Comments

Palin fascinates me. I mean

Palin fascinates me. I mean that in the true sense of the word "fascination" -- I am in thrall to the depth of her stupidity. I would be equally in thrall were she male, and I myself am female, so I don't mean this in a sexist way at all, but when she starts speaking (did anyone ever teach this woman how to diagram a sentence? And do people in Alaska actually HAVE Canadian-cum-Minnesota accents? I didn't know this -- you see, I'm FASCINATED!) I find myself enthralled by the emptiness of her mind. It's like the Wizard of Oz, except when the curtain is pulled away, nothing is there. She makes Bush Jr. look like Einstein. It's fascinating -- I didn't think such a thing could be done. Bravo!

Replace the grizzly bear

Replace the grizzly bear with a mock of the famouse Teddy Bear cartoon (with Theodore Rosevel) and you improve this carton substantially.

I love it though.

Every woman in the United

Every woman in the United States should be totally offended by the garbage put out there about Sara Palin.
We all have different opinions about who should be elected and how our country should be run, but it should not necessitate vulgar, immature, untrue slander because we have a woman candidate. Wake up America; you are being manipulated by the big boys yet again.

CB

Actually, every woman in the

Actually, every woman in the United States should be offended that McCain and his handlers thought that they could capture women voters by putting a grossly underqualified dolt with a questionable record as the VP candidate just because she was female. Let's be clear. I'd think Palin was just as much of a dolt if she were male, and she's been treated with kid gloves to some degree because she's female. Biden would have ripped the head off of an equally uninformed male candidate in a debate, and that nonsense about "lipstick on a pig" being about her instead of being about McCain's stale policies, was just GOP spin. I would be very happy to see a female VP or Prez candidate, it's really about time, but not one who's there as a token gesture to make McCain look less like a dinosaur. Condi Rice would have been an excellent candidate - I can't stand the Bush administration, but I can certainly respect her ability. The ex-governor of NJ - I can't recall her name - I had no use for her politics but she'd have been a real threat. Palin? A cheap gesture, and one that much of America has seen through.

J

You're absolutely right

You're absolutely right about their denigration of women voters. I do believe they think women will vote for anyone they put in front of us if they're wearing a skirt and have a nice hair-do. Obviously women are thought to be quite stupid and know nothing about politics. I think this is the result of Hillary getting so many votes in key states - and then trying to put out another woman in her place to vote for. Evidently the GOP think any woman will do regardless of her party affiliation or even her knowledge of basic world affairs. Sad, isn't it. And yes - the former governor of New Jersey (who became the first Secretary of Environmental Affairs under Bush 2) seemed to be an honest intelligent woman who I believe resigned under protest of Bush policies. Too bad she isn't a Democrat.

admin's picture

For those of you clamoring

For those of you clamoring for the embed code for these animations, you'll notice that it's starting to appear! I've added the embed code for animations, beginning with last week's and going all the way back to April. (Just click on the embed link below the animation.)

More to come soon. Let me know how it works out for you.

Thanks,

-Mark Fiore

Quail is to Reagan as Palin

Quail is to Reagan as Palin is to Mc Cain.
'nuf said?

- StupidPeopleTrick

On a somewhat related note,

On a somewhat related note, check out this reaction to Palin's debate performance:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTE...

And the GOP's dead-enders accuse *us* of having a cult-like obsession with Obama? My word, these people are just *pathetic*.

Another aspect of Sarah you

Another aspect of Sarah you might include in future stuff....

(paraphrase)"....Well I sure dont know about the way you do things up there in Washington, but maybe I could bring a little bit of Wasilla mainstreet up there gosh darnit....."

Ever been to Alaska? Most places still have gun checks at the front door. Especially if they serve alcohol (which is most places).

She cant understand how in Washington you can be for something before you're against? Then she doesnt understand that people dont always tell you their real reasons for wanting something and the mechanisms in Washington are what they are.

So if Joe voted to give the Prez the option to go to war for potential leverage doesnt assume the president was prudent or wise in his use of that option.

But then in Wasilla Im sure people never change their minds. Unless they werent honest about what they wanted in the first place.

Like maybe a Bridge to Nowhere versus the cash to do associated capital improvements?

Good depiction of Mrs Palin

Good depiction of Mrs Palin as a bubble-headed mouthpiece/face. I respect everyone's right to their opinion and I suspect the people who actually watch these toons already set in their opinions.

Everyone (across all party lines) recognizes the ineptitude of Sarah. The difference seems to lie in where they take it. Rationalize it away in the interest of your party affiliation? Or Make a big stink of it based on your party affiliation?

Regardless of what you think of her, there are some basic assumptions that everyone seems to be missing.

There is no single cause of this situation nor is there one single solution. So what the candidates say to that matters little. However, both sides (to varying degrees) seem to assume that the cost of war is an inevitability. War in Iraq versus Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter is simply a foregone conclusion that we will incur that expense.

In economics I believe it is called "Guns vs Butter". We need to stop focusing on the guns and focus instead on the butter. That simple theory applies to all aspects of our government.

Stop worrying so much about the outside world and focus more on making our own country as stable and well off as possible (without taking advantage of third world countries in the process).

I know. Easier said than done. But the way to that solution is to make america a more attractive place to do business and take care of our own.

Take out ideology. Take out the ability to move your business offshore. Take away our dependence on foreign energy/oil. Take BACK the control of our countries most fundamentals systems from foreign investors.

How do we do that?

For twenty years, Michigan has fallen deeper and deeper into an economic state that the rest of the country is finally starting to feel. All because of the greedy auto makers who refused to change with the times and government officials whose hands were permanently stuck in the cookie jar. Retool them to produce alternative energy (not just alternative fuel) vehicles and train the workers to build them. Make that the engine for revitalized growth and this country will come back from the (nearly) dead.

All the rest will work itself out (hopefully).

snuppy's picture

Franklin De-Lano Roosevelt

Franklin De-Lano Roosevelt was rather good but I almost thought you were going to end with "And you can take that to the bank. If you can find one that hasn't failed." None the less it was a great toon. (and the voice was perfect)

Snuppy

Good one Mark, I thought the

Good one Mark, I thought the lady who did the voice of Betty Boop, Mae Questel, passed away about 10 years ago! Where'd you find her?

This made my ears bleed,

This made my ears bleed, just like the real Palin. Good one, Mark.

admin's picture

Always a happy day when I

Always a happy day when I can make someone's ears bleed! Thanks,

-MF

Well by gosh, This is really

Well by gosh, This is really close to the reaaal facts about what Sarah Pollin really voices. Golly .. you can be certain that this IS cor-rect! Bye, bye now, the Cat-gal

champion "If you need fresh

champion

"If you need fresh material, try watching the twenty minute segment of the presidential debates where Russert desperately tries to get him to explain what he'll give up to back the $700B bail-out."

McCain didn't explain how he'd do it either. He wants more tax cuts for the richest: like his wife. Why should those who just created the worst disaster since the Great Depression get rewarded with MY MONEY?

Obama also mentioned that ending the war on Iraq would free up $10 billion every month. That's $120 billion right there.

"Obama worries me because

"Obama worries me because more and more he strikes me as the kind of man who will tell Americans anything they want to hear to get elected."

Like telling America before the war on Iraq that it was a stupid war and shouldn't happen? That sure is not " kind of man who will tell Americans anything they want to hear". It was gutsy and shows he's willing to go against the popular opinion even when he's in the 5% who were against it them.

No, that would be McCain who has flipped flopped so fast his head is facing the wrong way.

Before he was for tax cuts for the richesst: people like Cindy who got her money the old way: she INHERITED it. No wonder Gigolo John McCain wanted HER to get a big tax cut: she won't put one cent of it in his name so he has go keep her happy anyway he can. Or else.

Now he sounds like a socialist who says the rich are greedy! (I wonder how Cindy feels about that.....)

He was against torture before he was for it. He's voted with Bush more than 90% of the time. He voted for the war on Iraq and said the same things as Cheney etc: the IRaqis would greet us with roses, the WMDs would be found, etc etc.

Now he claims that he alone caused the surge that has meant that fewer innocents are getting slaughtered because of the war he still wants to last many more years.

Sure would be nice to have that $1 trillion that the war has cost us now, eh?

As for free spending the Republican party has decided that it's fine to spend far more than we take in, and just put it in a black hole called "US debt".

Obama has some great ideas to get more revenue: make it illegal for corporations to go offshore and still get big contracts while paying zilch in taxes. If the corporation gets mad, so what, others will take their places. Lots of people would be happy to get $500,000 to run a company and not whine if they didnt' get $40 million plus all kinds of goodies.

WS Rita

COTO's picture

> It was gutsy and shows

> It was gutsy and shows he's willing to go against the popular opinion even when he's in the 5% who were against it them.

He voted the same way as roughly half his party. Gutsy.

The vote isn't surprising; the GOP criticism that he has the most liberal voting record isn't wholly inaccurate.

> No, that would be McCain...
> No wonder Gigolo John McCain...
> Now he sounds like a socialist...

Please read my post. (I know it's long, but I assume since you replied you have at least a passing interest.)

We are not talking about John McCain.

> He's voted with Bush more than 90% of the time.
> Now he claims that he alone caused the...

We're still not talking about McCain.

> Sure would be nice to have that $1 trillion that the war has cost us now, eh?

Yeah. You could use it to actually pay for your military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

> Obama has some great ideas to get more revenue: make it illegal for corporations to go offshore and still get big contracts while paying zilch in taxes. If the corporation gets mad, so what, others will take their places.

This is a good idea. Don't get me wrong.

Assuming no corporations 'got mad' or were bankrupted by the measure, it would generate $120B in new revenue.

But Obama is promising $1.1 trillion in new spending.

$120 billion...

$1.1 trillion...

The unfortunate reality is that corporations will 'get mad' and move their tax-free operations elsewhere. That will mean no personal income taxes collected (assuming that a corporation even stays afloat and the American employees keep their jobs).

As I say, it's a good idea, but in reality it isn't anywhere near $120 billion 'good'.

> As for free spending the Republican party has decided that it's fine to spend far more than we take in, and just put it in a black hole called "US debt".

Which apparently makes it OK for the Dems to do the same thing?

This is what I'm railing about here.

Regards,

COTO

COTO's picture

Come on, Mr. Fiore! Obama is

Come on, Mr. Fiore!

Obama is up nine points in the polls and you still can't bring it on yourself to drop the McCain/Palin onslaught to hold Obama responsible for his own deficiencies?

If you need fresh material, try watching the twenty minute segment of the presidential debates where Russert desperately tries to get him to explain what he'll give up to back the $700B bail-out.

I'll summarize it for you: Russert gives up. Meaning that Obama is either lying through his teeth or hammering the last nail into your economy's coffin. It's utter lunacy to believe that US home prices will recover in anything less than ten years, if they recover at all. Personally, I would demand to know whether my candidate was planning to saddle me with $700B+ in debt, or if not, which of his promises he intends to break.

The McCain/Palin campaign is safely behind in the polls. Let's stop with this sickening 'well, Obama is better than McCain', 'oh, McCain is worse than Obama' to actually expect something from your candidate.

I'll pay you or anybody reading this a crisp $100.00 US toilet-pa... dollars—one hundred dollars—to explain one specific thing that Obama is willing to do to rescue your economy from its death throes.

Your toon makes it sound as though deregulation of the market is the chief cause of the collapse, never mind the worthless US dollar, a corrupt treasury, the US's insane debt, corrupt regulation agencies, unparalleled spending, crippling deficits, souring demographics, and an utter collapse of virtually any consumer index or commodity index you can shake a stick at.

You're an editorialist! Grill Obama! What is the man going to give up? Demand to know for the sake of your countrymen!

I know. I know.
'Obama's policies at barackobama.com are better than John McCain's. Did you know that John McCain would... John McCain doesn't understand... John McCain's policies are so...'

You're flogging a very dead horse.

- COTO

"Obama is up nine points in

"Obama is up nine points in the polls and you still can't bring it on yourself to drop the McCain/Palin onslaught to hold Obama responsible for his own deficiencies?"

Why should he? He has his own perspective, and he has every right to beat that drum. If you want to see cartoons about Obama, draw them yourself.

COTO's picture

Because Mr. Fiore is an

Because Mr. Fiore is an editorialist, and IMHO an editorialist holds a journalistic responsibility to inform and persuade.

If Obama's policies don't work, believe me, Democrats will be far worse off a year from now than if they pushed for details and dragged the policies back into the unpopular but fiscally responsible real.

I think that the real power of Mr. Fiore's site is to demand probity in Obama's policies. It's obvious from the comments in these forums that nobody within ten lightyears of this site intends on voting for McCain.

"Because Mr. Fiore is an

"Because Mr. Fiore is an editorialist, and IMHO an editorialist holds a journalistic responsibility to inform and persuade."

OK, for the sake of the hypothetical, let's grant your opinion of editorializing as accurate. Mr. Fiore *is* informing and persuading, so what exactly are you complaining about? Apparently, you just don't like that he isn't looking at the particular issues that you want him to look at. Well, too bad. Again, he has the right to beat the drum he chooses to beat, and to ignore others.

Believe it or not, not everybody has the same perspective on this as you do. You're talking about what *might* happen if Obama doesn't live up to expectations. Well, Mr. Fiore is focusing on what *will* happen if we get the four additional years of Bush-style politics and economics McCain is promising. And whether you like it or not, that is a perfectly valid angle to approach this from.

