Comment on Entry: Time For A New Virtual Cartoon, authored by Jim Miller
1. .
Here's a cartoon for you Jim
http://yfrog.com/hw7ozrfj

Posted by MikeBoyScout at June 29, 2012 07:50 AM
2. .
Here's a tutorial for you MBS
HTML hypertext reference

Posted by someone tired of cutting and pasting URLs at June 29, 2012 09:11 AM
3. MBS - Your link shows a cartoon character, but it is a photoshopped picture, not a cartoon.

This is a cartoon: Ramirez.

Posted by SouthernRoots at June 29, 2012 09:14 AM
4. Wonder who wrote this?

"Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. "

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm

Answer: Mitt Romney.

Posted by John at June 29, 2012 10:01 AM
5. @2,

Come on now? Mike's not capable of introspection. He's a Leftist.

Posted by Jeff B. at June 29, 2012 10:08 AM
6. Romney recommended bankruptcy for GM. He might do the same for the U.S. Then sell off the pieces and enrich himself and his cronies a' la Cheney and the Iraq war.

I know that YOU know that 30 years of Republicans lying about their fiscal responsibility while driving up the national debt is the actual cause of the problem -- but never mind that when you can score a divisive and cheap political point with the yokels.

Very patriotic, Jim.

Posted by dorky dorkman at June 29, 2012 10:12 AM
7. The problem with Jim's suggestion is that humor needs to be rooted in reality. So to be funny, it needs to be something like this.

Posted by Lionel Hutz Esq. at June 29, 2012 10:24 AM
8. Putz - Hardy har-squared. LMAO not. Obamacare lives, patients will die.

Funnier yet is dork's comment about who'sdriven up debt. Actually, not funny at all to our children.

Posted by yaddacubed at June 29, 2012 10:39 AM
9. yadda: I know, when you think about what Reagan and W did to the economy and our national finances, I worry about what our children will have to suffer through.

Of course, we could just raise taxes on those who benefited at the cost of the majority of the country under the GOP. Glad you are on board with a common sense solution.

Posted by Lionel Hutz Esq. at June 29, 2012 10:41 AM
10. re 8: "Indeed, the nation's $14 trillion debt is largely a result of the cost of two wars, a runaway defense budget, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, taxes on the richest Americans being the lowest in a generation, and a recession caused by the lack of regulation of Wall Street.

The Bush administration followed wars with huge regressive tax cuts and an unpaid for prescription drug benefit."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/13/158414/bush-sotu-debt-flashback/

'nuff said, Klown.

Posted by dorky dorkman at June 29, 2012 11:28 AM
11. Further proof that comedy is best based in reality. Could something like this be as funny if you haven't read Pudge's work.
Pudge's work.

Posted by Lionel Hutz Esq. at June 29, 2012 12:00 PM
12. Ahhhhh who controls the spending... Not the Prez.

The be the dem's who have been in control during Reagan and yes again 2007 on.

PS, who made the comment yesterday that we were paying down the debt. Yeah that be O-dumber.

Sureeeeeee we are.

Posted by Medic/Vet at June 29, 2012 01:17 PM
13. re 12: "Medic/Vet" You guys always pull the same rabbit out of two different hats.

It's not the president, it's congress! It's not congress, it's the president! It's not the president's fault! Clinton started it. Obama didn't kill bin Laden. Bush did!

It's endless finger pointing and avoidance of responsibility for the damage Republicans wreak for all but the most wealthy. People like you are the albatross around the middle class's neck.

Posted by dorky dorkman at June 29, 2012 02:08 PM
14. Dork @6: I assume you are referencing Cheney and Haliburton? Then I can only assume you do not know the Obamessiah is STILL using Haliburton in the same capacity?

Posted by katomar at June 29, 2012 03:09 PM
15. dorky:

It is worse than that. Reagan had a Republican Senate for six years, Bush a Republican Congress for six years. The GOP did everything they could to prevent Obama from having 60 in the Senate so that the Dems were in control of both for less than a year, and yet supposedly Obama should have done everything he wanted in that time.

Let's face it, until the GOP grows up and takes responsibility for their actions, they will never be trusted in government.

