Comments (34) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   IrishEddieOHara said, 4 months ago

   Just be sure, Mr. Horse’s arse, that you do one for the adulterers and fornicators on the left as well.

2. 

   dtroutma said, 4 months ago

   He should be glad it’s an “AK” and not pruning shears.

3. 

   nomad2112 said, 4 months ago

   Is that Cher in the passenger seat?

4. 

   Buzzy-One said, 4 months ago

   Hey Irish! Having trouble dealing with it? The world doesn’t revolve according to your assumptions.

5. 

   Copperdomebodhi said, 4 months ago

   If Democrats ran for office on a “family values” platform (AKA “I’m morally superior to the other guy”) their affairs would be newsworthy, too. Liberals understand that people are only human. It’s conservatives’ hypocrisy that makes this kind of thing news.

6. 

   oldlegodad said, 4 months ago

   Not Cher. Cher is an inflatable manikin

7. 

   churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

   Democrats have managed– very successfully I might add– to redefine the phrase “family values”. I suppose historically, if you go back to LBJ’s Great Society, Republicans were against gov’t policies that would give greater welfare benefits to single parent families, thus leading to increased out-of-wedlock births, a decline in marriage, and a new perpetual underclass. (Turns out they were right).

   Aside from Christian ulta-Conservatives with “Reverend” as part of their name and job description (and I suppose this is part of their job description, after all), I think you will be hard pressed to find any main stream Republican politician who is for discrimination of Gays (or minorities or women). Some may say they’re against gays adopting children (I disagree, BTW [don’t know where Obama stands on this]), or are against Gay marriage (Obama agrees on that point). (I’m for civil unions– but in any case it’s not in my top 10 issues).

   I don’t recall any politican– Republican or Democrat– saying “vote for me– I’m morally superior to the other guy. I’d never commit adultery!” or campaigned on a “no divorce” platform. Conversely, I’ve never seen a Democrat say “vote for me– I have no moral values. I’m for adultery. Marriage is an outdated institution!” (He’d never get elected!) Yet it is the Republicans who pillory their own for lack of morals; Dems give theirs a promotion.

   So tell me again: just what are these “family values” you speak of?

8. 

   dtroutma said, 4 months ago

   Haggard looked haggard. Baker’s goose got cooked. Sweikert(sp) and all the endless string of “moral leaders” with feet of clay in a sea of hypocrisy far outnumber the “liberals” who just said individuals are responsible for their own actions, so mind your own business.

9. 

   cdward said, 4 months ago

   John Ensign (from Wikipedia): In 1998, after President Bill Clinton admitted to having committed adultery with Monica Lewinsky, Ensign called on him to resign, saying, “He has no credibility left.”[23]
   In 2004, Ensign spoke on the Senate floor in favor of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have barred states from recognizing same-sex marriage. Ensign said:
   “Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation.”[24]

   Mark Sanford: He voted for the Clinton impeachment following the Lewinsky scandal, declaring Clinton’s behavior to be “reprehensible.”[9]

10. 

    M Kitt said, 4 months ago

    Church, keep trying to sell that, downplay the moral “highground” the GOP constantly claims to own. Won’t make a difference, most of the public knows the truth behind your’ party’s supposed morality and integrity, particularly among the misled religious followers.

    Family Values, by the way, is obviously not some Dem. concoction, looks to me as though the GOP is being foisted by their own figurative pitard :-)

11. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    Just to remind you again, Obama is also against gay marriage (assuming you believe what he says).

    As far as Clinton, I don’t believe he should have been impeached for carrying on, even with an intern. Nor would I impeach him for going on TV, pointing his finger at us, and lying to the people. But he should have– and was– impeached for lying under oath to Congress.

    BTW, I can’t seem to get the image of him EVERY WEEK in some Baptist Church out of my mind. He was, after all, America’s first black President.

    Ensign and Sanford lived by the sword, and will die by the sword. Other than that, you didn’t “impeach” one word I said.

12. 

    fennec said, 4 months ago

    To get back to the tune: I’m from Ky and I find this one hilarious. My BIL (still living there) keeps sending me jokes of this kind from the “homeland”.

13. 

    M Kitt said, 4 months ago

    Clinton’s public approval ratings were in the 60+ percentile right up until he left office, Church, reflecting the disagreement of the population with your’ appraisal of his behavior. As we all know “when Clinton lied no one died”, wish the same could be said about our Iraqi fiasco.

    That’s why taking any action based on that republican-led character assassination would have been summarily rejected, trying to kick him out of office would have become a huge liability for the GOP as they well knew.

    W, on the other hand, had the lowest sustained public approval of any president since Nixon (approx. 25%) who left the office BEFORE being confronted with impeachment.

    W and members of his former staff also have standing warrants against them for war crimes in several other countries based on what I can only see as his “lapses of judgment” in cooperation with Cheney & associates for policies ranging from preemptive war to “rendition”, neither of which has ever before been U.S. policy in the history of this nation.

    Quite the record you’re standing behind there, Church, good luck defending it. I can only hope the “groundbreaking” agenda carried by that administration doesn’t dishonor all of us any further.

14. 

    Tigger said, 4 months ago

    Sara Palin’s Hubby is running for Governor of Alaska?

15. 

    PUPPYSAURUS said, 4 months ago

    Is that an illegal mexican immigrant in the passenger seat?
    Libs: So, the best thing to do in the face of human frailty is throw out all standards? That leads to failure for sure. That’s called living down to your lowest expectations. Time is running out, stand up for the truth…

16. 

    cabrobst said, 3 months ago

    I’m not so bothered by the Republican lust for flesh as their hunger for oil and the blood of our young men and women to pay for it, all the while hoarding wealth as if they are hoping to be the new kings and dukes and princes when the climate forces the economy into collapse and civilization back to the middle ages.

17. 

    PUPPYSAURUS said, 3 months ago

    cabrobst, so you must be disappointed to find out the Dems have no desire to alleviate the burden consumers shoulder at the gas-pump, nor the burden our warriors lift on their own in overseas conflicts? Indeed, the Dem meme is to hi-jack all previous schemes and add their own. Meanwhile the peasant status o0f regular Americans increases and solidifies each year.

18. 

    M Kitt said, 3 months ago

    NFP, let’s give credit where it’s due, why don’t you factor in the cost of gasoline in the U.S., it’s been vacillating high/low ever since we crossed the Iraqi border due to supposed “instability” of Persian Gulf resources according to the petroleum INCs.

    So we were the cause of the price spikes, but what you pay at the pump is masking the real cost, factor in the War, casualties, VA benefits to survivors, pensions to families of the dead, taxes to pay for all of this. Among those of us who recognize that war as useless waste, just another “feather” of credit in W’s cap.

    And you won’t hear the right wing discuss that war as an “unnecessary expenditure” as they call any responsible public infrastructure spending put in front of them. As an aside, Venezuela can only market their sub-pure petroleum if the per barrel price is above $70, we gave Chavez a huge gift of national funding and popularity by doing that for him.

    Try to explain how the GOP supports the lower and middle-class, NFP, while they drag the rest of us into preemptive wars that bankrupt the economy and lose many of the soldier’s lives you claim to care so much about.

19. 

    PUPPYSAURUS said, 3 months ago

    Theoretically, capitalism makes it possible for an individual to profit from their labor without costly interference from government. Thus, the GOP, protects your right to your wealth and pursuit of happiness. Tell me why funneling resources to unproductive sectors of society grows wealth, M Kitt. And explain to me how you expect to maintain American freedoms without the use of the military in a world where no other nation holds to your prohibition against the use of military force to obtain it’s goals. In fact, can we not call you a conscientious objector?

20. 

    PUPPYSAURUS said, 3 months ago

    Who’s been horn-doggin’ in the heartland? Horsey the prejudiced and the elitist. All sex scandals have been in the south, west, and north-east, right?

21. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

    Look at Pup’s last two two posts.

    Number of references to Sanford? Zero.
    Number of references to Ensign? Zero.

    Puppy is the worst of the worst…the ultimate hypocrite.

22. 

    churchillwasright said, 3 months ago

    KITT: Just like a lib, when confronted with statements they can’t argue, to change the subject.

    My first post on the toon was a comment about “family values”. I didn’t bring up Clinton–CDWARD did. He changed the topic, and I fell for it hook, line and sinker. Bad on me.

    Then you ran off about Clinton, ignoring the point of my posts completely.

    I don’t blame libs for doing this, by the way. Changing the subject and going off on tangents when they have no rebuttal to a point is a very effective strategy.

    I blame conservatives for allowing this to happen. We let dems change the meaning of words (“family values”, “progressive”, etc.), then allow them to reframe the question entirely. By the time we realize what happened, we’re left scratching our heads, asking “what just happened here?”

    Huh… my point as just gone full circle…

23. 

    Obamascares said, 3 months ago

    It’s all good now, Obama and his Dems are in charge, there are no wars anywhere and gas prices are under a dollar. Life is good.

24. 

    M Kitt said, 3 months ago

    Yes, I can see why you become “philosophical” when trying to answer questions about a war you can’t possibly defend, NFP.

    Defending war in general as justified for the entire concept of capitalism completely evades answering for the mistakes of this one, although I’d call preemption much worse than a mistake since it’s never been the policy of any U.S. administration before W, more like colossal incompetence to put it charitably.

    To follow up on your’ answer tho, tell me how exactly crossing the border of Iraq defended capitalism, I’d be happy to have you “Inform” me.

    “Wealth and Happiness” too, NFP, explain to me just how obtaining or maintaining them was accomplished by crossing into a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, where the resulting death toll among the local population likely exceeds one million, since politicians have never properly explained it I’m giving you the opportunity, good luck.

    Funneling wealth has always been the GOP goal, NFP, they just send it to their corporate constituents and the investment sector thru tax breaks for the wealthy and bailing out failing wall street firms using our tax money from the U.S. treasury. Oh yes, and funding preemptive wars that drain $ from the economy that could have been spent on infrastructure, ask Cheney and Halliburton about no-bid contracts in Iraq, funneling wealth on a scale that’s beyond criminal, it’s called WAR PROFITEERING, courtesy of W Inc.

    Cheney also used his questionable judgment while in office to award Halliburton a no-bid contract for the coastal cleanup after Katrina, that’s profiteering of a slightly different sort named “disaster capitalism”, otherwise known as favoritism, graft, or corruption.

    I’d include Cheney and W both in your’ definition of “unproductive members of society”, in reality tho they’ve been a lot worse than unproductive, they’ve done a great deal of damage to our reputation, economy, and in terms of unnecessary deaths of U.S. forces and citizens of other countries. GOP policies at their best.

25. 

    cdward said, 3 months ago

    To be precise, I quoted Ensign and Sanford. The purpose behind that was not to change the subject since the subject being discussed was the disparity between those men’s words and their actions. churchill had said: “I don’t recall any politican– Republican or Democrat– saying “vote for me– I’m morally superior to the other guy.”

    My point was that Ensign and Sanford had done exactly that, and the quotes are examples of it. How does that change the topic?

26. 

    churchillwasright said, 3 months ago

    Sorry, they may be hypocrites, but they didn’t run on a “vote for me, I’m morally superior to my opponent” platform. No politician does. The very fact that they got caught up in their hypocrisy and their constituents will make them pay only strengthens my argument. Dems would never eat their own, even if their caught with $80K in the freezer.

    That wasn’t the point of my post, anyway, and you know it. You wanted to change the subject to Clinton. Why don’t you re-read the first two paragraphs of my post, and the question I asked at the bottom, and try again!

27. 

    oldlegodad said, 3 months ago

    JoyBV…you are so RIGHT . isn’t peace wonferful??

28. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

    Church, perhaps you need to spell out in detail just how you think Democrats have “redefined” family values.

    For instance, is this description of Sen. Ensign inaccurate?

    “….a staunch “family values” voting record
    who opposes abortion rights, wants to re-instate teacher-led prayer
    in public schools, and steps up to the nearest podium to denounce
    other public officials who engage in private sexual misconduct.
    He is also active in the Promise Keepers movement, and according to
    one news report, “resists temptation” by not being alone in a room
    with a woman other than his wife.”

    Have the Democrats altered the term “family values” such that the above description no longer applies?

    Regarding your contention that “you will be hard pressed to find any main stream Republican politician who is for discrimination of Gays”…can you find any mainstream Republican (and by mainstream I offer that we’re ruling out anything by the Log Cabin group) that supports anything gay?

    Even by Repubicans with gay offspring (Cheney) or those soliciting gay acts (Alaska Sen. Stevens)?

29. 

    churchillwasright said, 3 months ago

    Why should I rule out Log Cabin Republicans? Being pro-gay and republican means you’re a log cabin republican. How can I take them off the table?

    You seem to think that if you’re anti gay marriage, you’re anti gay. I remind you again that Obama is against gay marriage, too.

    Mitt Romney pushed for an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would have banned gay marriage but legalized civil unions.

    Steve Schmidt, Senator John McCain’s former campaign advisor, put forward what he calls “a sound conservative argument for same-sex marriage.”

    Even Micheal Steele was scheduled to speak at the Log Cabin Convention (although he later cancelled due to scheduling conflicts).

    I just did a search and found lots of Repubs that are for “more inclusiveness”, and they’re all supported by Log Cabin Republicans. How could they not be? That’s the very definition of their organization!

    And what liberal blog did you cut and paste that cr@p about Ensign from? “steps up to the nearest podium to denounce
    other public officials who engage in private sexual misconduct.”

30. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

    Given that every anti-gay bill put forth seems to come from Republicans, I’d hardly consider the Log Cabin members to be “mainstream”.

    And yes, I do consider anti-gay marriage to be anti-gay, and I’d imagine that most gays would agree.

    There’s only two reasons to be anti-gay marriage. You want to hurt gays, and/or your want to force your religious beliefs on others. All the nonsense about “protecting marriage” is just that…nonsense.

31. 

    churchillwasright said, 3 months ago

    1) So you’re saying that Obama is anti-gay?

    2) There’s a 3rd reason to be anti gay marriage. It redefines a word that has meant between a man and a woman for the first time in history. If gay activists were smart, they would start with civil unions. Of the gay couples I know, none were for gay marriage. And even though I warned them to put their financial dealings in writing, they ignored me. This didn’t work out too well when they eventually broke up (for the one who was poorer, of course).

    3) Aside from gay marriage, what anti gay bills are republicans putting forth? Don’t ask, don’t tell? That was Bill Clinton’s policy.

    4) Once again, you’ve changed the definition of being pro family values as being anti gay rights. Two different issues.

    Find me a politician of either party that would say that cheating on you’re spouse is a good thing, or that in an ideal world it would be better for kids (and society) to be raised in a household with a mother and father (outside of San Francisco). And would you consider that Democrat “mainstream”?

32. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

    
    

    1. Yup.

    
    

    2. You’re kidding, right? http://www.godweb.org/biblemarriage.htm
       And am I understanding that you’re suggesting we should return to Separate But Equal?

    
    

    3. What was the reason for the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas?

    
    

    4. I don’t see I’ve changed any definitions, unless you know of a Republican family values proponent who is for gay marriage? Perhaps to be clear you should put forth a definition of “family values” as used by Republicans?

    
    

33. 

    Simon_Jester said, 3 months ago

    It’s like this Church.

    If the Repubs hate lying under oath so much, then why did they stand up and cheer when Bush commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby…who was convicted in a court of law of doing just that, ( among other things. )

    Why was Clinton asked about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky by the Whitewater investigators in the first place? What did whether or not he had an affair with her have to do with an ( alleged ) land deal that took place years before they ever even met?

    John Ensign and David Vitter both received standing ovations from their fellow Republicans when the details of their affairs came to light.. When the John Edwards was caught doing the same thing, the Repubs couldn’t reach fast enough for the tar and feathers.

    We’re not the hypocrites here….YOU are.

    As for Mark Sanford, he supposedly took those junkets to see his chippie with taxpayer funds. How come you guys on the right never mention THAT lil’ detail?

    And lastly…ROFL Just like a Dem to change the subject? Whoa, and all this time I though sockpuppy and JoBV were Republicans!

    ROFL!

34. 

    deadheadzan said, 3 months ago

    ROFL! when I first saw this cartoon. Lots of interesting comments, too. Those who live in glass houses should think twice before throwing stones.