Stanek Sunday funnies, 8-24-14
Good morning, and Happy Sunday! Here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the end of this post!
We begin with a cartoon a bit out of our norm, an illustration by Rod Anderson at the Christian Post to accompany its article, “Will sheer numbers win the abortion fight?”, about a study by researchers at Northwestern University indicating pro-lifers are winning the abortion fight simply by having more babies than abortion proponents…
by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com…
by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Nate Beeler at Townhall.com…
[polldaddy poll=8263867]
Aug.24, 2014 7:03 am |
Cartoons |
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.
Doug –
Carrying on the conversation from the other day. Most of the stuff, we’d be splitting hairs on – so I just wanted to bring up two more points on the conversation.
1) It’s clear that nobody in the two major parties thinks the debt is the main issue out there, because they both have things they clearly state are more important than the debt. Worded differently, they won’t work on fixing the debt if it makes them sacrifice other principles. The left won’t fix the debt if it means too big of changes to SS/Medicare/Medicaid – and the right puts tax policy above the debt. Will they let it get too high so that both lose and both have to sacrifice a lot? We’ll see. I do think one of the saddest things you can read out there is a policy paper from the CBO from around 2000 regarding the paying off of the debt and options then. Then we had 9/11, a couple of unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts, unfunded Medicare expansion, the great recession…
2) I think the biggest area where we differ is I think the government should make good investments. You use subsidies – but I’m 100% for the child tax credit. I think one of the better pro-life ideas I saw in the last election cycle was tripling the child tax credit (Santorum). Of course, I’d want to pay for the cuts with other increases – but my general principle is, for the long term health of the country, we need a strong birth rate and good education – and I call spending in those areas investments, not subsidies.
I’m voting for #2 this week.
While #5 is probably right on the money, I just don’t think it’s appropriate to make a “joke” out of what happened to
poor James Foley.
Pretty good group: lol at 2, 3, and 5.
Ex-GOP, it certainly would have been more possible to start real work on the debt back in 2000. However, I think the last real chance we had was at the beginning of Reagan as President. And even, then, human nature being what it is, the die was cast. I think we are seeing the decline of the US’s hegemony.
Increasing the child tax credit – really okay by me if offset by other expenditure cuts. In the grand scheme of things I don’t think it’s a big deal, either way.
Democrats are responding to criticism by deflection and it’s not good enough. You’re not going to win my votes with “he did it too” and “Bush was worse.”
Any culture whose greatest aspiration is to seem just a little less bad than the opposition is destined for failure. That means you, political liberals. How about upping your game instead of hiding behind the previous administration’s shortcomings?
The problem is that Republican leaders don’t have a clue. They tried to address the deficit with the Romney/Ryan campaign, but we reelected the guy who promised free contraception. So the Republicans have no idea how to turn responsible fiscal policy into a winning issue.
The other problem is that Democrats don’t care. They don’t care about healthcare, or immigration, or terrorism. This is the point of Obama’ beheading speech/golf outing. To the Democrats, the crises of our nation are just opportunities to score points with voters. They have no urgent need to solve the problems.
Pro-Lifers have the right idea: We need to solve our problems ourselves, without the help Washington. We win hearts by our testimony on the sidewalks, and by educating the public.
Dave Ramsey has done more to reduce the federal deficit than the TEA Party has. Ramsey has turned people’s hearts, cultivating a healthy disdain for debt in our culture. As this movement grows, more people will insist on fiscal responsibility in our politicians. People join the TEA Party after they are inspired to stop digging into debt.
Del: The problem is that Republican leaders don’t have a clue. They tried to address the deficit with the Romney/Ryan campaign
Del, I remember Romney’s proposed budget – it had as much or more red ink in it as did Obama’s. I do give Reagan credit, early on, but for the whole of his Presidency, as with every Republican over the past 40+ years, the deficit did not go down, it didn’t even stay remotely the same. Every single time a Republican Presidency followed a Democratic one, the deficit skyrocketed. “Conservatives…” Oh please.
