Here were my top five favorite cartoons this week, beginning with one by abortion proponent Steve Benson at GoComics.com, who I’d say is actually the one obsessing about that which he accuses Rick Santorum…
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…
by Dick Locher at GoComics.com…
by Glenn McCoy at GoComics.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
ALERT! Tenuous connection at best to ‘Sunday funnie’.
I was watching ‘All in the Family’ re-runs and Archie extinguished himself once again.
Arhie learns that his friend and co-worker ‘Stretch’ Cunningham has died of a heart attack.
Circumstances conspire against Archie and he is compelled to give the eulogy at dearly departed Cunningham’s memorial service.
When Archie arrives at the site of the funeral he is moritified to see it is a synagogue.
But Archie, seizes the moment, holds his yalmulke laden head high, and informs the mourners that he had no idea that Stretch was jewish. Nothing about Stretch’s face looked jewish and Archie had never seen anything about Stretch that appeared jewish.
Stretch had even laughed when they told their jewish jokes.
For example Stretch laughed more than anyone at this one:
A priest and a rabbi run into each other at the neighborhood deli.
The priest says, “I understand you jews don’t eat ham sanwhiches?”
The rabbi says, “That is correct. It is a against our religion. I understand you priests don’t go out with girls?”
The priest says, “That is correct. It is against our religion.”
The rabbi says, “You ought to try it. Girls are a lot better than ham sandwiches!”
Actually think if those 53 million babies were not aborted and were alive now and paying taxes…
Some of the best I’ve seen you post! The ones on Obama are great!
And the first one, though it’s supposed to be making fun of pro-lifers, is actually kind of true. Maybe ending abortion won’t end war, but it sure can fix a lot of other things – like economy, etc. and oh I don’t know, maybe the abuse of women and the murder of millions of babies?? That one is pretty key ;)
Ken?!?
Where have you been?
I’ve missed you!
Looking forward to four more years of comics about Obama.
Don’t hold your breath, Ex. ;)
Yeah X. Even my ultra liberal Democrat friends who GUSHED about Obama a few years ago are now thoroughly disgusted and say they won’t vote for him again.
Hi ken! It’s been a long time all right.
It is obviously way too early to tell…I just think the pool of GOP folks running for office aren’t going to excite people. I think Romney could give Obama a run, though we’ve seen what people think of flip floppers. Who knows, maybe a new candidate at convention time.
If the unemployment percentage keeps coming down, and if the GOP folks don’t get massively excited about a single candidate – four more years is going to happen.
Some extra cartoons for the week:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/
Hi Sydney M,
Maybe your ultra liberal friends got disillusioned with Obama when he refused to part the waters of the Gulf Of Mexico and make it easier to cap the BP oil spill! Or was it his unwillingness to stop the Japanese tsunami? :)
Hi Ken,
Great to see you back. My favorite Archie episode was when he tried to swindle the insurance company by claiming he was injured in a car accident. He was adamant about having a Jewish lawyer, who then initially sent his Irish Catholic son-in-law to interview Archie. Turned out the witnesses to the minor accident, which was Archie’s fault after all, were a car full of nuns.
X-Gop, I’m curious. You may have mentioned before or maybe you don’t care to answer, but I wondered what party you belong to now? Are you a Democrat or 3rd party?
I am not a Republican myself. I am a Constitutionalist. I was thinking of switching so I could vote in the primary but I am not seeing a candidate I am particularly excited about, but I do not like Romney and i don’t like Newt. Normally I have a clear direction of how I’d vote but I can honestly say I don’t right now.
If I could find a candidate that was socially libertarian , but pro-life, and economically more left I would vote for them, lol.
Sydney –
Don’t mind answering at all – I tell most people I’m an independent or a moderate (not formally registered as anything)- I probably vote Democrat 65% of the time, GOP 25-30% of the time, and an independent the rest. Not many good independent candidates pop up – when I was in Minnesota, there were a few I voted for (NOT Ventura though).
“If I could find a candidate that was socially libertarian , but pro-life, and economically more left I would vote for them, lol.” – I think you’ve summed up the problem with all the GOP candidates Jack. They would deliver so many negatives for so few positives.
I am somewhat in your boat, Jack – nevertheless, at this point I would vote for absolutely anyone who would put Obama out of office. He has more negatives than perhaps any President in history!
Oh X, come on! Not Ventura??? lol. My cousin lived in Minnesota during his um, “reign”. lol. I heard quite enough from my cousin.
Jack, I consider myself very conservative and always thought “libertarian” was code for “anarchist” but imagine my surprise recently to find out I have strong libertarian leanings. I guess I didn’t fully understand what “libertarian” entailed. Especially since I have a family member who is very liberal but she says she is libertarian. So I thought Libertarian was a dirty word. Come to find out we actually agree on some issues. And I am as far from liberal as you can get.
You know, the stupid thing with that first cartoon is that Benson is not far from the truth. Abortion is a breaking of the fundamental right to life and if you live in a society that endorses it you have little chance of getting anything else right because your moral compass is seriously damaged.
What Benson does not understand is that the right to life is a fundamental principle not a policy. What does it matter if the budget got balanced or about the war in Afghanistan if you were killed before you ever got to see daylight or take a lungful of air, Steve?
I haven’t gained a real sense of you as a great supporter of
“individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society” or “sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty” Sydney M. I would have thought of you more as a ‘selective interventionist’ like most conservatives, especially the more evangelical.
I didn’t say I was 100% libertarian Reality. I said I have libertarian leanings. I do believe individual liberty is a basic principal of our society… I wouldn’t call it “moral” though. But I don’t believe in individual liberty when it means hurting others. So I don’t support abortion. I also don’t support drunk driving. There are things though I find morally distasteful I don’t believe should be illegal because I believe adults should be able to have individual liberty even to their own detriment. I won’t go into what because I am too tired to open a can of worms… but I am conservative, with libertarian LEANINGS. I’m not libertarian.
Sydney – what do you feel about the war on drugs, and US involvement in other countries (wars and such).
Those seem to be two big ones that divide the fashionable libertarians and the hardcore libertarians.
That’s ok, I’ll leave it alone.
Hope you get some rest :-)
Reality… you can be very much for personal liberty and still think that abortion should be criminalized.
X-GOP…. I think the war on drugs is a hoax. I think it has created more death and destruction. I think we ought not to meddle in foreign wars or affairs that don’t concern us. I don’t like drugs but shouldn’t adults be able to do what they want with their own bodies? Has the “war on drugs” stopped drug consumption? Nope. Its created a black market, thats all.
I’m a Ron Paul supporter (okay I opened the can of worms!)
I think some people confuse libertarian with libertine.
Sydney, we agree on quite a bit more than I ever thought we did. :)
I’d say Jack, that in the last year I’ve been thinking deeply about a lot of issues and changed my mind on some things.
I’m still a Christian and I live a certain way but I don’t see how the government can or should legislate my lifestyle for everybody else. Especially since I don’t want an atheist lifestyle legislated for me. Like I said to Reality, as long as someone isn’t hurting someone else (innocent party) I don’t think there should be laws preventing it. I really do believe in personal liberty, something I think our country has lost along the way.
You are right Jack. But when does one’s personal stance against things start to belie claimed support for personal liberty?
How so Reality? If someone says they are supporters of personal liberty does that mean they must support rape?
Could it simply be Sydney M. that, in a sense, we have gone from being governed by the church to being governed by the state? A supposedly more ‘inclusive’ system?
Not at all Sydney M. That would be impinging on another person’s personal liberty.
I meant more along the lines of how much of a libertarian is someone who says they support personal liberty except for abortion, or except for contraception, or non-marital sex, or drug use, or alcohol consumption? How far down the list does it go before their claimed support for ‘personal liberty’ no longer actually stands.
I am against (personally) drugs, extra-marital sex etc… but I don’t think it should be legislated. I support the right of adults to partake in such things even though I know they will be harmed. It is their right, their bodies, their choice. However, in an abortion we are talking about another human being. Same as the rape scenario. I do not support the right of someone to do something that infringes on someone else’s personal liberty. Thats where my line in the sand is drawn.
I don’t follow how we were ever governed by the church (except maybe in early early colonial times). The fact that many of our founding fathers were Christians or deists of some sort does not mean we were church governed. I have a different take on it than you I guess.
I didn’t mean ‘extra-marital’ sex, I meant non-marital. Extra-marital usually hurts someone. I don’t think abortion impinges on someones ‘personal liberty’ but you probably guessed that. But I’m more interested in how far we think the list of “no’s” goes before people can no longer claim to support personal liberty.
In regards to the church governing, I didn’t mean in the US or in more recent history for most of the western world. But as an overarching theme going back a few thousand or even several thousand years.
Sorry Reality, to me “extra” marital means anything outside of marriage… including pre-martial or as you would say “non-marital”. I meant the same as you did.
Do you mean only the Christian church or religion in general?
I will have to continue this another time. My pillow is screaming my name.
Lol, Reality. I had this argument with Tyler yesterday on another thread, my viewpoint is similar to Sydney’s. I don’t feel like typing it all out for the fortieth time this weekend, but I will say this. When another human is involved, your rights end. I don’t think drugs, consenting sex acts, etc, should be legislated by the state. However, I don’t support abortion anymore than I would child abuse, because personal liberty shouldn’t involve the right to deliberately harm another human being.
“I’m still a Christian and I live a certain way but I don’t see how the government can or should legislate my lifestyle for everybody else. Especially since I don’t want an atheist lifestyle legislated for me.”
This is what I would wish a lot more Christians would understand. I agree with you Christians on a lot of things, I think it’s better to be monogamous, for example, in most cases. I simply don’t want it forced, and I think it can cause a lot of damage to do so. It could easily be turned around and we all could be forced to live our lives in ways that none of us would be okay with.
In regards to the ‘western’ transition to ‘democracy’ it has mainly been the christian faiths. Certain others are a little more current as we know, but then one in particular seems to be running at least 600 years behind the rest.
Go to your rest.
Well we’ll disagree on that one Jack.
“Especially since I don’t want an atheist lifestyle legislated for me.” – I’ve been scratching my head over exactly what Sydney M. meant by that Jack.
She would have to tell you herself exactly, but she was most likely mean that she wouldn’t want someone else’s moral code enforced on her, any more than I would. I wouldn’t say “atheist lifestyle”, personally, because I have never met two atheists that share a lifestyle, lol.
Yeah, it’s funny how some people of faith scream that they are being restricted or prevented from practising their faith when all that is really happening is that they are being restricted or prevented from forcing others to do so.
Hm, if you haven’t met two atheists who share a lifestyle have you met two christians who share a lifestyle?
To me, libertarians are of the party of “Am I my brothr’s keeper?” It’s a small world, getting smaller. Drugs, prostitution, Iran will eventually reach our doorstep.
But I believe in a war on drug dealers, not users. And on pimps, not prostitutes (it would be nice to rap the knuckles of the johns, too.)
Terrorist nations and groups can’t be allowed to have nuclear capability.
Like it or not, we are the policeman of the world. It’s our responsibility as the “elder” to prevent calamity whenever possible.
Just like we can’t be the ones who shut our windows as Kitty Genovese is being raped and murdered. We have to be better than that.
“But I believe in a war on drug dealers, not users. And on pimps, not prostitutes (it would be nice to rap the knuckles of the johns, too.)” – no big argument with you there Hans.
“Terrorist nations and groups can’t be allowed to have nuclear capability.” – hm, what about those nations which consider the US to be a terrorist nation?
“Like it or not, we are the policeman of the world. It’s our responsibility as the “elder” to prevent calamity whenever possible.” and then you wonder why China, India etc. complain about US hegemony. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not advocating flipping the current situation, I just think we need to be a little mindful.