COTO's picture

> Mr. Fiore *is* informing

> Mr. Fiore *is* informing and persuading, so what exactly are you complaining about?

Attacking a political candidate with no hope of winning, in a forum where nobody who was planning to vote for him anyway (because all such people have long since departed for sites that entertain their own biases) is the definition of moot point.

> You're talking about what *might* happen if Obama doesn't live up to expectations. Well, Mr. Fiore is focusing on what *will* happen if we get the four additional years of Bush-style politics and economics McCain is promising.

I'm talking about what *will* happen if Obama doesn't live up to expectations.

Bush has been terrible for America, but he's not the main reason your nation is dropping like a rock. Not even close.

More than any other nation on Earth, Americans are slaves to debt. Your personal debt levels, your state debt, your federal debt, your government pension arrears and Medicaid/Medicare arrears, your financial system: everything you've built and enjoyed since the 1960's.

Your nation is being systematically destroyed and your candidates don't seem to care. They bring out a few soundbites about how "The POWER of the American worker will save us! The POWER of American innovation will save us!" and then gloss over the problem, heaping on some more spending announcements.

I ask myself: why is it that Americans don't realize that China has the power to destroy your nation at the push of a (financial) button, and yet haven't done so because they're systematically stocking their reserves with your food and material wealth and corporate assets?

Why is it that "The POWER of..." soundbites will work when even an optimistic analysis shows that if the US were to cut out all government spending except for domestic defence and national infrastructure, raised taxes, reneged on all pensionable income to government employees, eliminated all medicare/medicaid, and the population demographics of the US magically stopped getting worse, it would still take three generations to pay off your federal debt?

The reason the soundbites work is because (as my American sister has told me) nobody down there seems to give a damn. The people in Chicago who elected Obama care about how Sarah Palin talks all funny, and how Obama was 'friends with a terrorist' forty years ago and about InstaScandal. They talk about how 'Bush screwed them and everything'll get better under Obama.'

Bush was terrible for America, but he's not the one that screwed you. You screwed you, by believing the soundbites and by demanding a standard of living you couldn't afford. And you'll continue to screw you if you do not demand that your candidate stop spending your nation into oblivion.

What I was trying to do here is just beg Mark to do one cartoon about the toxic issue neither of the candidates will touch. He's funny. He's a far more skilled artist than I'll ever be, and he has a widespread American audience that he can 'talk to'.

Yes, he can inform them on how terrible McCain is (which is a moot point, as I've said), but if your nation is systematically destroyed either way, it makes it even more of a moot point. So much of the world has learned to depend the America of old (the 1960's America that generation text seems to loathe) that you'll bring half the world down with you if/when the nation fails.

- COTO

admin's picture

1.) Obama wants to let the

1.) Obama wants to let the ridiculous Bush (okay, now McCain tax cuts) tax cuts expire. That's good for the economy and leads to a more financially solvent country.

By the way, Russert is dead. That was Jim Lehrer moderating the debates.

Is that worth $100 :-)

Thanks, COTO, always enjoy your comments.

-Mark

P.S. And I agree with you about hating seeing Obama squirm under the $700 B question.

COTO's picture

> Obama wants to let the

> Obama wants to let the ridiculous Bush (okay, now McCain tax cuts) tax cuts expire

I don't know.
I'll give you ten bucks for it. (I was planning on buying your box DVD set anyway ;)

You're automatically looking at a small fraction (although I can't seem to find any resources that describe how small) of taxation revenue from the super-rich.

Rich people have a habit of moving elsewhere if their taxes are too high. Clinton ran a surplus in his last two years, but the US also lost a lot of business in his last two years (as you'll remember, one of the reasons Bush got elected aside from the... unpleasantness).

Seven hundred billion is roughly the total personal income tax revenue for the whole US, and it'll be tacked on to another insane spending bill that the Senate just passed ($500 billion for the next few months is what I've heard in passing).

Obama has always sold the tax cut repeal as a means of financing his education, energy, and healthcare initiatives, which are all notably expensive. Here in Canada, everybody (including the super-rich) pays through the nose for our public systems. We love them, but they cost us. There's no way that we could finance them on the tax revenue of our wealthiest 2%.

I certainly don't oppose tax increases, but increases with a proportionally greater increase in spending are a recipe for disaster.

As I pointed out in a post a few weeks ago, the numbers Obama gives on his website don't add up: the tax hikes he's proposing won't generate nearly enough revenue to support his spending promises. And that was before the $700B game-changer.

