on a fake story created to expose leakers.

From:

I still haven't seen a shred of proof for this war, but that sure as hell is a reality.

From:

Okay. . . what the hell was that supposed to mean?

From:

I still haven't seen any reason for us to go to war with Iraq that justifies the enormous cost in human life and US resources.

From:

neither have I, but that wording sure didn't communicate that.

(no subject)

From:

katndhat33.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-07-07 04:34 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

Certainly you're not refering to the patrons of Club Gitmo, who do get ethincally sensitive meals, have lawyers, and have their Korans handled by gloved hands.

From:

A few notes.

Eisenhower(R) first committed troops to Vietnam. All sides contributed to the escalation.

Haiti had a clear mission and we left after we achieved it. Unless you are talking about Roosevelts and Wilsons involvement, but that is a whole nother ball game. The most current involvement(which I assume you are talking about) was done to re-implement a democratically elected head of state after a military coup.

Somalia was a U.N. Action, not a U.S. action. Furthermore it commenced in 1993 as a U.N. operation. Before that, it was a U.N. approvied U.S. operation that was started by Goerge Bush. Troops were committed in 1992. Quoth wikipedia "In August 1992 the United States (USA) initiated Operation Provide Relief (UNOSOM I) to provide humanitarian relief for the people. Other Western nations also contributed to this airlift and the UN sent some troops to oversee the operation. However most of the food was looted directly on landing of these planes. This made the operation a failure and the UN therefore asked its members for assistance.

In December 1992 as President George H. W. Bush was preparing to leave office, he proposed to help under the restriction that the US Combat troops would lead the operation. After the UN accepted this offer 25,000 US troops (mostly US Marines from I MEF) were deployed to Somalia and the mission was renamed to Operation Restore Hope and became UNOSOM II"

The Hostage Crisis in Iran was not the result of the actions of any U.S. President. The hostage crisis was the result of a revolution in Iran. If it could be said of anything, it could be said of a result for support for the Shah, which seemed to be a non-partisan issue(until Carter(D) killed cooperation)

If you wish to attack the Democrats for their actions then you could at least include a "laundry list" that contained Democratic wrongdoing.

Yes, not all actions taken by the democrats have been perfect(like the one outlined above). Thankfully, today, we look back at those mistakes and learn from them. It seems, more and more, on the other side of the isle that Republicans look back at those mistakes and long to repeat them.

All of this however, ignores the thrust of the issue.

Politicians these days are shitting all over the constitution. Notice how it doesnt mention political affiliation?

From:

Just in case you didnt know. George H. W. Bush is a Republican. I realized that i labeled the others for you, but not that one. Just covering my bases, as it is quite difficult to get points through to raging idiots.

(deleted comment)

From:

Also didn't see a lot of liberals crying when the Clinton Administration raped the Constitution regularly.

From:

Well, to be fair, I was 12 to 13 at the time that Clinton did all that stuff, but it still irks me. Also, the 1996 Communications Act.

The real reason, i think, that there isnt more outrage at the unconstitutional stuff that Clinton did is that some of it was A: argued to be unconstitutional by the Clinton Admin(in the case of the warrantless searches), and B: because the republicans kept bringing completly baseless shit up and parading it as true (For instance, "Clinton Smuggled Cocaine, Clinton Murdered some guy over cocaine, Clinton's land deal that he lost money on was an illegal scam set up by him to make money) that what he did got lost in the mud created and slung by the republicans.

There was a concerted effort in conservative groups(and the neo conservatives in specific) to label Clinton as (the enemy) in the same way that the U.S.S.R. was the enemy(which was also a trumped up enemy). You can still see this effect today in people like ccnuggie and shadowfox. They are essentialy indoctorinated to believe that democrats are evil, godless communists intent on destroying them. This idea is being ramped up now that we have an outside enemy. The idea is to unify a political base by telling them they are being attacked. From the outside it used to be communists, now it was terrorists. Domestically, its democrats.

From:

And you don't? LOL! Now tell us the one about how liberals aren't trying to turn every little thing into a crisis worthy of impeachment.

From:

Violating the constitution, admitting it, claiming that it is your right to do so (against currently accepted constitutional law), is an impeachable offence.

None of the things that republicans investigated turned out to be true. Clinton was impeached for an unrlated perjury. Yes, an impeachable offence, but in persuit of claims that were entirely fabricated.