Here is a black man who doesn’t play the race/victim card:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/24/dr-ben-carson-smacks-down-jesse-jackson-ferguson-it%E2%80%99s-about-%E2%80%98respect-authority%E2%80%99-and-
Herman Cain didn’t either.
He finished in what, 7th place?
Ex-RINO, did you listen to what Dr. Carson offered for a solution to poverty and the poor? He was touting self-reliance through education.
Nope – I didn’t watch it.
I’m actually still waiting for you to post a view of his healthcare thoughts – a summary of them, what you like and what you don’t like. If I simply want to watch youtube videos, I know how to run those.
Plus, I don’t go to Fox sites. They literally make you dumber. Did you see that study? My guess is Fox didn’t report on it.
Still only BS from you huh? The other day you were touting education as the way to bring the poor out of poverty and into the middle class…
I’m not quite sure what’s BS – I asked you for a summation on his health care views, multiple times now, and you haven’t provided it.
I mean, it’s cute to see you running all over the site and saying ‘Ben Carson rocks’ – but I mean, at sometime can you get past the bumper sticker part of your support and get into something with substance? I beg of you.
You liking your own posts again?
“I asked you for a summation on his health care views”
Dr. Carson believes an individuals control over the health care they choose is of fundamental importance to a persons freedom and individual rights. Dr. Carson’s health care views is that he believes it is of paramount importance to keep government out of healthcare. Try using google… you are asking questions that are easily researchable on your own.
http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/dr-ben-carsons-seven-principles-alternative-obamacare
Ex-RINO,
Dr. Carson says that ‘government should not force people into health care options they do not want for themselves’. Do you agree?
truth –
I asked what you liked and didn’t like of his plan – I asked you many times. If that’s his plan, it has no meat to it and is just a bunch of fluff.
“Our health is important and should be under our own control”.
No sh*t. Seriously? That’s a plan? A 7th grader could put that together in 10 minutes.
This is what you support? What does any of that even mean to an average person? You don’t like Obamacare, but you’re willing to just accept blindly some BS fluff with absolutely NO details?
Seriously?
Here’s my plan:
– I want everybody to be treated by kittens and be healthy and happy all the time.
I bet you’ll love that one!
My goodness…come back when you have a plan to support. That’s a joke – don’t make me think less of you.
Ex-RINO and Current-strawman; pathetic in his attempts to avoid answering questions that would show him for who he is. Lets try again and watch the Obamamaniacs squirm….
“government should not force people into health care options they do not want for themselves”. Do you agree?
I don’t agree at all – and I don’t think you do either, unless you are saying you want pre-existing condition discrimation to come back.
If you’re saying that there’s no minimum converage, are you saying that for instance, cancer treatement isn’t covered – that somebody could bypass?
So you’re either saying that insurance companies can dictate people can’t add it later, or you’re creating a situation that isn’t sustainable (letting people sign up for insurance only when they are sick).
So you want to bring back discrimination based on pre-existing conditions?
Of course we need some minimum coverage regulation – do you seriously disagree with that?
Well, despite being pretty funny, this set of Sunday Funnies ain’t done very well as far as inspiring discussion.
Gotta say that the “Obama Golf” stuff is pretty darn silly.
Bush Jr: over 800 days of vacation in 8 years as President. If Obama took every day off, all the rest of the way through, would he even equal that?
Doug
Vacation time is about the silliest thing that people whine about.
Do they really think the President just turns off his phone and ignores everything?
Don’t people who complain actually have jobs? Even on vacation, I’m typically checking email and might have to respond to emergencies. And I’m not the President.
It’s like Republicans don’t understand techology.
And to be fair, if the GOP ever wins another Presidential election, Democrats will complain as well – and they will be stupid to do so.
Ex-RINO, you are a lemur. If a person doesn’t want to pay for a health insurance plan that covers cancer then they should be able to opt for a less expensive plan. If a person wants to purchase a less expensive health insurance plan that does not include family growth reduction services, then they should not be forced to pay for a plan that includes abortaficients or sterilization. The American way is to tell liberal control freaks like you that you have no right to force people to live according to your dictates. Dr. Carson sees the very real danger when ‘progressive’ statists like you get together and use government to not only mandate people pay higher health insurance premiums and deductibles but now also use the force of the government to force additional taxes on citizens and distribute the taxes to subsidize the health insurance companies and other bureaucratic ‘special’ interests.
‘Progressives’ like you just keep on regulating and regulating and regulating to the point where it is illegal for an adult in New York city to purchase a soda that is larger that 16 ounces in size. Do you know if that soda size law in New York takes into consideration the amount of ice you like in your soda?
Doug,
You see nothing excessive about Obama’s golfing and vacationing…but you have to admit that he does way to much campaigning. Even you must see how pathetic it was two years ago on 9/11 when Obama left for a campaign junket in Las Vegas while his cabinet was in the situation room watching our embassy in Libya get over-run. Oh, but it was ok to do because he had his phone with him right Ex-RINO?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2014/08/11/video-that-time-obama-promised-never-to-take-a-vacation-n1877358
You lefties like to whine about the insurance companies ripping people off but Obamacare is now mandating an additional huge influx of monies (government subsidies) going to a health insurance industry that was already using 40% of the premiums they collect towards things other than medical bills.
you are a lemur.
Truthseeker, you crack me up.
Ex-GOP: Vacation time is about the silliest thing that people whine about.
Do they really think the President just turns off his phone and ignores everything?
Don’t people who complain actually have jobs? Even on vacation, I’m typically checking email and might have to respond to emergencies. And I’m not the President.
Two evenings ago, my wife raised hell about me having my phone off for a couple hours….
Truthseeker: it is illegal for an adult in New York city to purchase a soda that is larger that 16 ounces in size.
What?! COMMUNISM!!
Lefty Lemurs are running amok!! Gaah!!
(But seriously, the NY Supreme Court and the NY Court of Appeals said “no” to that law, Dude.) ;)
TS: You see nothing excessive about Obama’s golfing and vacationing…but you have to admit that he does way to much campaigning.
I’m not sure, Truthseeker. Would it really make a meaningful difference if he did less vacationing? For Presidents, I think the best thing is often to do little, i.e. don’t screw things up worse than what they already are.
As to campaigning, I imagine that quite a few Democrats don’t want Obama to “do them any favors.” I’m thinking they’d probably be good with him just staying in D.C.
Obamacare – I really don’t know how it will work out in the long run. There is obvious good to it, and obvious bad. Most of it – I don’t know how history will end up judging it.
Silly truth –
You should know by now that I don’t care much about your theoretical view of how things might or should work. Let’s get practical.
You know a family that, in your scenario, purchased an insurance plan without cancer coverage. Their 8 year old gets cancer. What happens:
A) Tough luck – kid gets only services that the family can pay for (or arrange for payment for)
B) Kid gets covered – everyone else pays with higher rates (a socialistic type model)
C) The family can buy cancer coverage whenever they want, even after somebody gets cancer.
I didn’t read much of the rest of your post quite frankly – not much substance. I’m training you though – you’ll get better.
truth –
Health care reform actually puts caps on how much money is spent on non-medical care. The system before didn’t have caps, and spending was much higher.
truth – how do you feel about Scott Walker’s political fundraising trips – mostly out of the state, and not related to Wisconsin at all. Lots of vacations as well. Thoughts?
You should know by now that I don’t care much about your theoretical view of how things might or should work. Let’s get practical.
You know a family that, in your scenario, purchased an insurance plan without cancer coverage. Their 8 year old gets cancer. What happens:
OK Ex-RINO, lets talk reality and not theoretical. List me all the cases you can find in the past 10 years where an 8 year old was not able to get care for cancer and died….. I won’t hold my breath waiting for your strawman non-answer.
We’ve had minimal coverage though – you are proposing oddball plans where you can pick and choose what services.
So let me know how it works in this world. Again, you are the one proposing this new restaurant style ordering of services.
In the past, if people don’t have insurance, it’s option B – so you just want status quo of the past, where it just rolled to higher rates for everyone else?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084733/These-parents-let-son-8-die-curable-cancer-wouldnt-doctor–paid-dog-treated-fleas.html
EGV,
The parents had money to treat their dog but not to take their son to a doctor? Something about this story doesn’t wash. He died of cancer and pneumonia. They couldn’t take him to an ER? Maybe the parents wanted the boy to die or didn’t care if he did?
Again I ask you, did you read this source before posting it?
Mary – thanks for jumping in. The scenario is really irrelevant because what truth is proposing is outside what we’ve seen before. If you truly do want to jump in, my question from 7:11 stands unanswered at this point.
Ex-RINO, the reality is that the only case you could find of an 8 year old dying from cancer because of lack of medical care was not because he was denied care…it was because the parents did not take him for care.
truth
My question from 7:11 stands unanswered by you.
Ex-RINO, you may want to clarify what question you have for Mary cause I do not see any questions that were asked in your post from 7:11.
You should know by now that I don’t care much about your theoretical view of how things might or should work. Let’s get practical.
You know a family that, in your scenario, purchased an insurance plan without cancer coverage. Their 8 year old gets cancer. What happens:
A) Tough luck – kid gets only services that the family can pay for (or arrange for payment for)
B) Kid gets covered – everyone else pays with higher rates (a socialistic type model)
C) The family can buy cancer coverage whenever they want, even after somebody gets cancer.
EGV 9:49 PM,
Any time.
‘I didn’t read much of the rest of your post quite frankly’
Ex-RINO, only a narcissist like you could complain to me about not responding to your questions right after you declare that you don’t even take the time to read posts I make to you. And narcissist is the kindest word I could come up with for a person who relates with other people that way.
I’ll go back and read it after we get through with this issue.
I think you just want free loaders – why should anybody have insurance – just go to the medical facility and get whatever care you want, right?
Seriously – you can’t answer the question can you?
EGV,
This child was taken for “care” when he was terminal and died shortly after. He pleaded for care, he was obviously very ill, and his parents did nothing. In the meantime the parents took their dog to the vet.
Sorry EGV, you’ll have to do better than this. These are parents who belong in prison.
Was there supposed to be a question in that post from 7:11? If so, then try using a question mark at the end of your questions so people have an idea that you asking a question.
Thanks Mary – I really don’t care of that subject – you can find plenty of people who have received substandard or no care because of cancer. Regardless, truth dodger is posting a different scenario.
I’m starting to feel really embarrassed for you truth. This is worse than when a politician gets asked about one thing, and just ignores the question and talks about whatever they want. If you can’t answer it, just say you can’t and we’ll move on with our day.
“I’ll go back and read it after we get through with this issue.”
1) There were no questions in your 7:11 post.
2) How do you know I didn’t already answer what ever question is in your mind if you didn’t even read my post?
You know a family that, in your scenario, purchased an insurance plan without cancer coverage. Their 8 year old gets cancer. What happens?
A) Tough luck – kid gets only services that the family can pay for (or arrange for payment for) B) Kid gets covered – everyone else pays with higher rates (a socialistic type model)
C) The family can buy cancer coverage whenever they want, even after somebody gets cancer.
EGV,
My post from 9:54 stands as an answer to your hypotheticals. I prefer to discuss real scenarios and not hypotheticals posed with three choices of outcomes to pick from. Could the kid choose option#4 and go to Shriner’s hospital?
So you go with the freeloader scenario – where costs just rise for those who can pay because other people can skip responsibility. A bit of a socialist viewpoint without the personal responsibility.
Also flies in the face of what Carson actually says about health care – at least what I’ve read.
Really no reason to talk about him though – his health care plan sucks, he probably isn’t in the top 10 (that I’ve seen) of likely GOP picks, and even if he did win, Hillary would destroy him (she’ll destroy anybody but Christie – I think he could actually win if he dances well in the center without losing the right).
Or option #5 and go to St. Jude’s for care? Or are we limited to stay outside of reality and must remain within the confines of your hypothetical scenarios and options?
Ex-RINO, didn’t your daddy ever teach you how to distinguish the difference between a freeloader who milks the government teat and a person who accepts charity?
truth’s guide to healthcare:
Don’t worry about coverage, you can always seek out charity.
Lovely.
I am truthseeker, and I spit in the face of self-reliance!
Don’t want to worry about it, just skip coverage – everyone else will pay your share!
Yes Ex-RINO. Those who find themselves in need have the option of seeking out charitable organizations for assistance. There is a difference between that scenario and free-loaders who milk the system and ‘expect’ everything to be provided to them by the government. The free-loader is willing to trade their liberty for a government nanny state.
YOU said, hey, just let people pick whatever coverage they want.
How many people do you know that can afford a seven figure cancer treatment bill if they aren’t covered?
YOU are the one that said, sure – let people skip coverage for certain things.
I’m not putting words in your mouth – this was your plan – pick and choose things without any mandated coverage.
New bumper sticker: Truth hates personal responsibility
“Don’t want to worry about it, just skip coverage – everyone else will pay your share!”
Ex-RINO, your cost of insurance does not go up; and neither you or anybody else is forced to pay a penny for the care of the 8 year old cancer victim who gets treated at Shriner’s; so once again you are shown that your whole spiel is complete BS fabricated on falsehoods. But that is just how you like to roll isn’t it?
truth’s views on healthcare:
“Get a big bus, drive around and pick up those who are needy, and those who skipped out on their personal responsibility, and ship them to charity care facilities around the country”.
What a joke.
No Ex-RINO, it is not a joke. You were unable to find any real life cases of ‘your own hypothetical case’ where an 8 year old child with cancer died cause they were refused treatment. I am telling you that there are 8 year olds without health care policies getting cancer treatment every day at Shriner’s. That means I choose to live in reality and you choose to live in a fantasy world of hypotheticals that you try and twist and bend in your mind until you can escape the truth.
and spread deceit
Ex-RINO, with Obama and/or Hillary having a strategy as Commander-in-Chief is above their pay-grade.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/28/obama-admits-isis-dilemma-%E2%80%98we-don%E2%80%99t-have-strategy-yet%E2%80%99
Obama at a presser excusing his lack of leadership by saying he has
no strategy yet is really bad optics.
truth –
First off, if you google people struggling to pay for cancer treatment, you’ll find a ton of articles. Your scenario doesn’t matter because you are suggesting people be able to buy insurance, but ignore certain coverages, which is an odd thing to support.
Secondly, if your health care plan depends on people getting charity care for things that they skip coverage on, then you aren’t a conservative. I’m a better conservative than you. Personal responsibility buddy – look it up. If you sluff off what you should be doing in society and tell other people to pay for you – you’re a bad conservative.
Last – I don’t think you have the first clue of what Carson even things of health care. How could you not mention his $2K plan? Do you actually research anything that you support/rail against, or do you just play lemming and follow whatever Fox news tells you?
I am glad to hear you are researching Dr. Carson. I figured you would avoid it like you ignore the posts of people you blog with.
“Secondly, if your health care plan depends on people getting charity care for things that they skip coverage on, then you aren’t a conservative. I’m a better conservative than you”
Ex-RINO,
Can you shed some light on why progressives like you want to give your money to the government so the government can help people but as a group progressives have an aversion to giving their money to charities?
http://www.answers.com/Q/Do_republicans_or_democrates_give_more_to_charity
Sorry truth – was gone for a couple of a days – but yes, I research a lot of health care plans and ideas. It is massively important, especially to the middle class, and there’s a lot of great ideas out there. I even like some ideas conservatives have put out there.
Carson’s ideas are just not very good when you get down to it. It’s obvious you haven’t studied, nor understand his ideas – but you should look into them somebody.