Jim Morin by Jim Morin

?fh=3b0ddf7b0f8f25153f251ac25b34f2e8&w=600

Comments (38) Jump to Comments Form

  1. nomad2112

    nomad2112 said, about 1 month ago

    Can someone call the pound for this straw dog?

  2. scottfreitas

    scottfreitasGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Great cartoon to scare your typical mangina or ignorant female with, Morin. But it doesn’t fool me one bit.

  3. kensurg

    kensurgGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    So, just out of curiosity, how much should we spend on her? And how much should we spend to exend her life 2 months? Or how much for a 25 % chance to extend her life 2 months?

  4. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    nice depiction of GOP, old white guys …. and what’s in the briefcase is lots of campaign contributions from insurance industry, because that’s who their protecting right now and the rest of ye little people can eat cake

    next comment in toon is from the man second from left: Wait a minute, Senator! Isn’t that your sister?

  5. 4uk4ata

    4uk4ata said, about 1 month ago

    In all honesty, “death panel” is a more fitting nickname for whatever entity in the insurance companies is responsible for declining coverage.

  6. jmworacle

    jmworacle said, about 1 month ago

    Hello, the “Demopublicans” have the majority in the congress and senate. They don’t need the help of the “Repulicrats” to pass “health care”. They only want cover should the policy fail.

  7. HOWGOZIT

    HOWGOZIT said, about 1 month ago

    Thanks BCS–my faith in you is not diminished.

  8. Kylop

    Kylop said, about 1 month ago

    Accuarte description of the current situation.

  9. ezdeb

    ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

    It’s amazing that this type of death panel is just Okey Dokey with republicans. I guess the profit angle is what charms them. Simplistically speaking, insurers are making a bundle in profits while the taxpayers pick up the (ER/long term care) tab for the sickest so that insurance companies can cover only those who are not sick. This is sometimes called “Socializing the risks, privatizing the profits”. Perfectly OK w/righties.

    If, however, sick Americans can get better (and universal) care and thus lower costs to the taxpayer by taking away some subsidies for the already profitable insurers, that’s too scary. Again, I’m using a very simplistic example. Is it profit that makes the difference? Weird.

  10. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    BCS: Nailed it! Everything changes when it’s YOUR sister.

  11. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    The only time that Republicans actually stood in judgment, as it were, was in Schilo case - wanting her to live.

    Then they were, rightly in my opinion, widely berated, by the very folks now accusing them.

    That, combined with the age-long pro-life stand makes the cartoon, and most of the comments herein grotesquely inaccurate.

  12. dtroutma

    dtroutma said, about 1 month ago

    My mother is 97 and on Mediare/Medicaid. Without the programs, she’d have been “dead meat” at 83- when she finally stopped working and paying into the plan. She STILL pays $215 a month for part D- so it ain’t free either.

    Scooter- “ignorant female”??? WOW real closet queen talk! (or is that just being “priestly”?)

  13. Magnaut

    MagnautGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    DRCANUCK…IT HAPPENS AND IT HAPPENS IN CANADA. TOO…..BUT VERY IMPORTANTLY WITHOUT A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER APPOINTED GOVT REPRESENTATIVE….IT SHOULDN’T EVEN BE PART OF THE LAW…END OF LIFE DECISIONS ARE FOR FAMILY WITH ADVICE FROM “THEIR” NOT OBAMA’S MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.

  14. deadheadzan

    deadheadzanGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    This cartoon nails it. Let’s wait until the last patient dies, seem to be the idea of those who are benefiting from the status quo.

  15. crunkbot

    crunkbot said, about 1 month ago

    scottfreitas:

    wow… “mangina,” “Demoncrats,” misogyny, bigotry… that Mrs. Freitas is one lucky woman.

    And if u single, holla. We’ll hang out… maybe wrestle some.

  16. sclark55

    sclark55Genius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Maybe I’m missing something, but since the Dem’s could pass their healthcare bill w/out the GOP, why are the congreesional Republicans portrayed here as the bad guys? I’ll grant you they should’ve gotten tort reform done when they could, but right now, why portray the GOP as the bad guys, when the real problem is that the Dem’s are trying to pass something the public just doesn’t want? As far as “wait until the last patient dies”, that’s what is happening in places like the UK. Yes there are things that need fixing here, but no, not big government, especially under a President that wants to “spread the wealth around”, cuz we know what else he’ll spread too, looking at that “Your Life Your Choices” booklet he got put back in place for the VA.

  17. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    et tu, Howie!

  18. ezdeb

    ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

    sclark, your post poses a question, but makes a few errors in it’s premise. The public is in favor of universal coverage AND a public option.

    Congressional repubs are portrayed as bad guys because they just keep rejecting any plan and labeling it dangerous. To do this, they use lies and refuse to come up w/a plan of their own. They don’t negotiate in the goal of reform.

    Regarding the UK, the proposed healthplans in Congress do not follow a UK or Canadian model. They are still based on private insurance.

    I sense that you aren’t looking for facts, however, based on your last sentence.

  19. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    “The public is in favor of universal coverage AND a public option. ”

    Now, that is a blatant lie!!!

  20. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

    Not so, peter. When you frame the question in terms of a fair description of what it does (as opposed to the labels attached), the majority of Americans favor some kind of universal coverage and public options.

    As for the “pro-life” stand, the standard Republican line is inconsistent. Anti-abortion, yes, but also pro-death-penalty. That isn’t pro-life. Kill ‘em after they’re born!

  21. charlie555

    charlie555 said, about 1 month ago

    ^I’m glad you admit that abortion is killing, but to say it is inconsistent to advocate not killing the innocent and advocate killing those guilty of murder is kind of silly.

    Do pro-lifers have to be against defending our country in a war too?

  22. ezdeb

    ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

    Not that it will matter, but it’s pathetic how easy it is to prove what Peter says are blatant lies. Peter, I’m sorry. Just because you personally hate it, many many Americans disagree with out about the terrorism potential of healthcare. Again, sorry to tell you that. But you called me a liar…

    www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/25/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5340283.shtml

    Just a cursory look at the internet news in the last couple of weeks will show you that what you consider blatant lies are actually easily proven, and the polls and surveys are constantly re-done, re-figured and reported again.

    I picked two samples above that I thought represented fairly nonpartisan sources. There are lots of number crunching by HuffPost and lefties on the one hand, and HeritageCenter and WSJ editorials on the other.

    Anyhoo, maybe the repub “leadership” lies have made you angry and afraid, but the facts remain and are stubborn.

  23. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    I agree that poll’s can and are manipulated to arrive at a desired outcome.
    I therefore withdraw and apologize for my calling ezdeb’s inference about such a lie.

    That said, from what I have seen, read, heard and experienced, there is very little, and declining support for a major restructuring of the system, and even fewer would support a single payer system, which is, in the end, the result of all of the proposed government meddling … .

    I thought you might find this interesting:
    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=506106

  24. ezdeb

    ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

    Thanks for the takeback, petergrt.

    I dunno, tho. I read your link, to the InvestorsBusiness poll done by their partner, TiPP. TIPP is a lobbying group for the auto industry, so I’m not sure what they have to do with this, but I can find two medical journal articles that directly refute your point. Granted, the AMA was opposed to healthcare reform, until they were convinced that medicare would not be cut. So the TIPP survey might have been current a few months ago, but things have changed since then.

    http://www.californiahealthline.org/Articles/2009/9/15/Poll-Finds-Majority-of-Physicians-Back-Public-Option-in-Health-Reform.aspx

    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/14/NPR-doctors.aspx

  25. deadheadzan

    deadheadzanGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    The more the public learns about the public health care option, the more they are for it. Finally after the crazied “town hall meeting ” lies were rebutted, average citizens have actually gotten familiar with the benefits of health care reform.

  26. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

    Actually, charlie, it depends on how you think Christianity works. For Quakers, yes, you do have to be against defending our country in a war if it requires you to kill others.
    And my view isn’t silly, it’s the view of most of the major Pro-Life organizations.
    If life is sacred, all life is sacred. Drawing a line between the innocent and the guilty is what is silly. Especially if you believe in redemption.

  27. charlie555

    charlie555 said, about 1 month ago

    ^It is not the view of the Catholic Church which has many major pro-life organizations. This error still persists among individual Catholics, but the bishops have corrected it by confirming that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, while abortion is. The use of the death penalty can be just; direct abortion is never just.

  28. ezdeb

    ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

    Well, if the bishops told you what you may and may not believe, charlie, that’s just great and easy for you.

    Your question is: “Do pro-lifers have to be against defending our country in a war too?”

    Well, they can defend by typing letters and packing boxes and stuff, but no; a pro-lifer who believes that way from a religious standpoint would have to decide which is more important. When they kill, they give up the right to stand on the “pro-life” soapbox. Their choice, but it’s obvious to onlookers that specifying who’s life is worth saving and discarding others’ lives is “pro-fetus”, not “pro-life”.

  29. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

    Wrong, charlie.
    Pope John Paul II long since declared the Church’s near total opposition to the death penalty. In his encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995 after four years of consultations with the world’s Roman Catholic bishops, John Paul II wrote that execution is only appropriate “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
    Lest you think that still leaves you an out, when JPII came to the US in 1999 he decried abortion, racism, poverty and euthanasia, unambiguously proclaiming the death penalty as “cruel and unnecessary.” He persuaded Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan to commute the death sentence of Darrell Mease, who had originally been scheduled for execution on the very day of the papal visit. (http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr1999/feature1.asp#F6)
    Three days ago in AmericanCatholic.org: Catholics Play Key Roles in Efforts to End Death Penalty in Oregon. (http://www.americancatholic.org/news/report.aspx?id=1664)
    From “A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death” by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2005:
    “Ending the death penalty would be one important step away from a culture of death and toward building a culture of life.”
    Oh, yes, and there are exceptions made for abortion, too.

  30. charlie555

    charlie555 said, about 1 month ago

    ^You prove my point. John Paul said “it may be used.”

    Something which is intrinsically evil may NEVER be done for any reason. Ergo, the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Deliberate abortion is.

    It has also been noted that even John Paul considered his gloss on the death penalty his own opinion. After he stated it he said to the effect of, “at any rate” before going on to solid theology.

    A pope may plead for clemency, but even a Catholic governor - although he is obliged to give his pope’s words serious consideration - does not have to listen. It is his responsibility and he must follow his conscience. The Church recognizes this. That is why these governors are never excommunicated.

    One pope’s opinion does not change Church teaching. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the death penalty still stands. The Church has never repudiated it.

    I predict we will see a definite clarification coming from Rome soon because they realize this confusion is hurting the pro-life movement.

    PS The USCCB is not always a reliable source of Catholic teaching.

  31. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

    No, charlie, you’re not right. You said, and I quote, “It is not the view of the Catholic Church.” You implied rather strongly that the Church accepts capital punishment, which it does not. It accepts that it may have to happen in order to prevent a greater evil, which does not in fact describe the vast majority of executions in the world today, including the US. That is also true of the Church’s view of abortion: it may be necessary in rare circumstances.

    And you are not entitled to ignore the Pope, by the way. He said the death penalty was “cruel and unnecessary,” period. The Pope is considered generally infallible on all issues of Church doctrine, and his statements do form part of the Magisterium. While I agree that individual Catholics are entitled to follow their conscience, that applies to abortion, too!

    It may be true that there will be a clarification, but I doubt that it will rubber-stamp the pro-death-penalty stand.
    I am fully aware that the USCCB is not the central source, but I am also aware that the principle of collegiality has been circulating in theological circles for the last 25 years or so - the community of bishops are a meaningful source of guidance for Catholics. You aren’t entitled to ignore them, either!

  32. charlie555

    charlie555 said, about 1 month ago

    ^”The Pope is considered generally infallible on all issues of Church doctrine”

    No, he is infallible in matters of the Faith. Nothing he says can contradict the Faith that the Church has taught for the last 2000 years.

    “And you are not entitled to ignore the Pope, by the way.”

    I’m not. I’m ignoring those whom I think misinterpret his theology.

    “That is also true of the Church’s view of abortion: it may be necessary in rare circumstances.”

    If the mother’s life is at risk, a procedure to save her may be performed whose secondary effect may be the loss of her child. But the child may never be deliberately attacked.

    “While I agree that individual Catholics are entitled to follow their conscience, that applies to abortion, too!”

    No, individual Catholics may not follow their conscience in opposition to the Magisterium. It is part of the Magisterium that it is the governor’s call whether the death penalty applies in a certain case. It is not part of the Magisterium that a Catholic may ever choose deliberate abortion.

    That is why it is one of the few sins which result in an automatic excommunication.

  33. tpenna

    tpennaGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Hey charlie555, why’d you pull all your comments from Lisa Benson’s 9/23? I was enjoying the discussion.

  34. ezdeb

    ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

    charlie frequently just takes his posts and goes home when the tide turns against him. It’s intellectually dishonest, but that’s charlie’s MO. I imagine charlie feels a grudge that his wisdom is ridiculed by others, and why only he and striper (and possibly scottf) are right and everyone else in the world is wrong including history. I wonder how many guns he has…

  35. striper77

    striper77 said, about 1 month ago

    Numerous liberals stated information on pro-life issues and the death penalty.
    All you have to do is look in the bible. It clearly lists sins worthy of death.
    One of the items for murder, (killing someone in cold blood in order for personal gain).
    Others were homosexuality, bestiality, worshiping false gods, wizards and witches to name a few.
    The reasons for this was to remove the evil from the land.
    War was also in the Bible. The Israelites were supposed to completely kill everyone in the middle east. If they did not they would be a thorn in their side as they are today.

    Today in America we tolerate everything that was worthy for death except for murderers. They are all a thorn in the side of the conservatives.

    In summary abortion and partial abortion is murdering the most innocent of human life.

    Removing people that have killed innocent people in cold blood is acceptable in the bible.

    Murder:
    Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

  36. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    Striper, are you in favour of killing homosexuals and people who worship other gods in America?

  37. tpenna

    tpennaGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Or, for that matter, are you for killing disobedient children? Their deaths are sanctioned in the Bible as well. Also, selling one’s daughter into slavery is permitted.

    Those of us who take the Bible seriously enough to read it intelligently refuse to let you fundamentalists hijack it from us, striper77.

  38. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    So, striper, do you or do you not accept Biblical teachings?