> By the way, Russert is dead. That was Jim Lehrer moderating the debates.

Oh... uh... yeah. I had ol' Tim on the brain. :P

Jim... Tim...

Boy, wouldn't that have been a debate for the ages, though? Ladies and gentlemen, back from the grave to moderate tonight's debate...

> Thanks, COTO, always enjoy your comments.

Love your toons and the chance to vent my frustratations. ;)

> And I agree with you about hating seeing Obama squirm under the $700 B question.

We all know why he did.

But I hope we'd all rather vote for a candidate that said "I'm going to cut back my energy spending by two, and eliminate the education bonus here, and delay this healthcare plan." and then fought back against the GOP instascandal: "He hates energy. He hates healthcare." rather than a candidate that (painfully) avoided the question.

Obama worries me because more and more he strikes me as the kind of man who will tell Americans anything they want to hear to get elected. Maybe because he's fighting against racism and it's the only way he can win. Maybe because the American political system is so damaged that Americans can't elect a fiscally responsible leader anymore.

But if Obama is nine points ahead, I'd like to think that he could 'eat up' some of those points with a bit of straight talk on how he's going to afford his policies.

The GOP certainly won't call him on it, because their plan is even worse. It is 'The Subject that Shall Not Be Named'.

The more research I do into this $700 billion, the worse it gets. This thing is (part of) the head of a $645 trillion mess of derivatives, securities, and hyper-leveraged assets that will simply evaporate when the house of cards collapses. The whole 'world economy' is valued in the low quadrillions, by comparison.

It's difficult to get concrete predictions on how bad things will get, because most economists have (literally) no idea of the actual extent of this 645-trillion-headed monster. It's impossible to map accurately with so many private investors/corporations.

If you were to do a cartoon about how the derivative markets work: A 'owns' a house. A lends to B lends to C lends to A and D lend to E and G lend to B insures A for E based on the value of F who lends to G and B and... ...leverages based on E which then lends to Z and P, who insure A.

Wow! Look! 200 million in assets based on one $200,000 house! Isn't the economy grand!

A 'loses' the house. Oops. No more virtual $200 million.

If you think this is absurd, it's not far from the truth (the reality would be closer to $6 million based on one $200,000 house). Anyway, a cartoon explaining this to 'ordinary Americans' would be helpful and comic gold to boot! Heaven knows, the politicians certainly won't do it.

Alas, my research continues.

Thanks for the Chat,

COTO

Not for nothing COTO, but as

Not for nothing COTO, but as a small business owner in Canada, I pay considerably less tax than my counterparts in the US, even taking into account the GST. On business revenues of $350k last year, my wife and my combined personal and business taxes (provincial and federal) worked out to be just a bit over 21%. 21% on 350k ain't bad, a helluva lot better than individual income earners would pay, and substantially better than small business owners in the US in many areas (some states could get fairly close to our tax rate, but then still have to pay health care out-of-pocket).

Yes, I also said personal. One of the big big advantages to being a small business operator in Canada is the fat chunk of tax-free dividend issuance you can do every year. As my wife and I are shareholders, we get a nice fat slice from the business that comes with no additional pain.

Individual canadians may not fare so well, but with a big chunk of dividend income tax free, more of it at low marginal rates, capital gains at low marginal rates and a very permissive write-off/write-down setup, the CRA proves it loves it some small business canucks.

(Tax situation not applicable in QC, where they'll tax your balls off then tax you extra for testicular janitorial services.)

COTO's picture

Small business owners in

Small business owners in Canada have it good. ;)

The Conservatives have bent over backwards to encourage small business growth, which is one of the reasons I'm voting for them again.

The Liberal record isn't too bad, either, but Dion's carbon tax is going to sink him into oblivion.

The problem is: you've just announced to all of the Americans here why 'business shutting down in America and moving elsewhere' isn't a myth if corporations are pressured into it.

Anyway, vote your heart in the next election! (Except for good old 'Smilin' Jack', whose party destroys anything economic it touches.)

That was a good one Mark.

That was a good one Mark. McCain still doesn't have any Idea about this country economy. With wall street nearly going broke and and banks won't give out loans, or credit this country is going to in for some hard times. And from watching McCain he seem to be clueless about this problems.

admin's picture

Sarah Palin is back! Er, I

Sarah Palin is back! Er, I mean John McCain, talking about the economy. Suspended campaign anyone?

-MF

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Filtered words will be replaced with the filtered version of the word.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.