Posted by Lionel Hutz Esq. at June 29, 2012 03:15 PM
16. Lionel

The spending comes from where?

Posted by Medic/vet at June 29, 2012 03:27 PM
17. dork@10: "...the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, taxes on the richest Americans being the lowest in a generation,..."

So if we confiscate *all* the wealth from these "wealthiest Americans", how much of a dent in the $14 trillion debt would that be?

Posted by It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury at June 29, 2012 03:51 PM
18. Medic/vet: Last I looked, spending starts with bills from congress that are then signed into law by the president. Since 1980, when the deficits have skyrocketed, we have had 20 years of Republican Presidents, 12 years of Democrats. We have had the Congress floating back and forth with both parties in control. Outside of when Bill Clinton raised taxes, there hasn't been much deficit control by either party.

@17: Let's not be silly, since no one is suggesting what you are suggesting. Let's simply return to the Clinton tax rates on the wealthy, cut subsidies to oil companies and most other forms of corporate welfare, lift the cap on medicare and Social Security taxes, and we would be in a much better position we are now. After all, this is the first time we have gone to war with out raising taxes, and a decent amount of that 14 Trillion is related to two decade long wars.

Posted by Lionel Hutz Esq. at June 29, 2012 04:27 PM
19. Here is and example of how ABC News is dishonest and hypocritical (nothing made up about it);

(source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/29/ABC-News-Fact-Checks-With-Lies-Hypocrisy)

"So, according to ABC News, ObamaCare does not "cut" Medicare by $500 billion, it merely cuts the rate of Medicare spending by $500 billion over ten years.

Then, in this very same "fact check" and in that very same paragraph, we're told this:

This is all unless Congress makes drastic changes to Medicare, for example passing House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan.

Do you want to know what ABC News considers to be those dire "drastic changes" under Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan? Between 2012 and 2021, the Ryan Plan increases Medicare spending from $563 to $953 billion -- an increase of 70%.

But this isn't the worst sin committed by ABC News.

When Mitt Romney calls a $500 billion decrease in the rate of Medicare spending increases a "cut," ABC News deploys their fact-checkers within hours to undermine him.

However, when Paul Ryan's plan increases Medicare spending by a full 70% over ten years -- get this -- on-air ABC News personnel not only declare that a "cut" but a "drastic cut."

Just a few examples:

AMY WALTER, ABC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: They campaigned on cutting, but now, when they're coming home to talk about cutting, they also have to defend how difficult this cut is, especially when we're talking about Medicare.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Well, it seems Ryan is. As you know, he's been working for years on this plan, and he's really devoted to it. We were at his district in Wisconsin where he was holding a town hall meeting. And, as you saw, other Congress people are facing a backlash from their constituents. And many are now saying that perhaps the Republicans will start running away from the Ryan plan because of the drastic cuts he calls for in Medicare and Medicaid and other such programs. But he seems very committed to it, saying that without this kind of thing, there will be a massive crisis.

More:

On ABC's Good Morning America, news reporter Josh Elliot declared Hochul's win to be "a seismic event in the political world" and a "shocking upset." Like Curry, he declared: "The GOP candidate lost after backing that Republican plan to cut billions from Medicare." In reality, the Republican budget plan increases Medicare spending from $563 billion to $953 billion ten years from now. That's an increase of nearly 70%.

In other words, actual ABC News on-air personnel can declare Ryan's decrease in Medicare spending increases a "cut," but when Romney uses the same wording to criticize Obama for doing the exact same thing, ABC News throws a Big Red Liar Flag.

Just another example of how these dishonest and highly partisan MSM fact-checkers are used to guard Obama's palace and to ensure honest criticism that might do some actual damage to him is never allowed to become the kind of narrative we saw, say, in 1995, when Newt Gingrinch was beaten senseless by the media over "extreme Medicare cuts" that moderately cut the increase in Medicare spending."

@18 & d-squared - Keep using the Goebbel strategy of repeating a lie enough so people will believe - unofficial standards for trolls. It's used by ABC too.

Posted by KDS at June 29, 2012 05:54 PM
20. So, if this wonderful historic ObamaTAX Obamacare is so superduperliberalsloveit great - why are there exemptions for unions, reliably liberal controlled states and preezybuds?

Does not a NATIONAL tax apply to ALL Americans?

Come on loud liberal pets: demand exemptions for ALL or exemptions for NONE.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 29, 2012 06:12 PM
21. re 20: "Come on loud liberal pets: demand exemptions for ALL or exemptions for NONE."

Why not tax my income at the same rate as a fund manager's 'bonus' or a coupon clipper's capital gains rate?

Wise up.

Looks like it took less than 24 hrs. for you guys to forget your defeat and bounce back with the same stupid crap.

Your comment is weak -- but filled with the usual vitriol and hate.

Posted by dorky dorkman at June 29, 2012 06:23 PM
22. Why not tax my income at the same rate as a fund manager's 'bonus' or a coupon clipper's capital gains rate?

Wise up.

Looks like it took less than 24 hrs. for you guys to forget your defeat and bounce back with the same stupid crap.

Your comment is weak -- but filled with the usual vitriol and hate.

Posted by dorky dorkman at June 29, 2012 06:23 PM

Who is projecting hate and vitreol ? YOU ! Stop projecting your lies and hate. We will cut your bullcrap off at the kneecaps. You commie fecalhead - that's not hate, that's loathing. LMAO

Posted by KDS at June 29, 2012 06:31 PM
23. And of course, our regular squareD coward dodges the question...

If it's a TAX, which the Supreme Court of The United States just deemed it to be, (you know, the big WIN you vulgarly crowed over) then the exemptions should either null and void or available to all.

Which is it?

Don't you want your waiver loud liberals? Or do you just want to cowardly ignore the unintended consequences of your big WIN?

On another note, KDS has a point: why are they so hateful in their big WIN? I think it's fear. Like children exhibiting bad behavior they KNOW is bad behavior they hunger for someone to rescue them from themselves. The big WIN was a rescue failure.

The Montessori school my kids attended had a sign: "A child would rather be praised than punished, but punished rather than ignored."

How utterly definitive of our loud lefty's

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 29, 2012 06:45 PM
24. It is worse than that. Reagan had a Republican Senate for six years, Bush a Republican Congress for six years. The GOP did everything they could to prevent Obama from having 60 in the Senate so that the Dems were in control of both for less than a year, and yet supposedly Obama should have done everything he wanted in that time.


Posted by Lionel Hutz Esq. at June 29, 2012 03:15 PM

Bush did not have a Republican Senate from 2002 through 2004. Jeffords switched to make it a slim Dem advantage - it was 4 and not 6 years. Obama had a Democratic congress for 2 years. Caught you in two more distortions of facts !

Posted by KDS at June 29, 2012 06:47 PM
25. An email that I recently received;

Note: I come down on the side that there are hidden positives in this decision that liberals have yet begun to imagine. I believe they hoped the court would save them from themselves. Pity poor them.

What Should Americans Do After the Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling?

We can still reclaim our freedoms.

... What does this mean for Americans and what should we do now? There are three important take-home points:

1) American health care will be in deep trouble in just a few years.

... CNN recently reported that 17% of doctors in private practice might close shop within the next year due to a combination of factors, including "business expenses and administrative hassles, shrinking insurance reimbursements and costly malpractice insurance." Under ObamaCare many will likely join large "Accountable Care Organizations" or become hospital employees, accelerating the government-driven collectivization of American medicine. Under new medical practice incentives, doctors will become increasingly beholden to their paymasters, rather than their patients.

Medicare patients will also face de facto rationing under the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) which will set physician reimbursements. Given that private insurance companies generally mirror Medicare coverage and payment decisions, this means these government restrictions will likely affect millions of Americans with nominally private insurance as well.

... 3) ObamaCare must be defeated politically.

The American people will have one final chance to kill ObamaCare at the ballot box this November, by electing politicians committed to repealing it. If Americans value their lives, they must repudiate ObamaCare soundly at the ballot box. The elected officials who supported it two years ago should sent packing.

... We can still reclaim our freedoms. Reversing our present course won't be easy. We will have our work cut out for us, through November and afterwards. But the opportunity is ours for the taking -- as long as we are willing to seize it.

A Modest Proposal

The chief justice threw down the gauntlet on Thursday to those of us who support limited government.

Whatever he intended -- obviously I can't get into his mind -- the chief justice threw down the gauntlet on Thursday to those of us who supported limited government, and laid out a goal. Actually, two -- a short-term one, and a longer-term one.

Posted by KDS at June 29, 2012 07:57 PM
26. So, loud lefty's which lie is the LIE?

The one President Downgrade told the American people and Congress that the Obamacare mandate was not a tax? Or the one President Downgrade told the Supreme Court (through his attorney with his knowledge & permission) that the mandate is a tax?

Quite the Gordian Knot you've tied yourselves to ... and into.

We the people have a duplicitous, two-faced, pernicious liar who thinks we're stupid for a president.

That's bad.

But do you know what's far worse? YOU lefty's have a duplicitous, two-faced, pernicious liar who knows you're stupid for a standard bearer and candidate.

Should we pity you for your predicament?

NOPE, because you are stupidly and willingly participants in your own exploitation by the Obamessiah you worship.

FORWARD.


Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 29, 2012 08:47 PM
27. From now on, Obamacare should be known as the Healthcare Redistribution Tax.

Posted by KDS at June 29, 2012 11:18 PM
28. You guys are hysterical idiots.

Posted by dorky dorkman at June 30, 2012 08:36 AM
29. ...and Ramirez isn't funny or original. He makes commonplace, hateful little observations and copies his cartooning style from Don Martin.

I knew guys in high school who were better than him.

Posted by dorky dorkman at June 30, 2012 08:39 AM
30. So..the Dow is up over 60% since Obama took office. Corporate profits are at all time highs. Taxes, and corporate tax revenes are a their lowest point in almost 50 years. Clearly, Obama must be an evil, anticapitalist! *snicker*.
Why don't you ask yourselves:
If profits are so high, and markets are doing so well, and taxes are so low why aren't corporations hiring? Perhaps because they know that if they wait *just* a bit longer, and fan the tea party wack jobs, then they'll get even LOWER taxes, and get to repatriate their oversees profits for free.

Posted by Proteus at June 30, 2012 09:18 AM
31. And still no answers from our loud lefty coward's... why is that squareD?

And how typical of them to change the subject when inconvenient eh Proteus?

Proteus:
Pro·te·us
   [proh-tee-uhs, -tyoos]
noun
1. Classical Mythology . a sea god, son of Oceanus and Tethys, noted for his ability to assume different forms and to prophesy.
2. a person or thing that readily changes appearance, character, principles, etc.

a person or thing that readily changes character, principles, ... You could not have chosen more definitively. Did you even know how revealingly honest you were being?


Let me repeat myself for the noisy cowards and ObamaSuckers amongst us:

So, loud lefty's which lie is the LIE?

The one President Downgrade told the American people and Congress that the Obamacare mandate was not a tax? Or the one President Downgrade told the Supreme Court (through his attorney with his knowledge & permission) that the mandate is a tax?

Quite the Gordian Knot you've tied yourselves to ... and into.

We the people have a duplicitous, two-faced, pernicious liar who thinks we're stupid for a president.

That's bad.

But do you know what's far worse? YOU lefty's have a duplicitous, two-faced, pernicious liar who knows you're stupid for a standard bearer and candidate.

Should we pity you for your predicament?

NOPE, because you are stupidly and willingly participants in your own exploitation by the Obamessiah you worship.

FORWARD.

Or should I say RUN, COWARDS, RUN!

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 30, 2012 11:25 AM
32. dork the dipstick - you are poster child for useful idiot !


If profits are so high, and markets are doing so well, and taxes are so low why aren't corporations hiring?
Perhaps because they know that if they wait *just* a bit longer, and fan the tea party wack jobs, then they'll get even LOWER taxes, and get to repatriate their oversees profits for free.
Posted by Proteus at June 30, 2012 09:18 AM

You are on queludes and make no sense. Let me clarify - the economy will not improve after the Healthcare Redistribution Tax is levied at the beginning of 2013. The companies and corporations were not hiring because they did not want to go through layoffs if the Obamacare redistribution tax went into affect next year. The only way to stop it is to elect Mitt Romney.

For instance, if your annual income is $70K, you will be paying $4-$6K more in taxes starting next year. even with the Bush tax cuts in place ! If you make $150K annually, your taxes will increase by $14K over what they were this year. Not a threat, just a promise if the man-child neo-marxist wannabe dictator gets a 2nd term.

You cannot rebut this fact - all you morons can do is spew your hatred and bulls**t. You are petulant cowards !

Posted by KDS at June 30, 2012 01:15 PM
33. re 31: "And still no answers from our loud lefty coward's... why is that squareD?"

You've been answered many times. You are just too stupid to notice.

Don't you wish that Pudge were here to erase the things you don't want to know?

Posted by dorky dorkman at June 30, 2012 05:55 PM
34. You've been answered many times. You are just too stupid to notice. - Posted by dorky dorkman at June 30, 2012 05:55 PM


Loud lefty @ #1, MikeBoyScout: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Noisy lefty @ #6, dorky dorkman: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Loud lefty @ #7, Lionel Hutz Esq.: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Loud lefty @ #9, Lionel Hutz Esq.: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Noisy lefty @ #10, dorky dorkman: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Loud lefty @ #11, Lionel Hutz Esq.: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Noisy lefty @ #13, dorky dorkman: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Loud lefty @ #15, Lionel Hutz Esq.: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Loud lefty @ #18, Lionel Hutz Esq.:Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Big mouth lefty @ #21, dorky dorkman: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Cowardly lefty @ #28, dorky dorkman: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the
LIE

Noisy lefty @ #30, Proteus: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE

Noisy, loud, big mouthed, cowardly, obtuse, shirking, deflecting, running scared lefty @ #33. dorky dorkman: Nope doesn't tell me which lie is the LIE


Which serves to illustrate the our pet lefty's, particularly the aptly named dorky dorkman, will do anything to avoid the question ... including LIE. ... and not very well, at that.

Barack Obama told the American people the mandate was not a tax. His solicitor General argued to the Supreme Court that it was a tax. So, aptly named dorky dorkman, which lie are you going with?

As with that question you have 2 choices: answer or prove your wimpy, lying, duplicitous cowardice. Which will it be?

I'd bet coward.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 30, 2012 07:34 PM
35. Let me give you a bit of advice noisy cowardly lefty (that would be you aptly named dorky dorkman): If you are too much a coward to answer a direct question: DON'T PARTICIPATE.

If you are afraid to participate, DON'T POST.

Your snark and your deflection lose every time you try them. They don't make you appear clever or smart; they make you appear afraid to confront the big issues and answer the tough questions. If you cannot even bother to own the positions you pretend to take don't waste your time or ours.

You may not ever like what I have to say but you ALWAYS know exactly where I stand. Would that we could say the same for you... unfortunately it takes a courage that you are clearly lacking.

You'll be far happier over at HA since by your avoidance of all things hard you prove you haven't got what it takes to play with the big boys...and girls. Come back when you do.

Or not.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 30, 2012 07:53 PM
36. Yup, 14 hours and counting... the cowards are hiding ... (and not well as they appear to have the 'courage' to "participate" in another thread.[/snicker]

Not taking a position is a position and that position is called COWARDICE.

Refusing to answer a question is indeed an answer and that answer is COWARDICE.

Really, you just need to toddle on over with your ilk at HA where your nothing will be greeted and celebrated with their equal nothing: a room full of babbling nonsensical noise they optimistically and mistakenly call 'debate' ... you'll fit right in.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at July 1, 2012 10:01 AM
37. Rag@36, no one has an obligation to answer any off-topic question that you ask. That's not cowardice; it's staying on topic.

Anyway, in this case the answer is obvious to anyone who has any understanding of litigation. It is common to provide multiple legal bases for one's position.

The health insurance mandate is enforced by a tax penalty. The administration argued that the government has a constitutional right to enforce a mandate, and also that it has a constitutional right to assess a tax on people who don't get insurance. As you know, 4 members of the Supreme Court agreed with the first argument and 5 with the second.

Romney might be familiar with this approach, since he eloquently defended it in Massachusetts back when he had the integrity to say what he believed.

For more, see: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2018570932_danny01.html

Posted by Bruce at July 3, 2012 06:50 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?