Drawing Fire

As an editorial cartoonist, I find it necessary to draw our president from time to time. Usually(but not always) it will not be complimentary. Presidents, being at the top of the heap, get the blame for most of the country’s ills and shortcomings. It’s part of the job and most take such criticism in stride, at least in public.

There was a dramatic change when Barack Obama was elected. The sentinels of political correctness deem most any negative portrayal of Number 44 as a personal racist attack, even though the same cartoon featuring anyone before Obama would be acceptable. Why? Because all the presidents before were privileged white oppressors, according to some.  Cartoonists have struggled with this conundrum for almost six year, including yours truly.

The latest outrage came this past week, when cartoonist Jerry Holbert of the Boston Herald ran a cartoon featuring an intruder in the oval bathroom suggesting that the prez try the new watermelon flavored toothpaste. As anyone older than forty knows, blacks were stereotyped through much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as watermelon thieves. Now Holbert contended that it was an honest mistake, claiming that he noticed the offending flavor on a store shelf and thought it amusing. Even though the slur was obvious to me, I tend to take him at his word. Cartoonists are only human, despite what the public thinks.

So far, I haven’t been on the shitlist of indecent cartoonists, although I have made the effort from time to time. This is one of the few cartoons I have submitted to The Union that was rejected by the management.

BUSH CHENEY710And here’s a few examples of Bush bashing that somehow escaped the notice of the media watchdogs…

BUSH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I might have done a few of the scenarios pictured here; the vampire, maybe the devil, but I don’t think I would ever draw any president with a knife stuck in his head. As for the monkey, I’d be lynched for drawing that now, and rightly so. But it does raise the specter of double standards. What do you think?

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Drawing Fire

    • Chris Peterson says:

      I think there’s a big difference between individuals lampooning W, and the whole conservative movement attacking Obama. Certainly, with allowing us to be attacked, a 10 year war of choice, and the destruction of the US and world economy, it’s pretty difficult to compare the destruction under one to the recovery under the other.
      W’s character was a comics dream, whereas, although there is much to complain about with Obama, most of the attacks on him have been laughably serious fabrications by zealous political movements, ie. Kenyan, socialist, Muslim, etc.

      • fish says:

        I think there’s a big difference between individuals lampooning W, and the whole conservative movement attacking Obama.

        A variation on the Pauline Kael theme? Well played sir!

  1. Ben Emery says:

    Bob,
    We do have to admit that the race meme was more present with Obama than previous presidents. I don’t care about criticizing Obama on policy issues but speculation that he is not American and he had to prove it by his birth certificate, he is a closet radical Muslim, along with events like screaming southern congressman that he is a liar during a national event. These are all attempts to “mark” Barack Obama as not legitimate so he is not our President. My argument with those who use these types of memes is there is so much valid things to go after why do you insist on attacking him from this angle if it isn’t about the color of his skin or his parents? The way the ACA was created/passed was very sketchy in my opinion. I like many of the previsions within the law but process still matters. Drone Bombing Campaigns in sovereign nations, extension of both Patriot/ FISA Acts, NDAA, Kill Lists, Suspension of Habeas Corpus, ect… Personally I think he and many within his administration should be removed from office because of these policies. I also think they along with almost the entire Bush administration should be indicted for various war crimes. Clinton and his bombing campaigns in Iraq were acts of war as well in the 90’s. There are plenty of ways to go after a President but I would say many of the complaints against Obama that are coming from the right are sadly based on the fact that he is mulatto with his mom being the white parent. For some reason black men and white women stir hatred up more than other interracial couples.

  2. rlcrabb says:

    You’d have to be in my shoes to see the kind of vitriol I get for just drawing Obama. And while I agree that there are a certain percentage of conservatives that are obsessed with birther conspiracies, etc., I still maintain that most are not racists. It is ideology that is the great divider of this particular period in history.

    • Chris Peterson says:

      And I would argue that that is because of the polar shift in politics to the right over the last forty years. Upwards of 80% of the populace wanted single-payer health insurance, but when Obama struck a deal with the industry, which was the conservative plan originally, (Heritage Foundation, Romney), likewise the narrative shifted even further to whether that was conservative enough.

      Liberals today are arguing for a society that thirty years ago was Reagan’s vision, and moderates of both parties are being painted as leftist radicals. And the conservatives are forced to yell even louder over the murmurs of the majority while attempting to roll back voting rights, pass voter suppression laws, and further gerrymander districts in an attempt to hold their power.

      But we are such a fractured society, (by design), that we will never see a reversal, and certainly never an “American Spring.” The American public is way too fat and lazy for such an undertaking. Instead, we will continue to buy the line that, like climate change, the argument is split 50/50.

  3. Ben Emery says:

    Bob,
    I cannot speak to your specific issue but I will tell another story about an aunt of mine. She is as nice of person as you can meet and is a party line reagan republican. She made the comment to my mom one afternoon that it was Obama making racism worse in this country. I don’t think she really thought about what she was saying. My mom called her on it in a very polite way by asking the questions- What do you mean? Can you explain what you mean to me because I would really like to understand? After 10 seconds of trying to explain it she said something along the lines that it didn’t really make sense and she couldn’t explain why she thought that. Fox”news” is a great propaganda machine along with all the right wing echo chambers just as MSNBC is on the left.

  4. fish says:

    In keeping with the more civil and thoughtful tone recommended by both Ben and Barry Pruett I provide a helpful link to what is and what is not racist as of yesterday close of business. You may not care for the political orientation of the primary source but please note that the article does link each racist item (err…item of racist thought) to the wholesome, vetted progressive news outlets that identified them originally.

    http://freebeacon.com/blog/whats-racist-whats-not-as-of-friday-oct-3-2014/

    This concludes fish’s public service action item for today!

  5. Ben Emery says:

    Fish,
    I didn’t have to look at the examples given in your link to know what my answer to your civil comment.

    Liberals or the left are just as racist, well might not just as much but not much better than many on the right. The big difference is most of the racism on the left is passive and it doesn’t cross over into policies. Where as the right allows overt racism go without condemnation and many of the policies they promote affect the poor at a much higher rate. With the very discriminatory policies/ laws in place throughout the US for a vast majority of its history has made huge segments of people of color population live in poverty due to not having access to the infrastructure needed to get out of poverty. Since the 1960’s the laws are the most fair and we are seeing more and more people of color exit the poverty ranks. It still isn’t totally equitable but much better than my parents generation for sure. That is progression.

    • fish says:

      You must be all sorts of fun at parties Ben!

      • Ben Emery says:

        Actually I am very fun at party’s. Fish I answered your question. For the record on every team I have been on and all through school growing up I was one of the class clowns. Only when it comes to politics do I get serious. That is because politics affects peoples lives at the most basic levels and are important. Policies that affect millions and millions of lives should not be considered a joking matter.

    • Todd Juvinall says:

      So Ben Emery, since you have stated that thhose on the right pass overt policies and laws to implemet racism, could you please give is the facts to back that up? It seems to me you need to tell us ehre you got the info. Was it through your research on all the votes taken on the issues you say passed? And do you have the political breakdown of the peopple that did the voting? Or if you don’t hsave any of that, then you are making it up. I would suggest that the Right has been the anti racists when you look at the South and then the composition of Congress from 1950 to 1994. All Democrat/liberal majorities.

      Sp p[lease help us by giving us the facts to back up your allegations.

      • Ben Emery says:

        Todd,
        cutting food stamps, trying to cut unemployment, voter id laws, jim crow laws, trying to end civil/ voting rights acts, ect… In the South flying stars and bars at government buildings. All of these things nail % of people of color way more than white folks. As I said they are more aimed at the poor but with our history passing on generational wealth has been next to impossible for people of color since it was written into the laws that created perpetual poverty. A perfect example was not allowing people of color to own property well into the 20th century.

        Again Todd this is a big picture discussion and what I have found is socially conservative people have difficulty accepting or understanding the big picture since it is based outside their comfort zone.

        • Todd Juvinall says:

          Ben Emery, you have failed to convince me or anyone else that you are talking about a “big picture”. Life is made up of many little things and sometimes they come together to form a “big picture” but they are just as important. It is hubris of liberals to think they have the “big picture” and the peons don’t. My questions of your assertions of conservatives being racists and liberals being benign have gone unanswered so I must say you are , as the FUE sys, full of old lettuce. Supply the facts of your allegations or admit you are wrong. Oh, please tell us who “Bull Conner” was would you please?

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      “The big difference is most of the racism on the left is passive and it doesn’t cross over into policies. ”

      Really? It took a ballot initiative to forbid the one party state in Sacramento from discriminating against Asians in admissions decisions for the University of California, in the name of diversity. For the 2013-2014 year, 39% of Cal admits were Asian American, 28% were white American, 13% Latino American, 3% African American. For reference, California is about 50% non-Hispanic white, 34% Hispanic, 12% Asian, 8% black. A Cal College of Chemistry graduation I attended three years ago had 2 of the top 3 grads being Asian Americans, the third was a white kid who, one can expect, also worked hard.

      The primary racism by the “progressive left” is arguably the soft racism of low expectations and it’s rampant in California K-12 education, with those working apparent miracles teaching (non-Asian) minority populations such as the late Jaime Escalante in East LA, or Nancy Ichiniga at Bennett-Kew in LA, who refused to accept their kids somehow couldn’t learn as much as the kids in Marin, being largely ignored. Their message? Work hard, the basics really are basic, and no excuses.

  6. Chris Peterson says:

    Not quite sure where this conversation got stuck on racism, but that certainly wasn’t my point. I will admit that you’d be hard pressed to convince me that there weren’t more racists in the conservative movement than in the liberal, but I thought the premise was whether it was as acceptable to mock Obama as it was to mock W.

    To that, I stick with my original statement; that W’s character was an easier one to lampoon, not just because of his mannerisms, but because of the tragedies our country suffered under his administration, and that it is more of a concerted effort than an individual one by conservatives to do so to Obama. Or am I wrong; did MSNBC run stories for months on how a large segment of liberals actually wanted to see W’s DNA to prove whether or not he was actually a monkey, or birth records that would prove he was related to Dracula?

    Ya’ll can discuss race, if that’s the topic of choice but, in that case, I’ve lost all interest. .

    • fish says:

      Not quite sure where this conversation got stuck on racism, but that certainly wasn’t my point.

      Like sin and christians…… all conversations where progressives are involved eventually devolve towards the topic of racism.

      <i.Or am I wrong; did MSNBC run stories for months on how a large segment of liberals actually wanted to see W’s DNA to prove whether or not he was actually a monkey, or birth records that would prove he was related to Dracula?

      Conservatives did seem preoccupied with Obamas race but the issue was organized opposition vs. individual.

      Rest assured it was every bit as organized when Bush was in the White House as it is now that Obama is in the White House….and deservedly so Bush as was a horror….as is Obama! The direction was different….”No blood for oil”….with Bush, the scion of a family deeply involved with the intrigue of the oil business and middle east politics this was expected.

      • Chris Peterson says:

        “Rest assured it was every bit as organized when Bush was in the White House as it is now that Obama is in the White House.”

        Now I know you’re joking: if the liberals were anywhere near as organized as the conservatives, there would be no republican party.

        “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” -Will Rogers

    • Todd Juvinall says:

      The discussion seems to hinge on the race of Obama and the unequal treatment, actually favoritism, that he receives by being half white and black. The old, “one drop” is at play and since he relates to a “oppressed” minority, he is treated differently than the old white guys like Bush. This has made things harder not easier in America and the press has shown us their preferences. Race trumps even gender as we saw Obama become the favorite over the old broad Hillary back in 2008. If we don’t want to have a “conversation” about race because, as AG Holder said, we are “cowards” then I guess we will never solve the issue. When we try to have a conversation the PC libs attack to shut down the conversation!

      On the reverse side of this, Mugabe in Zimbabwe has confiscated all the white peoples property and the country is in ruins. Reverse discrimination I suppose. Maybe Ben Emery can canalize that for us. You know, the “big picture”

  7. rlcrabb says:

    “I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.”
    P.D. James (author and member of parliament)

    It can be a form of artistic fascism as well.

  8. Ben Emery says:

    Political correctness has worked miserably. Its intent was good but in practice it has failed.

    • fish says:

      Yes Ben, imposing conformist thinking is always a good intent.

      • Chris Peterson says:

        I may be wrong, but I’m thinking that what some call, “imposing conformist thinking,” is to a large degree what is known as civilization.
        Or, is your definition of a law different from mine, fish? We all argue about where to draw the line; very few argue that there should be no line.

        Political correctness is nothing but (often inappropriate) public opinion. Fascism is a political system that will shoot you for that opinion. I’ll take a government that leaves you unpopular, over one that leaves you dead, any day.

        • fish says:

          From your response it’s quite clear that your definition is different from mine. Commonality of thought resulting from free shared belief is civilization….sanction resulting from differing opinion inappropriate or not is what we’ve come to cal political correctness. Thank you for knocking down that straw man Chris…..well done!

          • Chris Peterson says:

            Any possibility that you can post a comment without an ad hominum or adolescent neener-neener?.I mean, we all know we’re not going to solve the world’s problems here, but if friends on a closed blog can’t discuss the issues in a civil manner, then what chance does our society have? And, respectfully, if this is an intellectual pissing contest; you’re only getting your own shoes wet with such comments.

          • fish says:

            From your response it’s quite clear that your definition is different from mine.

            I was under the impression that we held different opinions as to what civilization and political correctness have in common? If I’m wrong please let me know.

            Commonality of thought resulting from free shared belief is civilization….sanction resulting from differing opinion inappropriate or not is what we’ve come to cal political correctness.

            Related to first response. Again if I’ve misunderstood you…..

            Thank you for knocking down that straw man Chris…..well done!

            Somehow fascism was worked into the discussion….and not sure that your false dilemma (dead vs. unpopular) was one of the options. My dislike of political correctness and all its associated pathologies is certainly not an endorsement of the firing squad.

  9. Ben Emery says:

    Here is the thing both sides of the political correctness fence to grapple with

    Supporters of political correctness- need to use the idea where it is justified not against every little thing people do or use in their lives.

    Opposition of political correctness- Every person has just as much right to their opinion as the person next to you. If someone is making bigoted statements(antithesis of political correctness) it is 100% justifiable to call those statements out for being bigoted. People do need to own their opinions and language.

    Although I don’t like Charles Barkley a whole lot I really liked a statement he made over a dozen or more years ago in an interview. Basically the gist of his statement went like this-

    I prefer the racism in the South than other places around the country because it is out in the open. It is easier to walk through life knowing where people stand. I will take the Southerner calling me ni@#er to my face over the guy who smiles, shakes my hand, talks to me like I am an equal, and then calls me a ni@#er after I walk away.

  10. Terry says:

    Obama is a poor politician and and even poorer president regardless of his race and as such is fair game. No one is forcing any one of us to accept or reject PC no matter how tasteless and despicable or accurate it may be.

    • Johnny Cub says:

      True Terry…Obama, Bush, Clinton , Bush, Reagan have ALL pushed the same agenda and it has nothing to do with race or political gang they are affiliated. The only true difference between any of them is the public spew coming from their collective mouth’s. Yes, politicians all, some better than others, but none could ever be called “statesmen”…all lacking, honesty, integrity or any actions that might lessen the power of their Masters…we all need to not peek behind the curtain…we need to remove the curtain.

  11. Det. Alla says:

    Official Notice: All of the posters and host herein are hereby advised that you are in violation of U.S. Code 25 OR 624, the Fair Allotted Rhetorical Transmission legislation.

    By use of heuristic analysis, it is determined that said posters and host have routinely utilized excessively complicated words and concepts, which thereby discriminate against the general public’s limit of comprehension.

    We possess your email addresses and situs by warranted subsequent extrapolation
    and due process.

    The IRS has been notified of your flaunting haughty hubris evident on these pages.

    This action complies with a recent EO, which deems anyone demonstrating
    intellectualism of any persuasional spectrum to be a potential Person of Interest v. the Homeland.

    We recommend that you put your affairs in order as soon as possible. We will contact all of you soon.

  12. Ben Emery says:

    Cornel West calls Obama the ‘Black face of the American empire’
    http://rt.com/usa/193688-cornel-west-obama-american-empire/

    “The Obama presidency has been primarily a Wall Street presidency, drone presidency, mass surveillance presidency unwilling to concretely target the new Jim Crow, massive unemployment, and other forms of poor and Black social misery,” he writes. “His major effort to focus on poor Black men was charity and philanthropy — not justice or public policy.”

    • fish says:

      Since we routinely ignore each others links I certainly won’t bother to read yours now.

      On balance I agree with 3rd rate intellectual Cornell Wests statement….the Obama administration has fucked black America by continuing to wage an unceasing battle on drugs and as a result continued to lock them up in record numbers. Of course this progressive administration has doubly fucked black America by unnecessarily importing extra South Americans who come in search of work but more so in search of social services that black America depends on and to which they have greater claim by being citizens…regardless you position on whether these services should exist in their current form or not.

  13. Ben Emery says:

    Fish,
    There is nothing progressive about the Obama administrations, I wish you guys would get that through your head. Just because you do not agree with it doesn’t mean it is progressive. Obama is a Third Way Democrat, which means a corporate democrat. B. Clinton, Gore, H. Clinton, Reid, ect… are all Third Way Democrats.

    • fish says:

      He sold himself to America as a “progressive”, and was promoted by the Chicago/Hyde Park progressive faction so when he says he is a progressive I take him at his word.

  14. Ben Emery says:

    Fish can you go two or three comments without making derogatory statement? Cornel West 3rd rate intellectual?

    Cornel West is a progressive and a democratic socialist.

    Since you won’t go to a link I will paste excerpt of his bio for you. For the record I went to your link, it had little content and like 50 other links to find out what you were trying to say. I didn’t want to spend the entire day trying to get your point.

    Excerpts from Cornel West bio:
    “In 1970, West started attending Harvard University. Just three years later, he graduated magna cum laude with a major in near Eastern languages and civilization. West then enrolled at Princeton University. By 1980, he had earned both a master’s degree and a doctorate in philosophy from Princeton.

    Thinker, Teacher and Writer

    West began his working career as a lecturer. The schools he first taught at include Harvard, New York City’s Union Theological Seminary, the University of Paris and Yale University’s Divinity School. West accepted a religion professorship at Princeton University in 1988. Following at six-year stint at Princeton, he chose to become a professor of African-American studies at Harvard. A 2001 blow-up with Harvard’s then-president, Lawrence H. Summers, ended with West decamping to Princeton. In 2011, West opted to return to Union Theological Seminary.”

  15. fish says:

    Cornel West is a progressive and a democratic socialist.

    Thank you for making my argument for me.

  16. fish says:

    For the record I went to your link, it had little content and like 50 other links to find out what you were trying to say. I didn’t want to spend the entire day trying to get your point.

    ???????

    If you didn’t get the gist from the post itself……the obsession over the hierarchy of offense that torments you progressives so…..

    sigh….

  17. Ben Emery says:

    Fish,
    What are you talking about?

    How does Cornel West being a progressive and democratic socialist prove your point that the Obama administrations are and have been progressive? I post progressive points of view that contradicts and criticizes Obama policies and you take that is proof he is a progressive. Please explain to me how your logic comes to this conclusion.

    • Chris Peterson says:

      In fish’s world, and that of many conservatives, political affiliation is the determining factor on whether a person has a valid argument or not. It’s the same logic that was evident in the ACA; a plan from the the Heritage think tank and implemented by their Presidential candidate, but railed against as soon as Obama put it forward.
      And I believe most when they say it’s not racial; it’s pure political bigotry, and every bit as destructive to a democratic republic.

    • fish says:

      How does Cornel West being a progressive and democratic socialist prove your point that the Obama administrations are and have been progressive?

      It doesn’t. It points to the fact that I consider Cornell West a 3rd rate intellectual.

      • Chris Peterson says:

        And therein lies the quandary of your position:
        In order to judge the level of intellect in others, one must first exhibit the capacity of an even higher intellect, and if you start by prejudging the validity of someone’s argument by their past affiliation, you’ve already failed that perspective.

        I know it may be difficult, but practice the art of listening first, fish, and then argue the issue; not the person.

        • fish says:

          And therein lies the quandary of your position:
          In order to judge the level of intellect in others, one must first exhibit the capacity of an even higher intellect, and if you start by prejudging the validity of someone’s argument by their past affiliation, you’ve already failed that perspective.

          I know it may be difficult, but practice the art of listening first, fish, and then argue the issue; not the person.

          Been listening to Bens positions for quite a while now Chris….and I know that he suffers from the “Corruption of the Blood” issues that white proggies have regarding blacks. The guilt that can never fade!

          Cornell West is a product of “we really, really, really need to get some black people into the Ivy League quick…and then we really, really, really need to appoint them to some sort of position so it doesn’t appear that our efforts have been in vain”.

          But hey he’s gone on to do fine work in the “Grievance Remediation Industry” ….so he’s got that going for him….which is nice.

          Loved him in the “Matrix” though!

  18. Ben Emery says:

    So if a person is a progressive or social democrat they cannot be a first rate intellectual? Nothing like having an open mind and willing to hear new ideas. Cornel West has his master’s and doctorate degree’s of Philosophy from Princeton University. You can disagree with him but to claim he is a third rate intellectual is ludicrous.

    • fish says:

      Sorry Ben the Grievance Studies guys just don’t do it for me……

      But hey….if you like him…..who am I to criticize.

    • fish says:

      A little something for the both of us!

      Chomsky is critical of both the American state capitalist system[157] and the authoritarian branches of socialism. He argues that libertarian socialist values are the proper extension of classical liberalism to an advanced industrial context,[158] and that society should be highly organized and based on democratic control of communities and work places. He views the radical humanist ideas of his two major influences, Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, as “rooted in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, while retaining their revolutionary character.”[159]

      From Le Wik…..

      Let’s hope it’s more libertarian and less socialist though!

  19. Ben Emery says:

    How about Noam Chomsky? Is he a third rate intellectual as well.

    Chomsky destroying Buckley in 1969
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaR-T_hqRSM

  20. Ben Emery says:

    Fish,
    Now we are getting somewhere. This is how division being promoted by the Republican and Democratic Party’s has deteriorated real dialogue in the US. In America we have inverted traditional meanings of words/ labels in politics so it gets very confusing trying to use those labels. I am very libertarian in the traditional sense of the word not the American sense outside of the few remaining ideals from the traditional meaning. That is why I like the Green Party. Government/ society that is derived from the people. Meaning the government/ society receives its authority and power from the people. Ralph Nader describes this as “Majoritarian”. In the US especially the last 30 years we have totally distorted this idea with the rulings of SCOTUS giving corporations guaranteed constitutional rights that were only intended for human beings. Corporations whether they are for profit or non for profit are only allowed to exist through the approval of state governments, which is supposed to be derived by the people a.k.a. human beings. This is why big business and dark money controls our politics so much and average people are so under represented. This is also why I support the indignation of the Tea Party but reject their solutions. There solutions are exactly what very wealthy industrialists want and these very same wealthy industrialists use the guise of American libertarianism to sell their ideas.

    Personally I think Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Eugene Debs, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Utah Phillips, Christopher Hitchens, myself, among many others fall into this category of traditional anarchism, libertarian socialism, or modern day Scandinavian democratic socialism.

    Here is a good Noam Chomsky clip clarifying Libertarian Socialism
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj793e8Ss4w

    • fish says:

      Now we are getting somewhere.

      Not if you’re serious about the following statement.

      “That is why I like the Green Party. Government/ society that is derived from the people.”

      I stand by my previous statement regarding the Greens…..nothing even slightly liberty loving about them. Should they achieve a critical mass they will shed their green skin and reveal the swollen and angry “red” underneath.

      • rlcrabb says:

        The difference between a democracy and a republic is the protection of minority rights. In a pure democracy those rights can be extinguished by a majority of one. I know it’s a messy business, but it beats being drowned out by the loudest voice in the room.

        • Ben Emery says:

          Bob,
          Direct democracy loses its credibility once we get to a certain size. Especially when secret special interest money is allowed to dominate the public airwaves, political parties, and debate. A democratic republic is the best form of government set up to date. Unfortunately we have stuck with the two party and electoral college system. The least democratic form of democratic republic a political system can have.

        • Chris Peterson says:

          True enough, but we have democratically elected officials who, in theory, could all win by a majority vote of one. Therefore, our republic could be theoretically ruled entirely by a single party by just 536 votes, including the President.

          What’s missing in today’s government is a will to move forward with the demands of the majority with that nasty word *compromise* on behalf of the minority. “Give me liberty, or give me death” is very heroic on the battlefield, but asinine in Congress.

          Most people think that our government works best when one party controls Congress and the other holds the White House. I think that our next President will become known as the king, or queen, of the veto, if things pan out as they now appear.

          • Ben Emery says:

            Chris,
            At this point we have the R’s and D’s that are two sides of the same coin. The have differences in approach but ultimately they both are advocating for the profits of big business, especially financial and pharmaceutical industries. The defense/ offense budgets are in fact are intertwined with them. Dems rhetoric is more populist but their actions are to add more social programs into a dysfunctional system, very American liberal approach. Where as the Repub’s don’t even pretend enough to care about the poor and in fact believe their must a social structure that has a large bottom working poor class for us to have a stable society. A middle class that has the means and time to philosophize and think of a better way of life for all people are nothing but rabble-rousers who will cause unrest and destabilize society.

            We have to reform the electoral college for starters and switch to either IRV or proportional representation voting.

            Movement already in place making grounds for major reform of the electoral college.
            http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

      • Ben Emery says:

        Fish,
        We were getting somewhere because we are starting to cut through the bs talking points we are trained to regurgitate from the leadership of both the D’s and R’s.

  21. Ben Emery says:

    Fish,
    You are very difficult to converse with due to your lack of understanding of your comments. What do you know about the Green Party? From your above comment, you don’t know shit about the party but make absurd comments that you think will slip by since few people have actually sat down and looked into the party. I am or rather was the co chair of the Nevada County Green Party, so your ignorant statement will not go without being challenged. The propaganda campaign waged by the Democratic Party and corporate media has created a false identity of who and what the Green Party stands for.

    Ten Key Values, the first four are shared by every single Green Party around the world. Yes, the Green Party is actually the largest political party in the world. Not in shear numbers but in actually political party in the most countries, somewhere around 90 countries have a Green Party. I numbered them in my priority.

    1) Grassroots Democracy
    4) Social Justice
    5) Nonviolence
    7) Ecological Wisdom

    2) Community-Based Economics
    3) Decentralization
    6) Personal and Global Responsibility
    8) Feminism
    9) Respect for Diversity
    10) Future Focus and Sustainability

    Here is a link with a brief summary of what each value means
    http://www.gp.org/tenkey.php

    • fish says:

      I understand my comments just fine Ben. I’ve maintained for a long time that you don’t fully understand your own political tradition. You can post all the bullet points you want but I stand by what I posted here on the forest fire/homelessness thread on the 28th.

      fish says:

      September 28, 2014 at 10:54 am

      Libertarianism with a social conscience is the Green Party platform.

      Not the Green Party platform that they show on their website….it’s mostly coercion wrapped in noble rhetoric and almost entirely “libertarian” free!

      I don’t care if you are a Green but you ought to be familiar at least with that which you espouse! Read the position on “Families and Children”, that’s straight out of the socialist playbook….again nothing even slightly libertarian about it. Nor in the sections on Social and Distributive justice.

      Enjoy your gentle and inclusive political platform…those who are your likely allies are already discussing the feasibility of locking those up who disagree with the Climate Change scam……put me down as unimpressed with your marketing literature.

      • Ben Emery says:

        Fish,
        Go ahead and keep telling yourself your opinion is valid without actually doing the research to either confirm or invalidate your opinions. If you never actually look into your opinions you will never be proven wrong. Consistently I have answered you questions with enough information and links so the comments aren’t to long but you search and will find one or two things were we disagree as proof we are in complete disagreement. You did it again with the parenting thing that believes in good social safety nets for children. For nearly 30 years I have been a political activist and student of different political philosophies. I have talked and debated people like this many times at official forums/ debates, festival booths, in the streets, bars, ect… When push comes to shove they end up looking foolish or back down as they are shown how their logic is flawed with history and facts. My guess you have had a loud mouth for longer than me but haven’t really researched the ideas behind the ideologies you mistakenly believe you have a grip on. From what I can tell is you can cut and paste comments in italic and make remarks on them without any real insight or depth of what or why you approve or disapprove.

        Until that happens it will be a waste of time continuing ongoing conversations with you. Have a good day.

      • Chris Peterson says:

        “I’ve maintained for a long time that you don’t fully understand your own political tradition.”

        That has to be the weakest argument I’ve ever heard; that you know the politics of another person better than they do themselves after having practiced, argued, and led the very movement for over a decade. Put any group of people in a room of their peers, and ask them each what a particular political platform means, and you’ll come up with as many answers.

        What happened to your quote that, “Commonality of thought resulting from free shared belief is civilization?”

        You could have argued:
        Where is the libertarian in the statement that…?
        or,
        My own belief is…
        But, instead, you claim that person you’re arguing with doesn’t know what they prefer as well as you do, or that they misunderstand their own platform after years of having espoused it.

        C’mon, fish; if you’ve got a legitimate argument against the Green Party, state it, and stop arguing the person rather than the issue.

        • fish says:

          C’mon, fish; if you’ve got a legitimate argument against the Green Party, state it, and stop arguing the person rather than the issue.

          Dullard….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.