I’m seems to me what I’m reading here sounds like different forms of relativism, but none of them work. The question is not whether or not one moral code gets ‘forced’ on others, but which one is selected to be the guiding code that everyone agrees to live by. All the claims that people make that they do not force their code on others are internally illogical and self-deceiving.
Oh, I’m mindful of it, all right. We’re far from perfect. But still, we are the big boy on the block. Let them grumble. When have ne’erdowells NOT griped about “the man”?
Relativism is everywhere Mark, it’s just how it is.
“The question is not whether or not one moral code gets ‘forced’ on others, but which one is selected to be the guiding code that everyone agrees to live by.” – there isn’t a single guiding code of morals that everyone agrees to live by.
Don’t forget Hans that what one side sees as ‘protecting their interests’ another sees as expansionist behavior.
Reality, I think that most Christians I have met tend to share more commonalities in morality and lifestyle than most atheists I have met. It’s just a personal observation.
“But I believe in a war on drug dealers, not users. And on pimps, not prostitutes (it would be nice to rap the knuckles of the johns, too.)”
I think this would be much, much preferable to what we have now. I see no reason to throw casual potheads and people dying of heroin addiction in prison with rapists and other violent criminals. I still think it’s basically useless to try to take down the dealers. One pops up once one goes down.
You can be passionate about helping stop or help a problem, and helping your fellow man, without necessarily wanting the activity you are worried about criminalized. You won’t find anyone that hates drugs more than I do, they nearly killed me. I just think the criminalizing of it makes the problem worse.
I think for a society to survive, it has to operate somewhat in the reverse of a Christian attitude, which is “hate the sin, love the sinner”.
The “big fish” sinners, like drug dealers, should have the hammer come down on them.
As a limited observation Jack, I would say I see more arguments between ‘believers’ on sites such as this than I do amongst atheists on atheist sites.
Atheists are atheist. Believers have a diversity of faiths and all their inherent variables.
Reality,
We argue because we care. Ambivalence doesn’t breed passion.
I don’t think that agreeing with someone or something on a regular basis is indicative of ambivalence or a lack of care Hans. If that were the case there wouldn’t be any discussion taking place. If atheists didn’t care then there would be no atheist sites. Atheists have passion too! :-)
As misdirected as it might be. :)
Oh how droll :-)
Hi, I’m back.
What I meant Reality, by “atheist lifestyle” is a lifestyle devoid of God. Not that all atheists have common values. Well, the one value is that they think they are the god of their life. But thats what I meant by that.
I wouldn’t want to be prohibited from worshipping God freely and living a moral life. So I wouldn’t legislate God on other people. I would love for all people to know God and love Him but you can’t legislate such things. That was my point.
I have to disagree with Hans. We are not, or at least should not be the “policeman” of the world. Who gave us that role? Who ever invited us to be? Because we say it other countries should follow it? I’m sorry but if Iran tried to police us I’d tell them where to stick it. What makes us so special?
I am all for defending our interests and if there is a threat to our nation taking that threat out but really… we have military bases all over the world and send our men and women in uniform all over the world doing UN missions etc… that is NOT our business! We should not be meddling in other countries’ affairs.
I don’t think our founding fathers ever intended for us to police the world. It costs a lot of money and it makes other nations hate us which is unsafe for us.
I think the chances of anything like an atheist lifestyle being legislated for you are extremely remote, verging on impossible, Sydney M.
On the face of it, I agree with what you say about the US not being the world’s policeman. There probably does however, need to be strategic positioning and defence alliances to discourage expansionism by ‘rogue states’ and such.
A “Get off my lawn!” hermetic attitude is fine only so far. When your neighbor is planning to chop down a tree that will fall on your house, some intervention is required.
We are our brother’s keeper, and we have to do something when our brother is up to no good. Because we’re bigger, stronger, and, yes, in many ways better than the likes of Iran. That’s just the way it is.
To ignore the rest of the world would be irresponsible.