HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Charles Schulz got it rig...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:45 PM

Charles Schulz got it right in this Peanuts toon


Found on the The Pragmatic Progressive Page

15 replies, 4193 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Charles Schulz got it right in this Peanuts toon (Original post)
Playinghardball Jan 2013 OP
tiny elvis Jan 2013 #1
GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #2
tiny elvis Jan 2013 #4
gateley Jan 2013 #8
TheDebbieDee Jan 2013 #11
Robb Jan 2013 #3
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #5
TexasBushwhacker Jan 2013 #6
ReRe Jan 2013 #7
AverageMe Jan 2013 #9
Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #13
Jim Lane Jan 2013 #14
icarusxat Jan 2013 #10
Takket Jan 2013 #12
FredStembottom Jan 2013 #15

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:54 PM

1. he drew the gun wrong

thus he is not credible and his point is moot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:59 PM

2. The clip's in backwards ...

right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:15 PM

4. also, dogs do not carry guns that way

and do not get me started on trying to identify the manufacturer of that chimera of a firearm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:04 PM

8. SOME breeds of dog do! Nice broad brushstroke, tiny elvis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:16 PM

11. That should probably be the pistol grip - There is no clip in that weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:02 PM

3. Schulz actually went to war.

I expect he got a lot right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:25 PM

5. ...when you get snoopy going against you then...it's time for change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:29 PM

6. Not to mention licenses to get married but no license to be a parent

Also licenses to cut hair and do manicures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:03 PM

7. This Peanuts episode...

... is a treasure and a keeper... going in the scrapbook! Thanks, Playinghardball!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:14 PM

9. Nightmare

 

Those Republicans who are against an assault weapons ban are crazy. I could not imagine why anyone would be against controlling the availability of assault rifles with clips of up to 100 bullets after Sandy Hook (Newtown). I support the right to defend yourself, or go hunting, with a handgun, rifle or shotgun, but I see no reason for the assault rifles. So I went to Free Republic (a conservative Republican web community) to see their reasons.

These Republicans want the assault weapons to defend themselves, but not against criminals. They want these weapons of mass destruction of children to defend themselves against the US government. They see the US government, particularly President Obama, as their enemy who is taking away their freedom and liberty. They believe we are headed down the road to a dictatorship under Obama. They see the taking away of these assault weapons as just the required first step Obama needs to accomplish this. They see themselves as patriots who are defending the Constitution. Some are calling for a revolution now, as in 1776, after all the Boston "Tea Party" was one of the first acts of that revolution.

The current presidential line of succession, as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is: Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D), and secondly Speaker of the House John Boehner (R). Very few times are the President and Vice President together in a non-tightly controlled environment, the presidential inauguration is one such occasion in which this is true. If the unthinkable happened, and both President Obama and Vice President Biden should die, a Republican, John Boehner would be our President. John Boehner's policies would be the exact opposite of those of President Obama and Vice President Biden's. The presidential line of succession should be changed so that the presidency would not switch parties if there was a co-ordinated attack by madmen on both the President and Vice President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageMe (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:30 PM

13. Secretary of State?

That would actually be a hard thing to set up, not having it switch parties if both Prez and Veep go at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Benton D Struckcheon (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:30 AM

14. It's pretty easy to do.

The current line of succession is:
Vice President
Speaker of the House
President Pro Tem of the Senate
Secretary of State
then the rest of the Cabinet in a specified order (roughly, order of creation of the department)

It's the inclusion of the two Congressional leaders that raises the possibility of a party switch effected by violence. Just delete those two positions from the list. (One argument that's been made is that it's unconstitutional to have Congressional leaders in there, anyway, because the separation between the executive and legislative branches should be preserved.)

The succession after the Vice President is merely a matter of statute. It could be changed without a constitutional amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:14 PM

10. Madmen...

How do we stop Republicans from shooting people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:29 PM

12. hmmmmmmmm

Obviously he hated America.

Schultz? Hmmmmmmmmm where have i heard his name before? Oh yeah, he was a NAZI!!!!!!!!! I saw it all on Hogan's Heros!!!!!!!

Signed,

Typical Republican moron.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:11 PM

15. My Not Actually a Peanuts Cartoon alarm is going off.

Why would Charlie Brown (a child ) get a driver's license?

And I can't recall Schultz wading into anything political in his toons.

I would like to think that he did do this, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread