Here were my top five favorite political cartoons for the week, starting with one by Matt Davies at GoComics.com that shows the blindness of the liberal mind. The answer to the question is, “Sex in the first place,” with the follow-up question, “Who and how old is the guy?”
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com…
by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…
by Toby Toons…
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.
Prediction:
Obama pardons Blago after the 2012 election.
Regarding the first comic up top, that’s more of the left presenting a false dichotomy. The answer to the question is, “BOTH!”
A few comments:
First one – I think it is more than a little silly for the person posting the cartoons to say “how stupid is the liberal mind, the answer is ‘C'”. I think the cartoonist does make a point between the two options that are shown there.
Fourth one – a more accurate picture would be a multi-millionaire sipping wine – to show a child shows that the cartoonist doesn’t understand the debate.
Fifth one – if you want to read a news source that does a pretty good job tearing down the sorry GOP candidates, read Redstate. I think the news media is doing the GOP a favor – if they ignored them now and waited until the GOP had a candidate, and then tore them down, Obama would be better off. At least now, the GOP is getting folks out of the way. Plus, to say the media had anything to do with Cain and Perry imploding…did you watch any of the debates? How about Cain’s Libya answer? The media didn’t need to do much – they destroyed themselves.
Great line-up as usual, Jill. I laughed out loud seeing Joe Namath juxtaposed to Tim Tebow. My how times have changed! Yes, Joe was portrayed as the consummate good times guy/playboy (in reality he was a product of the media) that spoke to a culture in transition. Football as well was in transition at the time led by the brash Namath who had to gall to think the AFL could compete on the same field with the NFL, much less beat them. So he was kind of a cult hero and I might add a heck of a quarterback.
Now we have Tim Tebow come along and he rubs the establishment the wrong way. Why? Not ony is he not brash, but he has the nerve to express his faith in God openly and without apology. I say: good for him, what a breath of fresh air! I think our society is desparately in need of true role models that speak to something else than sex and money.
A few extra cartoons.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/
Gerard – I’ll bet you $100 on your prediction.
Gerard:
I’ll have to agree with ex on the fate of Blago, although probably not for the same reason. The reason I think Obama will not pardon Blago is because Blago is an intensely unlikeable person to those who knew him best and worked around him, and that includes Obama. His own father-in-law dissed him publicly. Blago is the furthest thing from Obama’s narcissistic mind.
ex says:
“the sorry GOP candidates” Better to be a “sorry” (of course I disagree with your assessment) candidate who will support prolife legislation than a pathetic sitting president who worked against legislation that gives medical treatment to babies born alive as a result of an attempted abortion.
ex:
Carrying over from the thread on the signs (graphic or not) I am indebted to you for sharing that you think pro-lifers use graphic signs to hurt those who are feeling guilt for their involvement or support of abortion:
“The shock value pictures are about shame, condemnation, and wrath”
You got a lot of push back from us for that because that is not how we think. But the value of your observation is that it is how pro-choicers think, for which I am grateful to know. Now it is clear to me why we get such vile comments from some people protesting the graphic signs…it is because they think we are condemning them or others for their pro-abortion actions or sympathies. Actually we are only trying to alert otherwise uninformed people as to the terrible reality of what abortion really is and a picture says a thousand words. These pictures have been the reason many people have changed their minds and are now anti-abortion.
Ex-GOP,
I’ll accept your wager. The loser donates $100 to a charity of their choosing.
Deal?
Ex-GOP: Plus, to say the media had anything to do with Cain and Perry imploding…did you watch any of the debates? How about Cain’s Libya answer? The media didn’t need to do much – they destroyed themselves.
Exactly. They never were going to seriously challenge Mitt. Now with Newt, I’m not so sure…. Would have not thought it possible.
I don’t really understand the payroll tax one…?
Gerard – the choosing of the victor, correct?
Alexandra -
Right now, there is a tax break (a couple percent payroll tax) which is set to expire at the end of the year. I believe it amounts to 2%, so a person making $50K would see their taxes increase about $1k if it doesn’t get extended.
The GOP, at times, says that tax cuts should be paid for, so they won’t automatically pass this extension of the tax cut. The Democrats, to pay for it, have offered a 3.25% tax on incomes over $1,000,000 a year (they also wanted to give an extra percent – so it would lower working people’s taxes – in that same scenario, about $500 a year). That plan had over 50 votes, but not 60 votes to clear any filibuster.
The GOP countered with the smaller package (equal to what the payroll tax is now) – and to pay for it, they want to freeze federal workers pay and reduce the amount of federal workers.
They’ve continued to go back and forth – the current bill of the GOP links the extension to an oil pipeline project.
So in this cartoon, the cartoonist is saying that the little kid must be making $1,000,000 a year – or his parents are, and that Obama is a grinch and is ruining Christmas because his parents would have to pay 3.25% more in taxes.
I mean, surely, Christmas would be ruined. The new Lexus might only have cloth interior.
Jerry – I can’t tell you for sure how pro-choicers think in regards to the sign. I do believe strongly that graphic signs, whether they are of dismembered babies, animals, or anything else – are meant to shock and shame people (shock if they haven’t been involved in that industry, shamed if they have).
Now, if the cause of abortion was the number one thing in my life – sure, do what it takes. If the cause of Christianity is the number on thing, and abortion is “a” thing, but not “the” thing – than in my mind, that approach probably isn’t the best way to confront another person.
Again, that is my take.
Appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
Thanks, GOP. I understand and know about the payroll tax issue – I just didn’t get the cartoon! I guess I didn’t think to interpret the kid as being in the “income over $1,000,000” bracket. It’s not very clear, since most little kids would benefit from the payroll tax being extended.
Alexandra -
I apologize – I did get one thing wrong – it is not on earners over a million – it is their adjusted gross – so they would actually have to make a decent chunk over a million.
But yes, I don’t know anything else the cartoonist could mean except for a millionaire.
Other folks – any other thoughts? Is that what the kid symbolizes?
Don’t you just love the assumption that if a fifteen year old girl is having sex it must be because of a ‘predator’.
Some fifteen year old girls have a more mature attitude towards sex than some thirty year olds, whethere they’re saying yes or no to partaking.
Gerard, I thought presidents usually did the pardon thing just before leaving office. In which case Blago might have a five year wait even if obama does decide to pardon him.
Jill, the blindness exposed by your stance on the first cartoon here belongs to you and the anti-choice side and the fact that you refuse to understand the reality that teenagers have sex, have always had sex and will always have sex despite anything anyone or any religion every tries to do. It is the blindness to this fact that sets much of your moral stance off on the wrong foot from the outset. One must consider these moral questions with the understanding that people have sex, including teenagers. You can put purity rings on their fingers, scare them with stories of disease, screaming babies and even hell, but nothing works to stop the hormonal, biological, completely god-given natural drive of humans to seek out sex after the onset of puberty. Accepting this fact is required to have a rational, reality-based conversation about the morality of the availability of contraception. The answer to the question cannot be “sex in the first place,” sure you can insist on that answer to young people with as much might as you can muster, but it will not change the fact that young people will have sex. You can argue that the availability of contraception might increase the chances of young people to engage in sex because they know they have a “safety net”, but the evidence here is debatable and, regardless, even without contraception you will be able not stop people from having sex. So, if they are going to have sex, ought we not, morally, choose to use science and technology to allow people, including teens, to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies that will lead to much more complex moral dilemmas?
Reality:
“Gerard, I thought presidents usually did the pardon thing just before leaving office. In which case Blago might have a five year wait even if obama does decide to pardon him.”
I hope your timeline is off by four years ;-)