[Moderator]

Thtas all I have to say. Calling it right now. America is ready for a genuine person...everything is about to change. Mark my words. Russ Feingold: our next President.

[Saad]

I kind of admire his chutzpah. Trying to impeach the president probably cost votes in his district. Apparrently, he's acting out of ideology (and making a national name for himself).

[abe]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Thtas all I have to say. Calling it right now. America is ready for a genuine person...everything is about to change. Mark my words. Russ Feingold: our next President.

He will go down in history as a lone, sad figure who led a dumb, meaningless campaign that will be admired by a few people who are drawn to misguided, ill-informed, empty, emotional gestures.

He is a rebel without a clue and has no foundation for his protest other than what he THINKS (or feels) the Administration did.

One day he'll wake up and realize that there is no legal grounds for his contentions but he'll be unable to back away from it. Meanwhile, the most unrealistic, emotional and impractically unrealistic will be drawn to him long enough for those folks to be out of Hillary's hair and once she and the the REAL Democrats get their act together these fringe Feingold folks will be invited to join the Clinton campaign but the fringe folks will have little to do with the mainstream Democratic thrust and will not be allowed to derail the party or it's chances for success in 08.

Feingold? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[abe]

[Saad]

Kind of like shutting down the government when there aren't enough votes to override a veto? Except Feingold's publicity stunt didn't cost much money.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Saad

Kind of like shutting down the government when there aren't enough votes to override a veto? Except Feingold's publicity stunt didn't cost much money.

I don't think Feingold is doing this as any kind of a stunt. I believe he is just WIDE EYED, idealistic and fuzzy brained.

Quixotic is the word that comes to mind.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

It's interesting that you brought that particular cartoon into this discussion. It shows the scales of power tipping toward the executive, and Feingold as the lone opposition trying to restore balance to the government against a GWB caricature that literally looks like the proverbial 800-lb. gorilla, and a Democratic Party that is too paralyzed to do anything about it other than watch.

Do you agree with the assertion in the cartoon that the balance of power in the government has tipped toward the executive? And do you think that's a good thing? Should we even have a Congress if all they're going to do is watch and rubber-stamp whatever the President wants?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

It's interesting that you brought that particular cartoon into this discussion. It shows the scales of power tipping toward the executive, and Feingold as the lone opposition trying to restore balance to the government against a GWB caricature that literally looks like the proverbial 800-lb. gorilla, and a Democratic Party that is too paralyzed to do anything about it other than watch.

Do you agree with the assertion in the cartoon that the balance of power in the government has tipped toward the executive? And do you think that's a good thing? Should we even have a Congress if all they're going to do is watch and rubber-stamp whatever the President wants?

You remind me of when I was a punk kid and I'd take an ink pen and cross out the captions in the Archie comic books and write in my own plots. But when I made up my own sick plots I KNEW they weren't real. It seems like you are a true believer in the hysterical lies being spread by the uninformed or those with an agenda to stir up **** in the U.S.! You disguised it well, Dork.

I don't see the cartoon in the way you describe at all. And if the cartoonist had drawn it more accurately the President would be shown fighting off alligators and small dogs (press, protesters & leakers), negotiating with foreign leaders and attempting to fight the WoT while studying a piece of domestic legislation and totally ignoring Feingold, as the Democrats are watching him go off tilting at the President's windmill.

They said the same thing about FDR during the war. That he had too much power. Hogwash. The POTUS needs the powers available to him when he needs it. When you are driving on the freeway and you need to pass a semi that's speeding along over the limit but he's starting to weave you need to pass him and so you use every bit of power you have to get the job done.

But I want the President to follow the law. The Constitution. As long as he remains in compliance with the law he's good as gold and I have no problem with his actions, so far.

And for you to characterize the Congress as a rubber-stamping body in this case is silly.

As far as you are concerned the Congress couldn't POSSIBLY believe the President IS legal and lawful and doing his best to protect the country, huh?

You're being silly boys, you are.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

I don't see the cartoon in the way you describe at all. And if the cartoonist had drawn it more accurately the President would be shown fighting off alligators and small dogs (press, protesters & leakers), negotiating with foreign leaders and attempting to fight the WoT while studying a piece of domestic legislation and totally ignoring Feingold, as the Democrats are watching him go off tilting at the President's windmill.

If the cartoonist had meant to draw GWB in the manner you have described, he would have. Instead, we have a physically massive and powerful GWB sitting on his arse and tipping the scales of power while Congress watches, and Feingold tries in vain to correct things. Cartoonists draw things like this to make a point: there's a reason why GWB is so huge, why there are no vicious beasts in sight, why Feingold is so small, and why the scale is labeled "Executive Power". None of those points are represented in your "interpretation" of what the cartoon represents.

You seem to be describing a different cartoon entirely, or maybe the one you want to see! (Go draw it and see if United Features Syndicate will pick it up!)

I get the feeling that you saw the cartoon, said "Look at the Senator! He looks very quixotic and isolated in this one", and posted it without realizing the symbolism of the rest of the piece. There are probably political cartoons that plainly express your entire point. (After all, not all cartoonists are liberals!) This one is not one of them.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

You remind me of when I was a punk kid and I'd take an ink pen and cross out the captions in the Archie comic books and write in my own plots.

Wow, having an imagination, being creative, and thinking outside of the box makes you a punk kid?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dork.

It's interesting that you brought that particular cartoon into this discussion. It shows the scales of power tipping toward the executive, and Feingold as the lone opposition trying to restore balance to the government against a GWB caricature that literally looks like the proverbial 800-lb. gorilla, and a Democratic Party that is too paralyzed to do anything about it other than watch.

Do you agree with the assertion in the cartoon that the balance of power in the government has tipped toward the executive? And do you think that's a good thing? Should we even have a Congress if all they're going to do is watch and rubber-stamp whatever the President wants?

I was wondering the same thing. I don't think he understands his own politics.

[tie]

But his interpretation of the cartoon was certainly original!

Abe, there is a global warming thread over in the regular lounge that is sorely missing any credible pro-warming posters. Just FYI.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Wow, having an imagination, being creative, and thinking outside of the box makes you a punk kid?

Nah, I was a punk kid who was all those things and progressed from there. So, there's hope for many of youse. That's just one of the things I do here. I give you hope.

[abe]

Originally Posted by tie

But his interpretation of the cartoon was certainly original!

Abe, there is a global warming thread over in the regular lounge that is sorely missing any credible pro-warming posters. Just FYI.

Just to underscore how sensible I am, I have stated many times that I believe the potential risk of environmental catastrophe is so great that every nation needs to look at this not in terms of what business might be lost, what revenues might be lost or what market share might be lost but in how many years might be lost from man's existence on Earth.

This is beyond money, beyond politics, beyond blame. We need to save the Earth or we might all die. All of us. Gone.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

If the cartoonist had meant to draw GWB in the manner you have described, he would have. Instead, we have a physically massive and powerful GWB sitting on his arse and tipping the scales of power while Congress watches, and Feingold tries in vain to correct things. Cartoonists draw things like this to make a point: there's a reason why GWB is so huge, why there are no vicious beasts in sight, why Feingold is so small, and why the scale is labeled "Executive Power". None of those points are represented in your "interpretation" of what the cartoon represents.

You seem to be describing a different cartoon entirely, or maybe the one you want to see! (Go draw it and see if United Features Syndicate will pick it up!)

I get the feeling that you saw the cartoon, said "Look at the Senator! He looks very quixotic and isolated in this one", and posted it without realizing the symbolism of the rest of the piece. There are probably political cartoons that plainly express your entire point. (After all, not all cartoonists are liberals!) This one is not one of them.

No, he has the ability to illustrate. And his talent is considerable. I disagree with YOUR interpretation and with HIS interpretation. But his interpretation comes close enough to the way I see things for me to endorse the cartoon. And his interpretation comes close enough to your interpretation for you to endorse the cartoon.

His talent is considerable.

[abe]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I was wondering the same thing. I don't think he understands his own politics.

Occasionally, some of us think that just because WE don't understand what someone is doing that the person doing it doesn't understand what they are doing.

Sometimes I do get very confused.

[abe]

From Chicago Sun-Times: To connect the dots, you have to see the dots by Mark Steyn. (via InstaPundit)

I'm a strong believer in privacy rights. I don't see why Americans are obligated to give the government their bank account details and the holdings therein. Other revenue agencies in other free societies don't require that level of disclosure. But, given that the people of the United States are apparently entirely cool with that, it's hard to see why lists of phone numbers (i.e., your monthly statement) with no identifying information attached to them is of such a vastly different order of magnitude. By definition, "connecting the dots" involves getting to see the dots in the first place.
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) feels differently. "Look at this headline," huffed the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida?"

No. But next time he's flying from D.C. to Burlington, Vt., on a Friday afternoon he might look at the security line: Tens of millions of Americans are having to take their coats and shoes off! Are you telling me that tens of millions of ordinary shoe-wearing Americans are involved with al-Qaida?

Of course not. Fifteen out of 19 of the 9/11 killers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. So let's scrap the tens of millions of law-abiding phone records, and say we only want to examine the long-distance phone bills of, say, young men of Saudi origin living in the United States. Can you imagine what Leahy and Lauer would say to that? Oh, no! Racial profiling! The government's snooping on people whose only crime is "dialing while Arab." In a country whose Transportation Security Administration personnel recently pulled Daniel Brown off the plane as a security threat because he had traces of gunpowder on his boots -- he was a uniformed U.S. Marine on his way home from Iraq -- in such a culture any security measure will involve "tens of millions of Americans": again by definition, if one can't profile on the basis of religion or national origin or any other identifying mark with identity-group grievance potential, every program will have to be at least nominally universal.

Posted by Forkum at May 14, 2006 05:11 PM

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000842.html

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

Nah, I was a punk kid who was all those things and progressed from there. So, there's hope for many of youse. That's just one of the things I do here. I give you hope.

I don't get your response, but maybe you could clarify what your being a punk kid had to do with rewriting Archie comics?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I don't get your response, but maybe you could clarify what your being a punk kid had to do with rewriting Archie comics?

I'm gaining insight into the nature of our political disagreements.

The term, "punk kid" when used in the original context was meant as an expression for someone who was just an idle young person with nothing better to do than to pervert the wholesome ideas and antics of Archie, Jughead, Reggie, Betty and Veronica and the gang.

And in this instance Dork. has done what reminds me of what I used to do by misinterpreting (innocently, it seems in his case) the original intent of a cartoon to fit an agenda apart from that which may have been intended by the cartoonist.

If it helps you, just omit the word, "Punk."

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

I'm gaining insight into the nature of our political disagreements.

The term, "punk kid" when used in the original context was meant as an expression for someone who was just an idle young person with nothing better to do than to pervert the wholesome ideas and antics of Archie, Jughead, Reggie, Betty and Veronica and the gang.

I'd be a happy man if my kid decided to re-write comics instead of mindlessly watching TV. I don't see why it has such a negative connotation to you.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I'd be a happy man if my kid decided to re-write comics instead of mindlessly watching TV. I don't see why it has such a negative connotation to you.

Sigh. It doesn't. And that makes me feel even more compassion for you, Dakar. You really DO try to understand. I promise to try to be nicer to you from now on.

What I was doing was saying that Dork was making things up based on what he interpreted a cartoon to mean.

I was relating his activity with mine. But I was making Veronica and Betty say and do very naughty things for my own pubescent pleasures.

But I point out that Dork isn't intentionally misinterpreting the cartoon, he REALLY believes his interpretation.

Now, if I missed some part in explaining it, let me know which part I messed up and I'll try again.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

What I was doing was saying that Dork was making things up based on what he interpreted a cartoon to mean.

I was relating his activity with mine. But I was making Veronica and Betty say and do very naughty things for my own pubescent pleasures.

But I point out that Dork isn't intentionally misinterpreting the cartoon, he REALLY believes his interpretation.

Now, if I missed some part in explaining it, let me know which part I messed up and I'll try again.

I agree 100% with your assessment. Except for the "making things up" of course. I think my interpretation is the most reasonable one that does not take extra information, or information which is not present but I want to believe is present into account. You were the one who wanted to draw in small dogs and alligators, where there were none there to begin with!

[SpaceMonkey]

There are some other Stuart Carlson cartoons (mixed in with a few others) here: http://www.larsonsworld.com/blog/arc...923237118.html

He's obviously no fan of the Bush Administration, abe.

[abe]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

There are some other Stuart Carlson cartoons (mixed in with a few others) here: http://www.larsonsworld.com/blog/arc...923237118.html

He's obviously no fan of the Bush Administration, abe.

Sorry, SpaceMonkey but the only thing that your link proves is that there are idiots who have a talent to draw.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I agree 100% with your assessment. Except for the "making things up" of course. I think my interpretation is the most reasonable one that does not take extra information, or information which is not present but I want to believe is present into account. You were the one who wanted to draw in small dogs and alligators, where there were none there to begin with!

No, I said I was content to accept the cartoon as posted. When prompted to make suggestions as to how I'd IMPROVE it, I mentioned my 'excellent' artistic and editorial changes.

The thing you guys can't fathom is that just because a cartoonist has the talent to draw doesn't make him a genius or an expert.

If I was able to draw I'd no doubt be one of this nation's leading cartoonists.

If you remove these guys' pen & ink & easels they are just like you and I. And to be honest, with the emphasis more on the "YOU" than the "I."

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by abe

Sorry, SpaceMonkey but the only thing that your link proves is that there are idiots who have a talent to draw.

Huh? You offered a pro-Bush interpretation of the Stuart Carlson cartoon that you posted earlier in the thread. Many other people posted their belief that it was obviously anti-Bush. The link I provided shows many, many examples of Stuart Carlson cartoons that are obviously critical of Bush. It's pretty clear what Carlson's intentions are.

You're just trolling at this point.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

Sigh. It doesn't. And that makes me feel even more compassion for you, Dakar. You really DO try to understand. I promise to try to be nicer to you from now on.

What I was doing was saying that Dork was making things up based on what he interpreted a cartoon to mean.

I was relating his activity with mine. But I was making Veronica and Betty say and do very naughty things for my own pubescent pleasures.

But I point out that Dork isn't intentionally misinterpreting the cartoon, he REALLY believes his interpretation.

Now, if I missed some part in explaining it, let me know which part I messed up and I'll try again.

I think the disagreement stems from the fact that you used a metaphor with no negative connotation to try to convey something negative that you thought Dork did, as well as call him a 'punk kid.'

You'll confuse me everytime with that.

[Dork.]

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I think the disagreement stems from the fact that you used a metaphor with no negative connotation to try to convey something negative that you thought Dork did, as well as call him a 'punk kid.'

You'll confuse me everytime with that.

I'm sorry. It seems you misunderstood my use of the term, "punk kid" to refer to myself. I was not calling Dork. a punk kid. But now that I re-read it I can see how you MIGHT infer that I was.

This is one of those situations where I could have given more thought to my communication.

Now, please share with us what you might do to prevent this kind of misunderstanding from happening next time.

[Dork.]

I didn't think he was calling me a punk kid. Now that kid in the picture has probably just finished writing new captions on Archie comics....

[abe]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Huh? You offered a pro-Bush interpretation of the Stuart Carlson cartoon that you posted earlier in the thread. Many other people posted their belief that it was obviously anti-Bush. The link I provided shows many, many examples of Stuart Carlson cartoons that are obviously critical of Bush. It's pretty clear what Carlson's intentions are.

You're just trolling at this point.

Not at all.

It is true that there are some people who misinterpret circumstances and situations intentionally or because they have a natural inability to analyze.

But some of these people have the talent to draw and illustrate.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Hey, where'd you get that photo? From my Mom?