I think the fourth cartoon perfectly illustrates the warped view that some on the right have of the left...and how far out of touch with the world the right has become.
Okay, teacher, point out any part of the fourth cartoon that is factually incorrect, and show us that it is factually incorrect. ANY part will do, liar boy, ANY part at all.
As for the last frame, I do not really think much about it. I do know, however, that it is a masterfully-crafted example of the worst aspects of most liberals I have encountered over the past few years... Anectdotal evidence, I know, but I can only speak towards what I see.
The fourth represents the Bay Area where I live and grew-up very well - only the guy holding the Move On sign (it IS a guy, right?), if thinner and older could be my mom. Mark's not from around here.
I looked at a couple of years worth of those cartoons, and while they are as artistically proficient as any graphic novelist I've seen, I didn't get hooked. While I agree with nearly all of their points, they were all kind of heavy-handed and pedantic. I kept waiting to snicker or giggle at the irony or humor, but managed only a smirk or two.
"Okay, teacher, point out any part of the fourth cartoon that is factually incorrect, and show us that it is factually incorrect. ANY part will do, liar boy, ANY part at all."
Finally have some time...here we go...
Let's start with the burning of the "private enterprise" sign. This is liberal? Liberals want everything to be...publicly owned? Maybe a few do but not all...as the cartoon illustrates in such narrow minded black and white. It's all liberals, damnit!!!
Hmm...according to assertions on this blog, the Hollywood Elite (all liberal, based on "facts" presented here) make quite a bit of money using their free enterprise. How does that jibe with the burning sign then? Warren Buffet is a liberal and encourages private enterprise as well as private foundations. How about Bill Gates? I'm sure he does not want the government running Microsoft. The fact is that most liberals make a good deal of money from the capitalistic nature of our country so the sign is ludicrous or flat out wrong.
Change this country...the character saying it is portrayed as a Cletus the slack jawed Yokel type. So all liberals who want change look stupid like this? Compare this image to the list of military personnel supporting Obama for president. Sense any cognitive dissonance?
Dude playing the bongos...again, see the list of public support for Obama. Lots of diversity there, folks..not just sensitive pony tail men with earrings.
Freedom is selfish we want Fairness Che sign...I find this one to be the funniest. The view that liberals "hate" freedom because they have some ideas on how to make our country better makes them ....communist revolutionaries? I've covered this ground in another thread. It is dogma gone horribly awry.
I do understand why this view is prevalent, though. There are people like this on the liberal side of the aisle. They are a very small group of weak and idiotic people that are vastly eclipsed by the majority of people on the left. This is where your in group bias comes in. You can't ell the difference. Add in the fact that the group of idiotic people in your own party are much more relevant, and much larger in number, and I can really understand why some would make this mistake.
Finally we have...America is behind the times...move on. America IS behind the times. The ideology that has been our modus operandi for the last eight years has put us there. Most folks on the left would like to see our standing in the world restored...economically, militarily, and diplomatically. So, yes, we want to "move on" but towards the future of a better country...not back into the Middle Ages where people were burned at the stake for heresy.
Kevin's post shows TWO cartoons, each having two panels, thus the "fourth" cartoon is at http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/ and is dated "September 19, 2008".
Now, apply my challenge to where I meant it, and learn to count, teacher.
DJ already pointed out to you that the reference was to another page.
Let's start with the burning of the "private enterprise" sign. This is liberal? Liberals want everything to be...publicly owned? Maybe a few do but not all
Almost every single thread has a post in it where you decry corporations. Almost. Every. One. You're one of the perfect examples. You've never found anything the government shouldn't be involved with.
The fact is that most liberals make a good deal of money from the capitalistic nature of our country so the sign is ludicrous or flat out wrong.
No, Mark, again, just because they do it doesn't mean they support it for anyone else.
The view that liberals "hate" freedom because they have some ideas on how to make our country better makes them ....communist revolutionaries?
Yes. Pretty much. "You've covered it" means you've proven our point. The entire point of the Statist is that freedom must be subjugated to the Needs of the State. Who determines those needs? The State. People in the State. Bureaucrats, Mark. They determine how much "freedom" you'll have. Now if you're a bureaucrat, and can influence their decision by what your decision is, then, wow, you get more than the next guy.
What Equality! Robbespierre would be proud!
The ideology that has been our modus operandi for the last eight years has put us there.
Which was still smarter than this talking point of yours that has been shredded and demolished. (Note your utter lack of ability to deal with it, and the rote memorization of it.)
"Ideology?" Mark, Bush isn't a conservative, you slack-jawed yokel. Never has been. That's why he barely won in 2000 against a (at the time considered) conservative Democrat.
Most folks on the left would like to see our standing in the world restored...economically, militarily, and diplomatically.
So you offer up a callow youth with no experience, a Marxist background, who's never even had to fight a political battle for election before, who's never sponsored any controversial legislation or stood up for principal at his own risk? Who has been handpicked for every election, chosen for it's lack of risk to his image?
You can say that, but it just indicts your candidate more, because it would take a miracle for that person to do those things. Honestly. Now, he can destroy American by giving in worldwide to evil and those self-centered, and hand out money hand over fist, and "gain respect back" like we had in the 50s and 60s when we did what Europe wanted, and we paid the bills....
But that means our economy will be wrecked.
You really can't understand that your talking points to who you say you want don't match Obama in any way, do you?
One of them is wrong. Given the enthusiasm for the Marxist, Leftist, defeatist backgrounded-Obama, one has a very reasonable ability to question which is not true.
"I do understand why this view is prevalent, though. There are people like this on the liberal side of the aisle. They are a very small group of weak and idiotic people that are vastly eclipsed by the majority of people on the left."
That "very small group" that considers freedom selfish and wants fairness (a term with no objective meaning whatsoever) instead includes Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangell, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority membership of HuffPo, Daily Kos and MoveOn.org. Okay, that they are idiotic I'll agree with.... but isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that the majority of the major Democrat fundraising website and *much of the leadership of Congress* is "weak" and "vastly eclipsed by the majority of people on the left"?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/10/apparently-im-pretty-far-to-right.html (15 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I think the fourth cartoon perfectly illustrates the warped view that some on the right have of the left...and how far out of touch with the world the right has become.
Mark,
I don't think he could have asked for a better commendation than for you to "think" it's totally wrong.
Okay, teacher, point out any part of the fourth cartoon that is factually incorrect, and show us that it is factually incorrect. ANY part will do, liar boy, ANY part at all.
*yoinks the images*
Right there with you, Kevin.
As for the last frame, I do not really think much about it. I do know, however, that it is a masterfully-crafted example of the worst aspects of most liberals I have encountered over the past few years... Anectdotal evidence, I know, but I can only speak towards what I see.
The fourth represents the Bay Area where I live and grew-up very well - only the guy holding the Move On sign (it IS a guy, right?), if thinner and older could be my mom. Mark's not from around here.
I looked at a couple of years worth of those cartoons, and while they are as artistically proficient as any graphic novelist I've seen, I didn't get hooked. While I agree with nearly all of their points, they were all kind of heavy-handed and pedantic. I kept waiting to snicker or giggle at the irony or humor, but managed only a smirk or two.
So. . .
You're saying that the artist is the Right's Ted Rall, only he actually has artistic talent?
Not at all. They weren't shrill and insane, a la Rall. They just read like something from a textbook - informative, just not very amusing.
Swiping from Kevin who stole from Mostly Cajun to post on PowerLine forum...because the friggin commies over there are driving me crazy.
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/41940/
"Okay, teacher, point out any part of the fourth cartoon that is factually incorrect, and show us that it is factually incorrect. ANY part will do, liar boy, ANY part at all."
Finally have some time...here we go...
Let's start with the burning of the "private enterprise" sign. This is liberal? Liberals want everything to be...publicly owned? Maybe a few do but not all...as the cartoon illustrates in such narrow minded black and white. It's all liberals, damnit!!!
Hmm...according to assertions on this blog, the Hollywood Elite (all liberal, based on "facts" presented here) make quite a bit of money using their free enterprise. How does that jibe with the burning sign then? Warren Buffet is a liberal and encourages private enterprise as well as private foundations. How about Bill Gates? I'm sure he does not want the government running Microsoft. The fact is that most liberals make a good deal of money from the capitalistic nature of our country so the sign is ludicrous or flat out wrong.
Change this country...the character saying it is portrayed as a Cletus the slack jawed Yokel type. So all liberals who want change look stupid like this? Compare this image to the list of military personnel supporting Obama for president. Sense any cognitive dissonance?
Dude playing the bongos...again, see the list of public support for Obama. Lots of diversity there, folks..not just sensitive pony tail men with earrings.
Freedom is selfish we want Fairness Che sign...I find this one to be the funniest. The view that liberals "hate" freedom because they have some ideas on how to make our country better makes them ....communist revolutionaries? I've covered this ground in another thread. It is dogma gone horribly awry.
I do understand why this view is prevalent, though. There are people like this on the liberal side of the aisle. They are a very small group of weak and idiotic people that are vastly eclipsed by the majority of people on the left. This is where your in group bias comes in. You can't ell the difference. Add in the fact that the group of idiotic people in your own party are much more relevant, and much larger in number, and I can really understand why some would make this mistake.
Finally we have...America is behind the times...move on. America IS behind the times. The ideology that has been our modus operandi for the last eight years has put us there. Most folks on the left would like to see our standing in the world restored...economically, militarily, and diplomatically. So, yes, we want to "move on" but towards the future of a better country...not back into the Middle Ages where people were burned at the stake for heresy.
Kevin's post shows TWO cartoons, each having two panels, thus the "fourth" cartoon is at http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/ and is dated "September 19, 2008".
Now, apply my challenge to where I meant it, and learn to count, teacher.
DJ, I hate to do this to ya, but apparently dirtcrasher thought the 4th panel was this too...
The fourth represents the Bay Area where I live and grew-up very well - only the guy holding the Move On sign
Likely others did, too. I find it amazing that a teacher has such difficulty.
Mark:
DJ already pointed out to you that the reference was to another page.
Let's start with the burning of the "private enterprise" sign. This is liberal? Liberals want everything to be...publicly owned? Maybe a few do but not all
Almost every single thread has a post in it where you decry corporations. Almost. Every. One. You're one of the perfect examples. You've never found anything the government shouldn't be involved with.
The fact is that most liberals make a good deal of money from the capitalistic nature of our country so the sign is ludicrous or flat out wrong.
No, Mark, again, just because they do it doesn't mean they support it for anyone else.
The view that liberals "hate" freedom because they have some ideas on how to make our country better makes them ....communist revolutionaries?
Yes. Pretty much. "You've covered it" means you've proven our point. The entire point of the Statist is that freedom must be subjugated to the Needs of the State. Who determines those needs? The State. People in the State. Bureaucrats, Mark. They determine how much "freedom" you'll have. Now if you're a bureaucrat, and can influence their decision by what your decision is, then, wow, you get more than the next guy.
What Equality! Robbespierre would be proud!
The ideology that has been our modus operandi for the last eight years has put us there.
Which was still smarter than this talking point of yours that has been shredded and demolished. (Note your utter lack of ability to deal with it, and the rote memorization of it.)
"Ideology?" Mark, Bush isn't a conservative, you slack-jawed yokel. Never has been. That's why he barely won in 2000 against a (at the time considered) conservative Democrat.
Most folks on the left would like to see our standing in the world restored...economically, militarily, and diplomatically.
So you offer up a callow youth with no experience, a Marxist background, who's never even had to fight a political battle for election before, who's never sponsored any controversial legislation or stood up for principal at his own risk? Who has been handpicked for every election, chosen for it's lack of risk to his image?
You can say that, but it just indicts your candidate more, because it would take a miracle for that person to do those things. Honestly. Now, he can destroy American by giving in worldwide to evil and those self-centered, and hand out money hand over fist, and "gain respect back" like we had in the 50s and 60s when we did what Europe wanted, and we paid the bills....
But that means our economy will be wrecked.
You really can't understand that your talking points to who you say you want don't match Obama in any way, do you?
One of them is wrong. Given the enthusiasm for the Marxist, Leftist, defeatist backgrounded-Obama, one has a very reasonable ability to question which is not true.
"I do understand why this view is prevalent, though. There are people like this on the liberal side of the aisle. They are a very small group of weak and idiotic people that are vastly eclipsed by the majority of people on the left."
That "very small group" that considers freedom selfish and wants fairness (a term with no objective meaning whatsoever) instead includes Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangell, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority membership of HuffPo, Daily Kos and MoveOn.org. Okay, that they are idiotic I'll agree with.... but isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that the majority of the major Democrat fundraising website and *much of the leadership of Congress* is "weak" and "vastly eclipsed by the majority of people on the left"?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>