From:

We're dealing with real facts here, not "liberal facts".

Wrong, just flat out wrong. It was Kennedy(D) who first got us involved in Vietnam.

You achieved it? What's the punch line? The country is worse off today then it ever was before Clinton's invasion. Gangs, warlords, drug and murder rule the streets. The UN peacekeepers are too scared to leave their bases and when they do they get slaughtered. If you'd "achieved" anymore in that country everyone would be dead.

Somalia was a UN action. And like all UN actions that meant the US was responsible for 90% of the work. Work which Clinton bungled, in which he was defeated and made to flee by a 3rd world warlord. Another Clinton "achievement".

The war on terror is too important for anymore of your sides bungling. An unlike Haiti, East Timor, Somalia or the Balkans we've seen the steady progress to a stable democratically elected government in Iraq.

No it doesn't mention affiliation, but do you seriously expect ANYONE to believe it's not aimed at Bush and the Republicans. Uh hu, sure thing. And if a cartoon involved a northeaster and a bridge, it would necessarily mean it was about Kennedy either.

That sad display is what you refer to as "Fact Owned!" Seamus? Perhaps you need to do some "Fact check!"

From:

mishdogg.livejournal.com

Fuck the party affiliations, I hate you for using the "if, then" logical fallacy that is held so dear to political leaders who commit crimes--and for actually thinking that it makes enough sense to justify today's wrongdoing.

When you're done drinking that broken logic, I have something else you can swallow.

From:

You are looking for a specific type of argumentum ad hominem. (I.E. "it is ok, because he also did it"), the name of which i have forgotten.

From:

mishdogg.livejournal.com

Yeah, "Affirming the Consequent." This shows up alot in rhetoric.

If p then q. p. Therefore, q.

Example: If they desecrated the constitution, then we can do it too. They did. So can we.

(deleted comment)

From:

Yes, that is it "To the person 'you too'"

From:

Call your boyfriend if you're on the rag, I don't got the time.

From:

musikinov.livejournal.com

That shit happens because they could get away with it. It can't happen in quite the same way anymore, because history has proven it to be wrong. At the time, those that were for those actions thought they were in the right.
We'll see the same thing come about here.

And party schmarty. I have no alliegence. I cross my fingers that there are less people with blind affiliation in my generation.

From:

So, because some other time was supposedly worse, it's okay for the administration to rape the constitution?

A sacrifice isn't a sacrifice if it's forced upon you.

From:

jane-ire.livejournal.com

Wait! I thought we won the war!

From:

kmilligan.livejournal.com

Not taking the constitution serious is sadly not anything new. A great many people, especially those on the left, would be quite upset if we did. A good many federal program which are the crown jewels of 20th century progressivism rely on a reading of the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses that would have most of the founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

From:

I think many of those decisions are on stronger legal footing than you believe.

But then again, they actualy have legal footing as opposed to this crap, which is clearly unconstitutional(and we know so, because past presidents have tried it and SCOTUS has said "fuck no")

From:

kmilligan.livejournal.com

Well, the Supreme Court decides what the law is, so yes, the legal footing that, say, the Controlled Substances Act is based on is pretty sound, but it would never have been understood to be within the purview of Congress' commerce power. Hell, even 80 years ago it was understood to take a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal. Absent the 21st Amendment, Congress today could outlaw alcohol just by classifying it as a Schedule I substance.

And that's not even getting into things like the "Herpes" theory of the Commerce Clause, which justifies Congress passing "Felon in Possession" laws in regards to things like Firearms and other dangerous article, because any object that has one moved in interstate or foreign commerce is forever within Congress' power to regulate.

I'm not sure where you're suggesting The Court has in the past said "fuck no", and to what. That's a curious assertion considering previous courts have allowed for military tribunals for unlawful combatants, saboteurs, and spies, and have also allowed entire races of people to be dispossessed of their homes and put into camps. Past courts have been far more willing to defer to executive power during times of war than this Court has been.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it illustrates that there is a tradition of ignoring the constitution by both the left and the right when it suits them.

From:

I was talking about the carte blanch "Article 2" asserted power.

Also, we arent at war.

From:

kmilligan.livejournal.com

Could have fooled me. So the 2500 dead soldiers the left keeps carping about all died in auto accidents?

From: