Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LOL Great cartoon!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:22 AM
Original message
LOL Great cartoon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. hey haven't you heard?
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:24 AM by mikelgb
Political cartoons are off the table!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. I seen this earlier and thought the same thing
I just called Pelosi's office and asked her to please re-considered impeaching the pRez and vice and I tell you it does feel good to take part in our democracy like that. using our cell it prolly won't even cost me anything extra either ;_0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Good for you!
We are meeting with Senator Roberts tomorrow. :puke:

I will be sure to post a report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I'm sure that won't go to far but any effort is better than no effort,
my senator, dr tom coburn is pretty much in the same boat as sen roberts. no matter if I state something or ask a question in and email I always get pretty much the same form email in reply. Something like thank you for your correspondence, the Senator doesn't want to hear what you have to say he only wants you to hear what he has to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. Quote "he only wants you to hear what he has to say."
Are you one of the people being paid to write for them?

That last sentence sums it up nicely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
7.  will still oppose it, without GOP support for Impeachment it will not occur
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 11:09 AM by happyslug
Remember the Senate needs 2/3 vote to impeach. That means you need GOP votes to convict and remove. Without Substantial GOP support Impeachment will NOT occur. Now by substantial I mean more than a couple of Representatives and Senators, but you do NOT need most of them. Pelosi is smart enough to know to get rid of Bush AND Chaney she needs the support not only of The Democrats BUT at least close to a majority of Republicans.

Presently you have enough Republicans who support Bush to keep Bush from being removed. As long as that is the case, Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership will keep Impeachment off the table. People forget the Nixon had lost support among the GOP as he was impeached by the House, thus he resign BEFORE he was tried by the Senate. That is what the Democratic leadership is looking for, enough GOP support that if Bush and Chaney are impeached they will be REMOVED by the Senate by Democratic AND Republican Votes.

Compare Nixon's removal with Clinton's Impeachment. The GOP impeached Clinton, but every Democratic Senator refused to vote to remove him. The GOP had GOP support for the Impeachment BUT NOT SUPPORT FORM WITHIN CLINTON'S OWN PARTY. Thus the Impeachment of Clinton Failed for it was viewed as a act of Politics (The the GOP lost both the House and Senate over it, for enough voters looked at the Impeachment and Vote as Politics). The Democrats NEVER viewed Clinton's actions as harmful to the Country and thus NOT grounds for them to lose the next election. Pelosi was in the house when that Impeachment occurred, and saw the result. Pelosi learned at one lesson from that Impeachment, without support from within the opposition party, impeachment is NOT worth the effort (If you looked at Johnston's Impeachment in 1868, the same lesson was driven home, you can NOT impeach a President without Support from within his own party). At present you have some support to removed Bush from within the GOP, but you need more than a few Senators, you need for close to half of the opposition's Senators to say the President Must go. At present we do NOT have that, in a few months maybe, but not at the present time.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Bush and his GOP cohort are at 26% approval rating. At least try and try, try again but START NOW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. But they still have almost half of the Senate and the House.
That is the point I was trying to make, to remove Bush several GOP Senators MUST vote to remove Bush. At present I just do NOT see that happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Which is why you keep trying ! Get them on record changing sides
This is a glacial, gradual dynamic situation. We're trying to persuade the boneheaded GOPers. In order to get support for * down to zero you've got to keep pushing. Right now we're almost ready for a knockout punch. The only thing worse is if these stupid GOPers would think that they're 'rope-a-doping' the Dems...holding on to a fantasy that an attack on Iran will save their bacon somehow.

This is insane of course, since wargames of the situation show even if Iran gets a nuke, like Pakistan, they'd be CRAZY to use it. MAD worked with the Russians and Chinese, it should work with the mullahs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. I think it WILL happen. Information seems to be leaking everyday on these criminals.
Politicians are very prickly when it comes to looking for employment outside the government teat. Bu$h ain't runnin' for nothing, but these congresscritters need to get re-elected. I'm ever the optomist that some-one-thing is gonna bust these bastards and then the dam might burst.
Anyway, I hope so.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Right On spanone, you push and I push and he pushes and she pushes
and pretty soon we're MOVING this government to do the right goddamn thing for a change !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. Now that was an excellent post
I have never looked at it that way.

However, I doubt that Pelosi will put Impeachment back on the table even when she gets enough support from the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I notice you are Dutch, and like most European elect once every six years.
In the US, we REJECTED the concept of six years between elections (and the calling of Elections by the Government). Instead we have election as often as every six months (Some states more often, other states less often). Congress is divided into two separate houses, the House of Representatives (ELECTED EVERY TWO YEAS) and a Senate (Whose members are six years, but 1/3 of Senators are elected every two years). As to the States, all but Nebraska also have bicameral legislatures, a lower house and a State Senate. The lower State houses are elected every Two years at the same time as the federal elections, with the State Senators in many states elected for LONGER terms, but some part are elected at the ame time as the State House (In my Home State of Pennsylvania, 1/2 of the State Senators are elected every two years, thee Terms for my State Senators are four years in Duration (As are most State Governors).

I go into all of this for it is the STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS that determine the FEDERAL CoNGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. Because of the 1990 Election, the GOP ended up controlling most states after the 1990 Census. After Every Census the STATES must re-draw the Congressional district lines. AFter the 1990 Census the GOP controlled most states and thus re-drew lines to make it easier for them to win moor seats NOT only in the State house and Senate, but also the Federal House. Now Some states have so few people they only elect one member of the house. By the terms of the Constitution each state gets at least one member of the House (Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, South Dakota and North Dakota fall into this Category) but as to the other 44 States the State Government divides up the State among the Federal Representatives that state gets. If you have a GOP Governor and State Government they can divide the states up so that more districts have solid GOP majorities, while they dump the Democrats into 100% Democratic districts (This is called "Gerrymandering" after a 19th Century Politician who once drew a district map that reminder someone of a drawing of Salamander).

For example if a State is entitled to five members of the Federal House. A Republican con tolled State Government will make sure 1 District is almost 100% Democratic, but the other 4 Districts are 60% Republican and 40% Democratic so that the Republican would win those four Districts even if the Democrats get mote TOTAL votes than the Republican. (District one: 100 Democrats 0 Republicans, District 2-4: 55 Republican, 45 Democrats. . Total Votes 280 Democratic, 220 Republican but the Democrats win ONE seat and the REPUBLICANS win FOUR seats. This is the effect of Gerrymandering. Both Parties do it, but the GOP is the worse and the 2008 Election looks like it is setting up the 2010 Election. If the Democrats win in 2008, they an expect to stay in power in 2010 AND THUS CONTROL RE-DISTRICTING.

In many ways, the fight for the STATES is the key to winning the Federal Congress. Gerrymandering is just one way, but it is important. Impeachment will NOT prevent Gerrymandering after the 2010 election, but holding BUSH up as a bad President will have people vote Straight Democratic. Thus you will

Now California does NOT leave its Legislature draw its election maps (It is done by a separate commission), but almost every other state does leave its STate legislature draw the election Maps. THis is the importance of the 2008 and 2010 elections IF YOU WANT LIBERALS TO HAVE A CHANCE OF GOVERNING THIS COUNTRY, Pelosi knows this and is making every effort to win BOTH at the Federal Election bu also the State level. This is what she view as a "Win", which is more than just removing Bush. With the majority of Stares in Democratic Hands AND the Federal Government in Democratic Hands, a much more liberal and progressive movement is possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #20
39. A wonderfully insightful post, but I have to correct you...
...on one tiny detail, and that is that the Dutch vote once every four years (not six). But most governments don't last the whole four years, because in our system with usually three parties making a coalition to form a government, and the 'House' and 'Senate' usually not voting just along party lines (like the GOP has done in the House and Senate the past years), it's easier to bring a government down-- and they do it for much less than war crimes and unconstitutional behavior.

But other than that, thank you for your reply. At first, after the first paragraph, I wondered: "why did he/she write this, because I know all this?", but then you gave a very insightful explanation. I have not heard of that before.

:hi: Tnx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. WHAT????????????
Quote: "(The the GOP lost both the House and Senate over it, for enough voters looked at the Impeachment and Vote as Politics)" :crazy:

What in blue blazes are you talking about??????

Clinton was impeached in the House in December 1998.

The GOP lost control of Congress in 2006.

Those two events had NOTHING to do with each other. If anything, impeaching Clinton led to GOP gains in Congress, not losses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Probably just shorthand for the GOP's majority shrinking.

Although the impeachment did not occur til after the election, they made impeachment the central theme of their 1998 campaign. And it cost them. They lost seats in both chambers of congress that election.

And I am fairly certain it has been costing them ever since. I know more than one person who at least occasionally voted Republican -- and one who always voted Republican; even in '98 as she didn't think they would really impeach -- who have not voted for a single Republican since then. They (okay we as I am one of those who used to occasionally vote Republican) may vote Republican again, but only for one who denounces his/her party's action in that impeachment. But the best I have heard so far from a Republican is that it was a political mistake. Not that it was wrong, just that it was bad politics.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. You are right, I am fast forwarding events.
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 03:10 PM by happyslug
And I apologize for the mistake. The GOP BARELY won the Senate and the House in 2000 and Gore won the popular vote (The reason the GOP won the house and Senate had to do with the Gerrymandering done when the GOP won State legislatures in the late 1990s through 2000). It was this Gerrymandering that was the KEY to GOP control of the House in the 1990s and till 2006. Technically the Senate is harder for the GOP to Gerrymander, but you will be surprise at how the Lower half of a Ticket can win the Upper half i.e. Show that the GOP will win the House, and people will vote for GOP governors and Senators (The reverse is also true, but the Democrats have less money to spend to show they are winning an election).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
36. Support for * is support for war in Iran and continued Iraq Occupation
and continued destruction of the Army.

Read Time's Broken Down cover story,

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1606888,...

"The Army and the Pentagon bought into the notions that the war was going to be quick and easy and that victory would come right after the next Iraqi elections or the ones after that. As such optimistic scenarios proved false, the problem of shortfalls in troops and matriel got worse each year. A Republican-controlled Congress, wary of challenging a G.O.P. President on the war's course, added some funds but not nearly enough. Next year the Army is seeking a 19% budget hike, including a 55% rise in procurement dollars, to $130 billion.

The only way to fix the Army's woes is to effect A CHANGE IN MONEY OR MINDSET OR PROBABLY SOME OF EACH."

The GOP blew sunshine up everyone's asses and now we need that change in mindset, and not from the PsyOps either. The money's not there and the only way to end this fiasco is to withdraw strategically. Let Iraqis take care of Al Qaeda in Iraq themselves, they will turn on these foreigners just like they turned on our troops. When they realize to make things better some kind of foreign presence is needed if for anything just to help run the oilfields, they will call us up. Until that day, staunch the bleeding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. another thing that could be added there is that nance said that as far as Iran is concerned
everything is ON THE TABLE.
go cindy, democracy is a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yes, one would hope that might wake up some of these defenders
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. Any housewife would tell you 'you clean a room from the TOP down'
Let's start with BushCheney and impeachment NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. But you can only clean house in our Government come November 2008.
Which is what Pelosi is waiting for. Remove Bush then and get a complete cleaning, remove him now and you still have almost half of the Senate and house in GOP hands, as while as many states. The mess Bush is leading US into calls for a Complete Cleaning, and the best time for that is November 2008 for you can clean out the Federal Government (President, Senate and House) as while as the State Governments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. No no no no no ! You prevent dusty buildup by getting them on the record NOW !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. So they can just regroup and come back in 4 or 8 years?
No thanks. We need to send a strong message NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. When Nixon resigned to avoid being removed by the Senate.
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 03:25 PM by happyslug
The GOP came back 6 years later with Reagan (And De-factor Control of the House, the Democrats retained technical control, but the Reagan had enough Southern Democrats who voted with the GOP so that Reagan ruled like Bush, with Senate and House dominated by the GOP).

Both parties HAVE always re-group and ame back in 4-8 years )If not sooner). Sometimes with new names (The Federalist died out and its members form the "Whigs" who died out and members formed in the "Republican" Party. This party dominated till it was replaced as the majority party in the US by the Democrats under FDR. Tried to survive under Eisenhower, but cam back to life under Nixon and then Reagan as a Right wing party. Dieing under the Bushes, but will come back.

As to the Democrats, it formed under Jefferson, Reformed under Jackson, almost died out during the Civil War, survived till the 1890s when it started to embrace reforms, then took those reforms to become the Dominate party under FDR. Became fat and sassy under JFK, but then LBJ took it to areas of Reforms the GOP could attack (IT was LBJ more than JFK that pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act for example, but it was also the key to GOP fortunes from the late 1960s till today).

All parties suffer defeats, and then rebound in 4-8 years. This is healthy, for Parties need to know how far they can go. The Democrats needs to go to the left for that is what the Country needs and desire, but to do so the GOP Right wing tendency has to be shown to be a failure (and it is).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
15. Funny How Personal Perception Is Relevant To This Toon.
Cause from my vantage point, the way Cindy's holding the dustpan and broom would seem to align with the fact that she's sweeping things from elsewhere and then going to Nancy's pile to dump it on, in order to make the pile appear far bigger than it really is. Look at the angle of the dustpan. Looks like she just dumped another load of shit on the pile to deceive the viewer as to how big Nancy's pile really is.

See? Personal perception. Based on the reality of the situation the toon is representing, I'd say my interpretation above makes more sense as to what it represents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. my guess is Cindy added the soldier's boot to the pile...
I got a dustpan full too, If 'Nance' can't handle the pile she should step aside
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Wow. You must be a college fucking professor in Cartoon Interpretation.
Because I could have sworn those squiggly lines coming out of the shoe and the bottle of booze, and Pelosi's outstretched hand sort of imply she's the one dumping the garbage.

Maybe there's some way you can stretch this cartoon into an attack on Ralph Nader or Hugo Chavez?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. And Here We Go With The Spoon Feeding Again. Jesus.
I never hinted nor claimed that the objects that were obviously being tossed by Nancy were being tossed by Cindy. That was your gross misinterpretation of my premise.

Instead, I said that it appears Cindy is dumping ADDITIONAL crap on the pile to make it seem BIGGER than it is, which obviously infers that there would still be a pile outside of her dumping, albeit a smaller one. Not sure how you got the premise so wrong, but your false accusation that I was implying the boot and bottle were being tossed by Cindy is highly laughable in logic based on what I actually said.

So please, try and read more carefully so that we can avoid these spoon feeding explanations each time.

Thanks! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Oh, I read everything you wrote.
But I'll spoon-feed it to you: I think you're streeeeeeetching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Maybe So, But You Still Got It Wrong.
So please read more carefully, or try and spend more time comprehending the premise prior to answering. It was more than obvious in what I wrote that there was no implication that the boot and bottle were being thrown by Cindy. So the fact you so factually tried to put that premise in my mouth seems to indicate you rushed to judgment prior to actually absorbing content. I mean, we see silly stuff like that happen all the time here, but I think it's ok to ask when recognized to let it absorb for a few seconds prior to the knee jerk. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Here comes the airplane! Vroooom vrooom!
"It was more than obvious in what I wrote that there was no implication that the boot and bottle were being thrown by Cindy."

Yes, OMC. I know you didn't say anything about the shoe or the bottle. I was being sarcastic, you see.

This intent of this cartoon is very clear and obvious. And to deliberatly misinterpret it into an attack on Sheehan is pretty funny. Not funny ha ha, funny pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. It Wasn't Deliberately Misinterpreted.
It was deliberately re-interpreted.

I never claimed that my take on it was the way the artist meant it; since obviously their intent is clear.

Instead, I was making note of the humor as to the different ways someone could interpret it, and how you can actually see in the toon exactly what I'm saying. What's even better is that in reality, my interpretation actually aligns far more closely with what is truly happening than the artists warped perception.

You say that the attack (more just accurate observation) on Cindy is pathetic, yet Cindy has become an irrationally extreme democrat basher. What I find pathetic is the unfair and immensely exaggerated and delusional slams on Nancy. Yeah, Nancy. Remember her? Our Democratic Party Speaker of the House?

So don't mind me if I don't give a rat's fat ass that you take issue with my defending Nancy and calling out Cindy for the reality of which she's doing. When I see a toon that slams the hell out of Nancy unfairly and puts Cindy on some undeserved pedestal, you bet your ass I and others are well within our rights to comment on it as we see fit. The melodramatic bashing of Nancy is pathetic and rooted immensely in narrow minded ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. LOL.
"You say that the attack (more just accurate observation) on Cindy is pathetic"

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying your deliberate misinterpretation is pathetic.

"Yeah, Nancy. Remember her? Our Democratic Party Speaker of the House?"

Is that the one who's not impeaching or pulling the troops out of Iraq?

"So don't mind me if I don't give a rat's fat ass that you take issue with my defending Nancy and calling out Cindy for the reality of which she's doing. When I see a toon that slams the hell out of Nancy unfairly and puts Cindy on some undeserved pedestal, you bet your ass I and others are well within our rights to comment on it as we see fit."

If you want a cartoon that puts Nancy on a pedestal, and slams Cindy, go ahead and draw your own. To pretend that's what this cartoon is doing it's really, really intellectually dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Like I Said: The Toon Above Is Far More Accurate Under My Interpretation Of It.
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 04:08 PM by OPERATIONMINDCRIME
Don't give a shit if you don't like that simple fact, it's just simply the way it is.

Not my fault the artist drew it in such a way as to be more accurately assessed by someone with more rational perception. Go blame them. But regardless how the artist intended it, not only can my interpretation of it be readily seen and understood, but is actually far more accurate when compared to the reality of the situation. Don't like it? Too bad so sad. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Oh, so you agree with me!
Clearly, you agree with me that the cartoon is support for Cindy Sheehan, and is targetting Nancy Pelosi. At least, that's what I'm going to go ahead and re-interpret your post to mean. That's simply the way it is. It's not my fault your post was written in such away as to be more accurately assessed by someone with more rational perception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. That's Not Logic, That's Delusion.
My explanation towards the cartoon not only has merit based on the drawing, but also has merit based in reality towards the situation itself. In stark contrast to such concepts; however, your premise is void of both merit within the premise itself and merit when compared to real life. So your analogy is quite tragically flawed.

Nice try though!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. It's an '84.
The mileage isn't good, but I only drive it when I haul something, or the occasional camping trip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
35. Too good for comfort, isn't it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC