Remember this, 17 million fewer on food stamps with W, gas was $2 less, 44% more drilling permits on public, we had not lent PetroBra $2B to drill off shore Brazil and we owed $6T less in national debit. We told you W was not the savior, some thing PresBo should get a third term. Never heard a conserve say that.
This dichotomy plays out every time the Right is out of power. The last time the nativists were all in a tizzy was the 1990s. Lots of separatist and white supremacist groups particularly in Idaho and Montana. The Right’s propaganda channels are very effective at ratcheting up the fear when they’re not in power.
I know the government is our friend. Tell that to Aaron Swartz. Killed by a prosecutor whose only interest was her own promotion. Similar to Eliot Spitzer. We need to protect ourselves from overzealous despots.
It’s kind of wierd but to me this cartoon is exactly true. Bush never called the 2nd Ammendment Obsolete, and Obama is trying to “change” the America that some of us like, for the most part anyway. “America, like it or leave it” to the Baldwin and Dixie Chicks and “Leave the 2nd Ammendment alone Obama”. Bush was not perfect, neither is Obama but the numbers don’t lie, our country has never been 4 years without an approved budget, our debt cieling has not had to be raised this often under any other President, our credit rating as a country was lowered for the first time in 4 decades under this President and unemployment has never been at this point under any other President. I simply find the image of the Conservative offensive, talk about rude.
I have a suggestion for all the “love it or leave it” separatists who insist they have to have guns to defend from the government: you don’t love it, so leave it, try Yemen or Somalia, where everyone has their military weapons, poverty, and use piracy to get their way. (Well, until the SEAL teams catch up.)
David, you seem top be confusing Libertarianism with social conservatism. We are basically an economic movement. Pro-liberty, pro-immigration, pro-choice, pro-vouchers for ALL, smaller government, atheistic, oppose laws which penalize victimless crimes, pro-free speech, pro Bill of Rights, pro right-to-work laws, oppose racist affirmative action, pro-freedom.
David. I find it fascinating when in a debate with liberals they claim to be “pro-choice”. That means if they want to do something and someone else doesn’t want them to do that they claim the right to be able to make their own decisions. Textbook example= abortion.
However if someone else wants to do something and they don’t want them to, the other side does not have choice but must follow the liberals dictates. Classic example = RKBA.
Libertarians are pro choice on almost everything with the proviso I can do anything I want and you can do anything you want but my rights end where your rights begin. Visa versa.
Before you make it gun control. Liberal argument guns kill people and therefore my rights abridged. Classic response-= no, people kill people.
Pro-life. Try for once to look at it from the viewpoint of the other side. My guess is you oppose capital punishment. Why? Taking a human life is too precious. But to tens of millions of Americans the 300,000 abortions we have had since Roe v Wade have killed 300,000 precious human lives. Not my viewpoint but obviously just as reasonable as your opposition to capital punishment.
Vouchers mean the kids in center city who are getting the worst possible education in the world will have the chance to elect out of public schools- just exactly as Obama as done for his children. He loves them. Do you think center city parents don’t love their children? Pro-choice.
Your labor comment is classic liberal double-speak. I am pro-choice but you can’t have the choice of whether or not to join a union. You must because I think that is best. Really?
Re Switzerland- my brother is also libertarian and my sister-in-law (and therefore niece and nephews) are Swiss. They travel there every year and we discuss at length the Swiss system. Clearly not libertarian but what we here in the US call Federalist. Weakish central government and strong cantons. That is exactly what we federalist libertarians want for our country. 50 laboratories to try and find the best way of handling a problem.
We had been having such a civil discussion. Sorry you ran out of rejoinders.
Your right to work argument makes no sense. It doesn’t deny a worker the choice to join a union, it just gives him the option. The facts are when given the option, say in private workers, only <7% of American workers have elected to join. They see no advantage. Reread what you wrote. “shouldn’t they be free…” You DON’T want them to be free. They must in your world. I am the one who wants them to be free.
You say I don’t know you and I don’t. But if your comments re Right to Work are any indication you really lack knowledge about subjects you comment on. Do you know what the right to work laws are about? Suggest you read them.
Conditional morality?What statistic did I make up without reference?Pretend to give workers a choice? Just how does saying to a worker you have the absolute right to join a union or the absolute right not to join a union a pretense. Seems pretty straight forward to me. It is just you don’t like the results. In Wisconsin after the law was changed a majority elected not to join. So they didn’t have to pay mandatory union dues and the union had to lay off staff.
Working conditions in the 1930s? May I humbly suggest 2013 is different from 1937. If that is your best argument it is no wonder only 6.9% of private American workers have chosen to join a union.
6.9% of private American workers belong to unions. 11.X% of all American workers belong to unions (includes government workers). Is each and every private American worker given a piece of paper which says I want to join or i don’t want to join? Obviously not.
Gun control. Went to a fascinating discussion yesterday at Fordham Law school on gun control. Bottom line question to each advocate very very specifically what law do you want to have passed and what do you expect will happen? Specific. Every applicant for a gun permit must be examined by a licensed psychiatrist? How do you plan to determine the mental status of each of the literally millions of gun owners?Assault guns. I assume you know we had an assault gun ban in this country 1994-2004. It expired in 2004. What happened to the gun murder rate in the US after the expiration? Did it skyrocket? Did it stay flat? No, as a matter of fact it actually went down. So what do you expect if you once again pass another “assault weapon” ban in 2013? You understand the law demands specificity to ban something- you can’t ban speech that “offends” me. For every “assault weapon” specifically enumerated in Sen Feinsteins proposed law there are 2-3 identical other weapons not listed. So, what exactly will be accomplished? it sounds to me you and others are saying don’t just stand there do something. I don’’t care what you do, just do something.Testing, vision etc. They did that to me when I was 17. That bought me 80 years. Is that what you want re guns? How do we test 100 million Americans for vison, shooting ability every year? every 2 years? etc. Be specific.
Thank you for your courteous and factual response.
Sen Feinstein just released her proposed bill limiting the sale of “assault weapons”. By her own admission it contains a full 95 pages of exceptions. That is assault weapons or assault like-weapons that will not be limited. Feel good legislation.
Assault weapon ban 1994-2004. I am making up numbers to show my point but the basic concept is what actually happened. Facts (numbers to prove point) a decrease pf 2% a year for the entire 10 year period. QED the assault ban worked. But lets be scientific about the evaluation. 1987-1994, before the ban, assault weapons share also declined by 2% a year. The curve was on its way down and the 1994-2004 period beautifully fell into that curve. What happened after the ban expired? Did the percentage skyrocket. No, in fact it absolutely continued the exact same 2%/year drop. The ban was just background noise.
(Surprise to me, I read your Jerry Lee report after writing the above and they too used the same 2% number.- subconscious?)
Banning assault weapons is indeed just feel good because they account for such a small percentage and the law has so many exceptions that it is almost meaningless.
My running joke is I share with the most quoted Constitutional law professor in the country (Richard Epstein) the belief that the social security act is unconstitutional and my chances of overturning it are the same as your getting a total gun ban inn this country. T’aint going to happen. Especially after Haller.
You find a convenient whipping boy in the NRA but literally tens of millions of Americans with all their hearts feel just as strongly pro-gun as many feel anti-gun. My answer is the same as I say to my pro-life friends That is why we call it pro-choice. You do what you want and I will do what I want.
Background checks. Fully 30% of all gun transfers are within the family, eg father to son. How do you do a background check on that?
I have a URL for you that answers many of your questions.
oneoldhat about 11 years ago
the difference is in panel one the gov is attacking an oversea power that attack USA in panel 2 the gov is attacking USA citizens
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
Absolutely perfectly accurate, Nick! Two perfect panels!
corzak about 11 years ago
Perfect synopsis of for the last 11 years of American political history.
Gary Williams Premium Member about 11 years ago
it is so true. the rich white males want it only there way and that is to have everything that belongs to everyone else or they will shoot you
pirate227 about 11 years ago
Coo-coo!
corzak about 11 years ago
lol! You’re a silly person.
Kingoswald Premium Member about 11 years ago
Dumb white guys prefer dumb white presidents. That so, rightisright?
PAULHARVEY about 11 years ago
Remember this, 17 million fewer on food stamps with W, gas was $2 less, 44% more drilling permits on public, we had not lent PetroBra $2B to drill off shore Brazil and we owed $6T less in national debit. We told you W was not the savior, some thing PresBo should get a third term. Never heard a conserve say that.
crlinder about 11 years ago
This dichotomy plays out every time the Right is out of power. The last time the nativists were all in a tizzy was the 1990s. Lots of separatist and white supremacist groups particularly in Idaho and Montana. The Right’s propaganda channels are very effective at ratcheting up the fear when they’re not in power.
Libertarian1 about 11 years ago
I know the government is our friend. Tell that to Aaron Swartz. Killed by a prosecutor whose only interest was her own promotion. Similar to Eliot Spitzer. We need to protect ourselves from overzealous despots.
gm2usnr about 11 years ago
It’s kind of wierd but to me this cartoon is exactly true. Bush never called the 2nd Ammendment Obsolete, and Obama is trying to “change” the America that some of us like, for the most part anyway. “America, like it or leave it” to the Baldwin and Dixie Chicks and “Leave the 2nd Ammendment alone Obama”. Bush was not perfect, neither is Obama but the numbers don’t lie, our country has never been 4 years without an approved budget, our debt cieling has not had to be raised this often under any other President, our credit rating as a country was lowered for the first time in 4 decades under this President and unemployment has never been at this point under any other President. I simply find the image of the Conservative offensive, talk about rude.
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
I have a suggestion for all the “love it or leave it” separatists who insist they have to have guns to defend from the government: you don’t love it, so leave it, try Yemen or Somalia, where everyone has their military weapons, poverty, and use piracy to get their way. (Well, until the SEAL teams catch up.)
Libertarian1 about 11 years ago
David, you seem top be confusing Libertarianism with social conservatism. We are basically an economic movement. Pro-liberty, pro-immigration, pro-choice, pro-vouchers for ALL, smaller government, atheistic, oppose laws which penalize victimless crimes, pro-free speech, pro Bill of Rights, pro right-to-work laws, oppose racist affirmative action, pro-freedom.
markjoseph125 about 11 years ago
Onguard blathers like the clown he is, and right-wing nut jobs drool their praise.
markjoseph125 about 11 years ago
Also, credited to Sinclair Lewis: “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”
Libertarian1 about 11 years ago
David. I find it fascinating when in a debate with liberals they claim to be “pro-choice”. That means if they want to do something and someone else doesn’t want them to do that they claim the right to be able to make their own decisions. Textbook example= abortion.
However if someone else wants to do something and they don’t want them to, the other side does not have choice but must follow the liberals dictates. Classic example = RKBA.
Libertarians are pro choice on almost everything with the proviso I can do anything I want and you can do anything you want but my rights end where your rights begin. Visa versa.
Before you make it gun control. Liberal argument guns kill people and therefore my rights abridged. Classic response-= no, people kill people.
Pro-life. Try for once to look at it from the viewpoint of the other side. My guess is you oppose capital punishment. Why? Taking a human life is too precious. But to tens of millions of Americans the 300,000 abortions we have had since Roe v Wade have killed 300,000 precious human lives. Not my viewpoint but obviously just as reasonable as your opposition to capital punishment.
Vouchers mean the kids in center city who are getting the worst possible education in the world will have the chance to elect out of public schools- just exactly as Obama as done for his children. He loves them. Do you think center city parents don’t love their children? Pro-choice.
Your labor comment is classic liberal double-speak. I am pro-choice but you can’t have the choice of whether or not to join a union. You must because I think that is best. Really?
Re Switzerland- my brother is also libertarian and my sister-in-law (and therefore niece and nephews) are Swiss. They travel there every year and we discuss at length the Swiss system. Clearly not libertarian but what we here in the US call Federalist. Weakish central government and strong cantons. That is exactly what we federalist libertarians want for our country. 50 laboratories to try and find the best way of handling a problem.
Libertarian1 about 11 years ago
We had been having such a civil discussion. Sorry you ran out of rejoinders.
Your right to work argument makes no sense. It doesn’t deny a worker the choice to join a union, it just gives him the option. The facts are when given the option, say in private workers, only <7% of American workers have elected to join. They see no advantage. Reread what you wrote. “shouldn’t they be free…” You DON’T want them to be free. They must in your world. I am the one who wants them to be free.
You say I don’t know you and I don’t. But if your comments re Right to Work are any indication you really lack knowledge about subjects you comment on. Do you know what the right to work laws are about? Suggest you read them.
Libertarian1 about 11 years ago
Conditional morality?What statistic did I make up without reference?Pretend to give workers a choice? Just how does saying to a worker you have the absolute right to join a union or the absolute right not to join a union a pretense. Seems pretty straight forward to me. It is just you don’t like the results. In Wisconsin after the law was changed a majority elected not to join. So they didn’t have to pay mandatory union dues and the union had to lay off staff.
Working conditions in the 1930s? May I humbly suggest 2013 is different from 1937. If that is your best argument it is no wonder only 6.9% of private American workers have chosen to join a union.
Libertarian1 about 11 years ago
6.9% of private American workers belong to unions. 11.X% of all American workers belong to unions (includes government workers). Is each and every private American worker given a piece of paper which says I want to join or i don’t want to join? Obviously not.
Gun control. Went to a fascinating discussion yesterday at Fordham Law school on gun control. Bottom line question to each advocate very very specifically what law do you want to have passed and what do you expect will happen? Specific. Every applicant for a gun permit must be examined by a licensed psychiatrist? How do you plan to determine the mental status of each of the literally millions of gun owners?Assault guns. I assume you know we had an assault gun ban in this country 1994-2004. It expired in 2004. What happened to the gun murder rate in the US after the expiration? Did it skyrocket? Did it stay flat? No, as a matter of fact it actually went down. So what do you expect if you once again pass another “assault weapon” ban in 2013? You understand the law demands specificity to ban something- you can’t ban speech that “offends” me. For every “assault weapon” specifically enumerated in Sen Feinsteins proposed law there are 2-3 identical other weapons not listed. So, what exactly will be accomplished? it sounds to me you and others are saying don’t just stand there do something. I don’’t care what you do, just do something.Testing, vision etc. They did that to me when I was 17. That bought me 80 years. Is that what you want re guns? How do we test 100 million Americans for vison, shooting ability every year? every 2 years? etc. Be specific.
Libertarian1 about 11 years ago
Thank you for your courteous and factual response.
Sen Feinstein just released her proposed bill limiting the sale of “assault weapons”. By her own admission it contains a full 95 pages of exceptions. That is assault weapons or assault like-weapons that will not be limited. Feel good legislation.
Assault weapon ban 1994-2004. I am making up numbers to show my point but the basic concept is what actually happened. Facts (numbers to prove point) a decrease pf 2% a year for the entire 10 year period. QED the assault ban worked. But lets be scientific about the evaluation. 1987-1994, before the ban, assault weapons share also declined by 2% a year. The curve was on its way down and the 1994-2004 period beautifully fell into that curve. What happened after the ban expired? Did the percentage skyrocket. No, in fact it absolutely continued the exact same 2%/year drop. The ban was just background noise.
(Surprise to me, I read your Jerry Lee report after writing the above and they too used the same 2% number.- subconscious?)
Banning assault weapons is indeed just feel good because they account for such a small percentage and the law has so many exceptions that it is almost meaningless.
My running joke is I share with the most quoted Constitutional law professor in the country (Richard Epstein) the belief that the social security act is unconstitutional and my chances of overturning it are the same as your getting a total gun ban inn this country. T’aint going to happen. Especially after Haller.
You find a convenient whipping boy in the NRA but literally tens of millions of Americans with all their hearts feel just as strongly pro-gun as many feel anti-gun. My answer is the same as I say to my pro-life friends That is why we call it pro-choice. You do what you want and I will do what I want.
Background checks. Fully 30% of all gun transfers are within the family, eg father to son. How do you do a background check on that?
I have a URL for you that answers many of your questions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578245803845796068.html?mod=djemWMP_h