Comments from the political cartoons thread

[Dalton]

Forcing smaller portions doesn't solve the problem. People who are massively overweight will just order more. I've told the story before so it doesn't need repeating about someone like that and just how much they are willing to eat/order.

There is no "forcing", which is what the Tea Party and Sarah Palin would have you believe (Obama wants to destroy your freedom by controlling your diet). There is no policy or law. It's a movement, an initiative, much like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign.

[Isolder74]

Forcing smaller portions doesn't solve the problem. People who are massively overweight will just order more. I've told the story before so it doesn't need repeating about someone like that and just how much they are willing to eat/order.

There is no "forcing", which is what the Tea Party and Sarah Palin would have you believe (Obama wants to destroy your freedom by controlling your diet). There is no policy or law. It's a movement, an initiative, much like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign.

I'm all for getting out the concept of what should be a proper amount for someone to eat. I'm all for people getting used to eating a proper amount and more importantly cooking for themselves. Eating out all the time, or living on tv dinners, is expensive and not usually a diet high in proper nutrition.

My beef with the portion control part of the cartoon is what is can be made to imply, an insistence on smaller portions listed on labels. I have always been very annoyed with packaging on an item sold that has every intention of being eaten by one person, like a small bag of chips, listing more then one serving on the label. The ones that really bug me are some frozen foods that from the size of the box are obviously intended to be eaten by one person but list holding 1 1/2 'servings' inside. All so that looking quickly on the box it looks better then it actually is. That bugs me and I'm hoping that such a campaign won't encourage such dishonesty more.

[Dalton]

I disagree that's the implication there. Like the rest of the initiative, it's just encouraging people to maybe not eat so much. The portion thing on food packaging is classic corporate bullshiteering.

[TheHammer]

I dunno, I'd have to say that last one is a pretty terrible political cartoon. Beyond the first two panels, it just seems like the cartoonist strung together a bunch of random headlines that really had no true business being linked. Wikileaks spawned the mideast uprisings? Really?

[Duckie]

I dunno, I'd have to say that last one is a pretty terrible political cartoon. Beyond the first two panels, it just seems like the cartoonist strung together a bunch of random headlines that really had no true business being linked. Wikileaks spawned the mideast uprisings? Really?

Yes, actually. Wikileaks released a several cables on Mubarak as part of their cable process, including the fact that the democracy was a sham even more than expected, Mubarak was expected to stay in power for life, the corruption at the heart of the government, the US outright puppetry of the regime, using it to torture foreigners and domestic Egypians alike in the War on Terror, and all sorts of things that caused serious consternation to the Egyptian people.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm all for getting out the concept of what should be a proper amount for someone to eat. I'm all for people getting used to eating a proper amount and more importantly cooking for themselves. Eating out all the time, or living on tv dinners, is expensive and not usually a diet high in proper nutrition.

My beef with the portion control part of the cartoon is what is can be made to imply, an insistence on smaller portions listed on labels. I have always been very annoyed with packaging on an item sold that has every intention of being eaten by one person, like a small bag of chips, listing more then one serving on the label. The ones that really bug me are some frozen foods that from the size of the box are obviously intended to be eaten by one person but list holding 1 1/2 'servings' inside. All so that looking quickly on the box it looks better then it actually is. That bugs me and I'm hoping that such a campaign won't encourage such dishonesty more.

Perhaps "smaller portions" refers not to portions on packaged food, but to restaurant portions? A lot of sit-down restaurants serve huge, ridiculous portions, after all.

[Thanas]

People, no discussion in here. If you want to discuss things, start a thread in N&P.

[Alphawolf55]

Yeah because being ruled by a dictator in all but name, and having to pay extra for college in a country with representation are totally the same.

[Thanas]

Yeah. Don't post stuff like this again, BO.

[Skgoa]

No we don't. From context, am I right to assume they explode?

[Crossroads Inc.]

First they Swell up to monstrous sizes, then they have total meltdowns into piles of goo.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The Trump one's hair amuses me to no end for no discernible reason.

[Themightytom]

ummm that's ok but associating 911 with Muslims isn't? What are the rules to this game Lady?

[LadyTevar]

ummm that's ok but associating 911 with Muslims isn't? What are the rules to this game Lady?

It may fall under the "no true scotsman" fallacy, but shows that the killer's views are not sane.

[weemadando]

ummm that's ok but associating 911 with Muslims isn't? What are the rules to this game Lady?

It may fall under the "no true scotsman" fallacy, but shows that the killer's views are not sane.

Bull FUCKING shit.

Just because he did something abhorrent doesn't make him insane or not a Christian (or right winger or any other label).

People need to fucking well accept that some people just believe things to a point where they take horrific actions, there doesn't need to be mental illness or anything else involved. The fact that he sought and found comfort for his beliefs and actions in Christianity clearly show that YES HE'S A FUCKING CHRISTIAN.

If someone one day picks up a gun and walks into a church and shoots everyone and has a manifesto specifically about how he's doing this for atheism etc, then we can't very well say: "well shit, he's clearly not an atheist, no atheist would do that."

So please fuck-off with your self-serving, blame shifting, "it wasn't us" apologetics.

[Gandalf]

That cartoon also shows the hilarious double standard of reporting when it comes to people's religiosity. The Koran has a few things to say about not murdering women and children in a time of war. Where is that when a Muslim guy does something?

[Themightytom]

Bull FUCKING shit.

Just because he did something abhorrent doesn't make him insane or not a Christian (or right winger or any other label).

People need to fucking well accept that some people just believe things to a point where they take horrific actions, there doesn't need to be mental illness or anything else involved. The fact that he sought and found comfort for his beliefs and actions in Christianity clearly show that YES HE'S A FUCKING CHRISTIAN.

If someone one day picks up a gun and walks into a church and shoots everyone and has a manifesto specifically about how he's doing this for atheism etc, then we can't very well say: "well shit, he's clearly not an atheist, no atheist would do that."

So please fuck-off with your self-serving, blame shifting, "it wasn't us" apologetics.

Wow what the hell are you on about?? Pull your pants up and stop flinging poo asshole, it's no substitute for a coherent argument. I was objecting to the posting on this board, of an image that seems to blame Christianity at large for a massacre conducted by one asshole. We don't blame Muslims for 911, YOU advocate not blaming atheists at large if one mows down a congregation, so can you be bothered to confirm disagreement before ejaculating your stupidity everywhere?

Nobody's giving Christianity special privilege here, and I don't even know where you're coming from with the "Oh he's not mentally ill" crap, Lady Tevar used the term "insane" not "mentally ill" so maybe flip open a book and read up on the difference. Then bring it to a thread that anyone cares to debate it in since I'm talking about whatever key point YOU'VE identified that everyone else in the world is simply unable to grasp

[weemadando]

And today's prize for not reading a word I wrote and getting butthurt goes to...

[Themightytom]

And today's prize for not reading a word I wrote and getting butthurt goes to...

You are awarding prizes for that? Nice ego douche, how often do you win it for not bothering to think about what you post.

[weemadando]

And today's prize for not reading a word I wrote and getting butthurt goes to...

You are awarding prizes for that? Nice ego douche, how often do you win it for not bothering to think about what you post.

You realise that you're wrong right?

Maybe if you'd not posted incorrect shit the first time you wouldn't be in this position, but there you go.

But hey, I never advocated blaming a sect at large. I just made the point that you can't disown the actions of a member whenever it's inconvenient for them to be a member anymore. I was also making the point that sometimes someone can make actions that are totally sane/without mental impairment but are horrific to the rest of society, because that's just how it ends up going sometimes.

And shit, it's a big pity that "sane" and "insane" both relate to mental health. I guess that's the rest of your argument turfed. Walk away fuckhead. You're wrong and I'm sick of having to correct you.

[SCRawl]

More political cartoons, less complaining. Capisce?

[Simon_Jester]

That cartoon also shows the hilarious double standard of reporting when it comes to people's religiosity. The Koran has a few things to say about not murdering women and children in a time of war. Where is that when a Muslim guy does something?

You often enough see Muslim clerics speaking out against that- but they are ignored, because Islam has no central hierarchy. There is no pope of Islam who can say "stop doing these suicide bombings!" and be obeyed. So Islamic terrorists just shop around until they find someone who says that terrorism is holy warfare, and ignore any religious leaders who disagree with them.

Basically the same dynamic applies within Christianity. If you can't find a clergyman who will give you permission to do something, the habit of going off and finding one who will dates back at least to the foundation of the Anglican church, if not earlier to the medieval pope/antipope affairs.

[Thanas]

Jester, there is a HUGE WARNING NOT TO DISCUSS STUFF IN THIS THREAD. How could you have missed that?

[Dominus Atheos]

How'd that work out in 2010? Pretty good?

[General Mung Beans]

Don't normally post in N&P but I thought this should be shared.

Rather inaccurate cartoon-only Guantanamo is a legitimate point there

Iraq-Obama has kept his promise-all combat troops have been withdrawn. Much like in say Korea however support troops and advisers are there to stay
Afghanistan-Obama ran on the promise that since Afghanistan was the original war, that he would escalate and win the war there. Obama like most Democrats believe Afghanistan is perfectly justified and that Iraq took away troops from Afghanistan (which is also a major Democratic talking point)
Pakistan-Erhm in 2008 Obama was the one who said he'd support intrusions into Pakistan to get terrorists while McCain campaigned against it. Not to mention its been quite successful-many Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed in such strikes. I find it amusing a successful policy of the President is condemned.