Michael Ramirez for August 06, 2010

  1. Missing large
    kennethcwarren64  over 13 years ago

    A note to angry Conseratives – What is happening to you is not new, for thousdands of years those who wanted to control people and government have been getting the population angry over something, and once they are angry telling “trust us, we will get those people who hate and threaten our way of life and destroy them – just trust us!”

    What the GOP is doing is not new, and supporting them will not fix any of our problems, and will probably make them worse because, once in power, the GOP will do what it has always done, and, to distract you from the fact they have done nothing, they will give you a new thing or enemy to be angry about.

     •  Reply
  2. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 13 years ago

    Was Ramirez pistol whipped by Pat Robertson, or a nun?? but right, Doc, they didn’t foresee or care, but would have gone for health care, just like the Post Office, Military, and other features, if they hadn’t been white and landowners who didn’t want their wives to vote– which really DOES come from their “religious” backgrounds and tenets.

     •  Reply
  3. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  over 13 years ago

    Does Ramirez not realize that this cartoon actually argues against his position?

     •  Reply
  4. Prr
    Loco80  over 13 years ago

    Hey guys, just a couple of thoughts. No bashing or name calling . I’m ashamed that I did it before. The founding fathers wouldn’t have mentioned “gay marriage” because it is not a possibility. Homosexual unions have existed throughout all history, and always will. However, the term “marriage” excludes said by definition. But my real wonder is, why does it matter what we call such couples? So much effort, energy, and time wasted. It seems like an intentional effort to divide the country. Why?

    Ken - the truth of the matter is that 60+ percent of the voters of California supported the ban. That percentage was even stronger in minority precincts. In EVERY state where same-sex marriage has been put to popular vote, the people have voted 60 percent or more to ban it. (Yes there were the two states where it was burried in a “package” bill with other topics, but still won the majority.) So my question to you now is, don’t you hear our government saying “You will feel a little pressure here….” Hopefully you are too young to know that referrence. Doc and Trout probably know.

     •  Reply
  5. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  over 13 years ago

    “Ken - the truth of the matter is that 60+ percent of the voters of California supported the ban.

    So flipping what?

     •  Reply
  6. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  over 13 years ago

    There have to be limits on what a majority can decide, or else it would be possible for a majority to vote that a minority group should be enslaved. Rights that are constitutionally protected can’t be limited by a vote.

     •  Reply
  7. Prr
    Loco80  over 13 years ago

    lonecat, agreed. However, this is the opposite. This is a matter of redefinition of a term established millenium ago. It involves no rights or privleges of anybody, and is a collosal waste of time.

     •  Reply
  8. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    “However, the term “marriage” excludes said by definition. But my real wonder is, why does it matter what we call such couples? So much effort, energy, and time wasted. It seems like an intentional effort to divide the country. Why?”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/7/hawaii-governor-vetoes-same-sex-union-bill/ Because it doesn’t matter how you word it, the Right simply won’t allow equal protections.

    “Ken - the truth of the matter is that 60+ percent of the voters of California supported the ban.”

    The truth is your “fact” is a bunk. It was 52%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

    Women’s Suffrage failed popular vote its first time out. It took a constitutional amendment at the national level to secure a woman’s right to vote in all states. Rights of a minority should never be up to popular vote. This is a Republic, not a Democracy.

     •  Reply
  9. Prr
    Loco80  over 13 years ago

    Some things change, some do not. Did I offend you in some way? We are still homo-sapiens? Do you suggest that will change? Some things will change, and some will not. Is all change good? Just because you can do something different, does that make it right? You are suggesting that all change mankind has brought on the ecology is alright in your opinion, just because it is change, is that right? You are now ok with “manmade global warming” just because we can? Do you see what a pandora’s box you are opening? We can destroy our environment, and you whole-heartedly support that? The human species will always tend toward their weaknesses…greed, lust, pride,envy, gluttony, sloth, and want. Is that how you wish to proceed?

     •  Reply
  10. Exploding human fat bombs hedge 060110
    Charles Brobst Premium Member over 13 years ago

    They did not believe in socialized medicine, but they did believe in slavery. We can do better today.

     •  Reply
  11. Canstock3682698
    myming  over 13 years ago

    LOCO80 -

    stop arguing !

    this was ALL preordained/predestined, remember ?

