Pat Oliphant for February 03, 2011

  1. Hpim0603 edited
    Harolynne Premium Member about 13 years ago

    Right on!

     •  Reply
  2. B3b2b771 4dd5 4067 bfef 5ade241cb8c2
    cdward  about 13 years ago

    At last, something the GOP and Democrats can agree on.

     •  Reply
  3. B8b14dce2f3161ff864f5dfd89ee5a51
    avarner  about 13 years ago

    Wow, you Libs sure hate women…

     •  Reply
  4. Mexico border
    TruthfulTheocracy  about 13 years ago

    ^¿Igual como howgozapendejo talks about Pelosi and Maddow?

     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    Sullykerry  about 13 years ago

    Perhaps in his native Australia Pat Oliphant can get away with denigrating women by name calling. While I appreciate good political debate and humor, this cartoon is sadly lacking in both. Clean up your act, Mr. Oliphant. Make the debate more respectful and useful.

     •  Reply
  6. Stitch
    dshepard  about 13 years ago

    Don’t be surprised by this, Sully. Pat Oliphant isn’t the only one engaged in these ad-hominem attacks. The history with Palin is easy to figure out; it appears also that they haven’t been able to find anything with even remote truth to it to hang Bachmann on either so they attack them personally in a feeble attempt to make their arguments look more valid. Denigration is one way they deal with an argument they know they can’t win any other way. Truth be told if their arguments were tested on their merits rather than relying on slandering their opponent their argument would hit the ground so hard it would be felt in China.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    Rod Vonder Reith  about 13 years ago

    What CRAP!

     •  Reply
  8. Amnesia
    Simon_Jester  about 13 years ago

    Does this mean the righties are gonna take back all of THEIR personal, ad hominem, attacks on Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama, and oh yes, Chelsea Clinton?

    ‘Course they won’t,…

    It is not we who have nothing left but personal attacks, Sully-David. It is YOU who have nothing left but to accuse anyone who dares to criticize either of these to of making personal attacks.

     •  Reply
  9. Tigerfarts
    SpicyNacho Premium Member about 13 years ago

    Fairportfan2, then don’t you and your liberal friends call me a racist because I don’t agree with Obama’s policies or who he has associated with climbing up the political ladder.

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    Prof_Bleen  about 13 years ago

    They’re both ignorant anti-intellectuals. So why is the elephant trying to disown them? They beautifully personify the GOP’s anti-science, anti-intellectual pandering of the last few years.

     •  Reply
  11. Amnesia
    Simon_Jester  about 13 years ago

    In case you’re wondering how the Repubs REALLY value women…..

    http://tinyurl.com/2727aes

     •  Reply
  12. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member about 13 years ago

    ^^ In your first post you mention Michelle Bachmann. Did you mean Michelle Obama?

    Plenty of Tweets on Meghan McCain (Republican)’s twitter feed pointing out Republican attacks against her over her appearance. Scalia says the 14th Amendment Constitution doesn’t protect women. So if Liberals “hate women” over almost the amount of bashing Palin’s taken (not to mention from her own side), imagine how Conservatives feel toward them with how Hillary Clinton was treated over the years.

     •  Reply
  13. U joes mint logo rs 192x204
    Uncle Joe Premium Member about 13 years ago

    Sorry Conservatives, but you come across as whiny hypocrites when you cry about the likes of Palin, Bachman & O’Donnell being ridiculed.

    Conservative Women like Kay Bailey Hutchinson & Elizabeth Dole don’t get cartoons like this because they don’t make fools of themselves in the media.

    And, if liberals really hate women, why are nearly 70% of the women in Congress Democrats?

     •  Reply
  14. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 13 years ago

    Remember all the criticism directed at Bush and Cheney?

    That must prove libs hate men, too, right, Avarner?

    Or maybe the criticism of Palin and Bachmann isn’t because they’re women, but because of the stupid things they say (Africa is a country; the Founding Fathers ended slavery).

     •  Reply
  15. Computerhead
    Spyderred  about 13 years ago

    It is a form of sexual discrimination to suggest that a person should not be held to a given set of standards because the person is a woman. The argument that women were inherently weaker in body and mind was used a long time to keep women uneducated and without an income. No more.

     •  Reply
  16. Ys
    HabaneroBuck  about 13 years ago

    These people talk for a living, Anthony, give me a break. They speak clearly and cogently on 95% of what they say, then have a faux pas like any other public speaker, and they are “stupid.” I’ve never been one to hammer Barack on visiting 57 states during his campaign, but obviously I could. I could give you a whole litany of ‘em for Barack, Biden, Teddy Kennedy, etc…this strip is stupid because it is just spiteful.

    The Elephant is the GOP. He is not “right-wing”. Sorry for those of you who err in basic understanding. Palin and Bachmann are right-wing. They represent the Tea party’s attempt to whip the GOP into shape. Establishment GOP does not want to budge. It disowns its constituency.

     •  Reply
  17. Missing large
    ChromeHead  about 13 years ago

    Who turned over all the rocks. Man, there’s a bunch of critters crawling around. I used to subscribe to Oliphant’s “cartoons” just for laughs. Seems like as he grows older, he grows more cluless. Pity!

     •  Reply
  18. Missing large
    David Riedel Premium Member about 13 years ago

    ^^^^^ “they haven’t been able to find anything with even remote truth to it to hang Bachmann on either…” Really. Where have you been? By her words shall ye know her.

     •  Reply
  19. Biker2
    biemmezeta  about 13 years ago

    you only wish. we love them both!

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

    Buzz the cat says; Re toon; Wooooo…brutal, Kat!

     •  Reply
  21. Bluejay
    Bluejayz  about 13 years ago

    Habannero, I think you got your statistics reversed. Here’s what 95% of Palins comments sound like:

    “This great nation’s exceptionalism was guaranteed by our great founding father’s patriotic commitment to this great nation’s exceptional devotion to our founding father’s commitment to our Constitution, which grants American exceptionalism for this great nation.” – Sarah Palin

     •  Reply
  22. Georg von rosen   oden som vandringsman  1886  odin  the wanderer
    runar  about 13 years ago

    “Even rational Republicans are uneasy about her…”

    I was unaware of the existence of rational Republicans. Which one is it?

     •  Reply
  23. Mexico border
    TruthfulTheocracy  about 13 years ago

    Me gusta Snooki Polizzi.

     •  Reply
  24. Missing large
    Norton99  about 13 years ago

    The Muslim Brotherhood will take over Egypt only if they can win an election. Since they can’t win an election, they will not take over Egypt. Any other nonextistant boogeymen you’d like to worry about?

     •  Reply
  25. Marx lennon
    charliekane  about 13 years ago

    Daddy is a business Republican. Scary and Mechell appeal to, shall we say, the less well informed.

    (Before calling me a left leaning elitist, please check Politifact or FactCheck regarding the pronouncements of these dear women.)

    I’m no fan of fellow Hoosier Mitch Daniels, but ye righties, heed his wisdom:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblogtheticket/20110202/elyblog_theticket/mitch-daniels-says-the-gop-should-mute-debate-on-social-issues-to-focus-on-economic-crisis

    Daddy’s romance with those less well informed produced these offspring.

     •  Reply
  26. Amnesia
    Simon_Jester  about 13 years ago

    The ACORN video has long since been debunked, jackson.

    And what does Planned Parenthood have to do with this anyway except for you needing an excuse to vent your anger,. Mr. Let’s-Be-Constructive-Here?

     •  Reply
  27. Amnesia
    Simon_Jester  about 13 years ago

    One more example of how Republicans, ‘value’ women…

    http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-new-york/redefinte-rape

    ( They’ve since backed off on this, but still….. )

     •  Reply
  28. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 13 years ago

    I was just watching a video of Palin, in response to Obama’s “Sputnik Moment” challenge, claiming that the launching of Sputnik was the cause of the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.

    HabaneroBuck, does that fall within your “clear and cogent” 95%?

     •  Reply
  29. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 13 years ago

    HabaneroBuck, hello? Where are you?

     •  Reply
  30. Sherman
    DamYankee22  about 13 years ago

    it takes more than one idiotic statement to prove idiocy. (Anybody can have a bad day, occasionally.) It seems that the two ladies in question have done so repeatedly.

     •  Reply
  31. Ys
    HabaneroBuck  about 13 years ago

    I just read about Palin’s comments on Sputnik. While it did not directly address the point that Obama was trying to make, it did address a general theme, so I don’t think it was as clearly a gaffe as you make it out to be. It was an example of a politician taking a question from the media and going in their own direction with the question.

    Did the space program bankrupt Russia? It was extremely costly. Did the sputnik moment spur us on to greater scientific achievement? I guess, but NASA and space exploration is largely just a toilet-bowl of taxpayer dollars, as well. I don’t have a problem turning the Sputnik moment on its ear and pointing out the futility and costliness of space programs.

    Final judgment: not the most clear response in the world, but not an outright blunder.

     •  Reply
  32. Missing large
    Incatchaos  about 13 years ago

    The stark fear of these women (and probably all women) by liberals approaches psychosis. Get help by all means.

     •  Reply
  33. Missing large
    noblepa  about 13 years ago

    “I guess, but NASA and space exploration is largely just a toilet-bowl of taxpayer dollars, as well. I don’t have a problem turning the Sputnik moment on its ear and pointing out the futility and costliness of space programs.”

    NASA doesn’t do a very good job of blowing their own horn, but many of the things we take for granted today, are a direct result of the space program.

    That computer you’re using? The electronics, especially the miniaturization of components, was directly spurred by NASA’s need to save space and weight.

    NOMEX flame retardent material protects countless firefighters, race drivers and others who face heat in their jobs.

    The little thermometer that the Dr. sticks in your ear, instead of your mouth (or elsewhere)? Yup. NASA.

    Mylar plastic, used in audio and video tapes over the years? Invented for the Echo satellite in the early sixties.

    Ever watch a 1930’s, aviation-themed movie? Often the hero is in danger of crashing due to ice buildup on the wings of his/her plane. You don’t hear of that much any more, because NASA (and its predecessor, NACA) built an icing wind tunnel and figured out how to minimize it. This probably saved more lives than we can count.

    Most aircraft designs, since the thirties, has been done with knowledge and testing gained by NACA/NASA, or in NASA wind tunnels.

    That GPS unit in your car? While the current GPS system of satellites is more directly a military offshoot, the technology to launch and control satellites is all NASA.

    Have you been watching the events in Egypt? The Bejing Olympics? Virtually any cable TV channel? All transmitted via satellites that were developed with NASA-created knowledge and launched on NASA rockets. True, some have been launched by the ESA, but most are NASA.

    NASA has generated a lot of information about the human body and has resulted in advances in medical treatment and equipment.

    NASA (actually NACA) was deeply involved (and continues to be) in jet engine development, when they brought a Whittle jet engine over from England and created one of the first practical commercial jet engines. NASA still does a lot of research, at its John Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, on jet engine efficiency and noise reduction.

    NASA is involved, for the most part, with pure research. This is research that is not directed at producing a marketable product. What good is that? As, I believe it was Ben Franklin, said, “Of what use is a new born baby?” A lot of the knowledge gained by NASA has been transferred to industry, who, in turn created those marketable products.

    This is only a very small part of the very real contributions that NASA has made to our lives. Its a lot more than 80 pounds or rocks brought back from the moon.

     •  Reply
  34. John adams1
    Motivemagus  about 13 years ago

    ^^Kettle, meet pot.

     •  Reply
  35. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 13 years ago

    Habanero, I don’t have the actual figures, but I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that if we compare the cost of the USSR’s Sputnik program to the cost of their military and keeping up with the arms race, the former would be negligible.

     •  Reply
  36. Bluejay
    Bluejayz  about 13 years ago

    Noblepa, very good post! I’ve never understood the efforts to belittle NASA’s accomplishments. Why are expenditures on unneeded and unworkable weapons systems more important or acceptable than the basic scientific research being done at NASA?

    You left out freeze-dried foods, teflon, artificial hips and knees, advances in mathmatics, communications and electronics.

    And what’s wrong with spending for basic research? Most Nobel prizes for medicine, physics and chemistry aren’t awarded until decades after the original research was performed. It takes years for understanding of the importance and application of science to catch up with the basic research.

     •  Reply
  37. Jude
    tcolkett  about 13 years ago

    Quite a stretch HabaneroBuck! Because you can somehow rearrange Palin’s ignorant, deluded comment into something that is vaguely related to a fact (about some other topic) doesn’t mean that she is clear headed. She’s profoundly confused and ignorant and the idea that anyone thinks she’s capable of running any government is really scary.

    “‎..(the) modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith

     •  Reply
  38. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 13 years ago

    GEE-more useless comments from Howie…and Church.

     •  Reply
  39. Androidify 1453615949677
    Jason Allen  about 13 years ago

    I don’t think they’re ignorant OR stupid. There’s a difference between not knowing the truth and not caring what the truth is. These two tell their followers what they want to hear and what their followers want to hear is NOT the truth. In that sense, they are the LEADERS of the ignorant and/or stupid.

     •  Reply
  40. Androidify 1453615949677
    Jason Allen  about 13 years ago

    First, the comic at hand had nothing to do with Obama or Jobs. It dealt with calling Palin and Bachmann stupid and ignorant. I restricted my comment to address that. They’re not either, but pandering to those who are.

    As I said before, Church, I didn’t vote for Obama. I don’t necessarily support him much beyond the “he’s better than the alternative” school of thought. I agree with some of his policies and look down on others.

    I read an article the other day in the Washington Post dealing with the unemployment rate versus the number of people employed.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020401290.html

    As for unemployment, we will never experience meaningful employment gains until companies stop exporting jobs overseas. I don’t see either party addressing that issue outside of the 10 year old upper tier tax cuts. Those tax cuts seem to have done very little to stem the tide of US jobs lost to overseas manufacturers.

     •  Reply
  41. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 13 years ago

    While the pandering is obviously true, how do you interpret, for example, Palin’s comment about Africa being a country, or Bachmann’s contention that the founding fathers got rid of slavery (“very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States”)?

    I mean, some comments like Palin calling North Korea our ally was just an obvious slip of the tongue…amusing, but not indicative of anything deeper.

    But when Bachmann tells us about early America, “”It didn’t matter the color of their skin. It didn’t matter their language. It didn’t matter their economic status.” “It didn’t matter whether they descended from known royalty or are of a higher class or a lower class. It made no difference. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn’t that remarkable? It is absolutely remarkable,” if you want to claim that isn’t either stupid or ignorant, then what is it? A deliberate lie, in the hopes that her audience would simply believe her?

    If it was a lie, then I’d call her stupid for thinking no one would call her on it, and if it wasn’t, then I’d call her very ignorant of our history. I don’t see any other way to interpret it. It certainly wasn’t a slip of the tongue like saying North instead of South Korea.

     •  Reply
  42. Hunkbun
    Josephus79  about 13 years ago

    @ Anthony, how do you contend with, say, the British press disgruntled over the newest Wikileaks concerning the Obama admin’s release of info regarding the Trident system in favor of currying support with the Russians for his SALT treaty. Australia and Britain are hacked off right now.

    But that’s not what hacks me off, for I have never seen the day when America, with Egypt, would favor a policy of civility over democracy.

    President Obsa*d, is more like it.

     •  Reply
  43. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 13 years ago

    Sorry, Josephus, I’m not familiar with that issue.

    Latest example of Palin: She granted a rare interview after her Friday night speech, but she limited it to ten minutes, and made sure it was on friendly turf…The Christian Broadcasting Network.

    Nevertheless, after making vague criticisms of how Obama was handling the crisis in Egypt, she was asked how she would be handling it differently. Her answer: “I would continue on the same course of not really caring what other people say about me or worrying about the things that they make up, but having that thick skin and a still spine.”

    She was unable to come up with a single example of just what she feels is wrong with the administration’s approach (an approach praised by many other past and present Republican leaders) other than to condemn Obama for not immediately releasing all the intel he has about Egypt.

    She was unable to come up with a single example of what she’d be doing differently.

    I guess since she can’t see Cairo from her house, it makes it difficult for her.

    (Interestingly, around the same time Cheney was also giving an interview, talking about Egypt and Mubarak. In direct contradiction with Palin’s views, he said, “Mr. Cheney also suggested that people outside of the White House may not know exactly what the Obama administration has been saying to Mr. Mubarak. Mr. Cheney said that it was important for diplomatic communications to remain private so they can be effective.

    “It is very hard for some foreign leader to act on U.S. advice in a visible way,” Mr. Cheney said. If “you tell me as the president of the United States that I’ve got to do X, and you do it publicly, then if I do X, my people think I’m not my own man — I do the bidding of the Americans. It’s exactly the wrong way to go.”

    He added: “There is a reason why a lot of diplomacy is conducted in secret. There are good reasons for there to be confidentiality in some of those communications.”

    I guess the difference is that Cheney has the experience that Palin lacks.)

     •  Reply
  44. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 13 years ago

    Seiko, I read your comment a couple of times, and I still can’t understand what you’re trying to say.

    Try again?

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Pat Oliphant