     •  Reply
  12. 100 2208
    parkersinthehouse  over 13 years ago

    typical ramirez

     •  Reply
  13. 100 2208
    parkersinthehouse  over 13 years ago

    posts also pretty typical

     •  Reply
  14. Warcriminal
    WarBush  over 13 years ago

    I gotta ask you conservatives one thing: If they legalized gay marriage would that make you more gay or less gay?

     •  Reply
  15. Me 3 23 2020
    ChukLitl Premium Member over 13 years ago

    The founders would have said that this document is about broad principles of governance. Those are questions you should ask your congressional candidates.

     •  Reply
  16. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    “The human species will always tend toward their weaknesses…greed, lust, pride,envy, gluttony, sloth, and want. Is that how you wish to proceed?”

    Interesting how these things are specifically identified as evil in the Bible, things that will keep you out of the Kingdom of Heaven, things that were directly related to Sodom and Gomorrah (unlike homosexuality), and yet all of the Right’s scorn and legislative bigotry is focused around homosexuality, allowing these other things to run rampant, and even partake in them themselves. If a multi-million dollar church + tax havens (and believe me, some of them do use them, but since our media isn’t “liberal” the C-Street’ers never really get caught) are plenty of examples of greed. But why campaign on greed, when you can gay bait?
     •  Reply
  17. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 13 years ago

    Speaking of species- when will California vote to change the “Homo sapiens” identifier?

     •  Reply
  18. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    ^ How about that nifty Amendment known as the 1st Amendment? Can you think of any reason outside of religion to prevent same-sex couples from getting the same legal government provided tax-payer supported benefits they pay for? Come back to me when you can. Otherwise don’t forget the 1st Amendment.

     •  Reply
  19. Missing large
    trace747  over 13 years ago

    Ramirez is great. His work makes you think. Yes, he may be conservative leading (based on the the intent of the founding fathers). This one is not stating the founding fathers did not believe in those things. His intent is that the 14th amd was not to be used in this sense. You can not make the 14th or any other amd meet your agenda. You abuse the constitution. You using something that should not be used to justify your issue. If that was the case just about any issue you could do that with.

    I believe the whole gay marriage thing is a pissing match between gay activists vs the relegious fanatics. Each wants to justify their beliefs.

    A mutual agreement could have been reached. Make it a civil union instead of marriage with the same benefits (marriage penalty taxation!) and don’t force a church to change their beliefs if they refuse to marry the couple.

    But neither side would budge.

     •  Reply
  20. 1107121618000
    CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago

    ^It is the law that has changed, not the church beliefs.

    Churches that don’t want it don’t celebrate gay weddings.

     •  Reply
  21. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 13 years ago

    The 14th was post-Civil War granting rights to former slaves, and defining how “rebels” could get back in good graces. Not intended to be about marriage, or immigrants who are NOT within the states “jurisdiction”- which implies subject to, and within its laws. Don’t know that argument has been made– Even “liberal” should say that it applies to folks who intend to STAY here and be citizens, not plop out a kid and go back to Germany, Italy, Russia, or Mexico, Guatemala, or Viet Nam with dual citizenship.

     •  Reply
  22. Missing large
    disgustedtaxpayer  over 13 years ago

    one “gay” judge has tried to change millennia of the accepted “norm” for marriage (one man married to one woman)….by one court ruling to void tradition and 7 million California voters.

    IMO, the judge LEGALIZED SODOMY.

     •  Reply
  23. Missing large
    disgustedtaxpayer  over 13 years ago

    Ramirez’ cartoon is good satire. In the 1780s there were no such issues as legalized abortion, gay rights or socialized medicine.

    Our Founders set up a constitution based on Principles, drawn from the Judeo-Christian traditions of most people who immigrated from Europe. It was a model of the smallest government possible, to do only the national defense, etc…and left most governing to the individual states. That original model has long since been stretched far out of shape….it would be good if God would send us a MEMO quoting our Founders on the Ship of State 2010…

     •  Reply
  24. Buddy
    lalas  over 13 years ago

    And that would be right next to the section about how Corporations are people?!?!

     •  Reply
  25. Missing large
    trace747  over 13 years ago

    corporations are made up of people…yes that is correct

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Michael Ramirez