Canada’s editorial cartoonists

Mike Gaskey

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: At least he had the guts to speak his mind. Daschle doesn't have a mind. He is famous for saying anything and everything that furthers the left wing of the Democratic party. A thoroughly unprincipled politician. Spends more time attempting to get $ and favors to the airline industry because his wife is a lobbyist for a couple of airlines. But, feel free to send him a beer. ;) Mike

Jon Sagara

Kant wrote: Canada’s editorial cartoonists ... are fucking fired for auto-adjusting the size of my browser window to fill my entire screen!!! :mad: Ok, fine, their Web master is fired. But still... Jon Sagara I have no complaint with the “mentoring concept” or the marriage concept or the sex concept. But if you pay for any of those, something’s wrong. -- John T. Reed in The real estate B.S. artist detection checklist [^]

Jon Sagara

Jon Sagara wrote: f***ing I thougt The Soapbox was an "anything goes" forum. :confused: Jon Sagara I have no complaint with the “mentoring concept” or the marriage concept or the sex concept. But if you pay for any of those, something’s wrong. -- John T. Reed in The real estate B.S. artist detection checklist [^]

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Are you being objective? :rolleyes: I honestly don't know, I don't have much knowledge about US domestic politics. Mike Gaskey wrote: But, feel free to send him a beer. Well, if he could arrange a free ticket to LA for me this summer, I'd be happy to. ;) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

KaRl

I don't know this guy, but the cartoon is really funny by itself :-D

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

peterchen

The last one [^] Is impressive. Should be applied to a US flag, though.... someone good with photoshop?

Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

Mike Gaskey

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Are you being objective? Okay - I'll give you a totally honest answer, and I won't holler if others disagree. Daschle is one of the prime spokesman for the left-wing off the Democratic Party. Others with the same types of views would be: Barbara Boxer - Senator from California Diane Finestein - Senator from California Ted Kennedy - Senator from Mass. There are others that are far to the left but these are the worst (worst if you consider their politics bad, I do). The Democratic Party cannot be automatically considered as left-wing as I describe these individuals but that does represent what would be considered the core. His (Daschle) wife is a lobbyist for the airline industry. I find that to be every bit as bad if not worse than the presumed and much touted connection between President Bush and Vice President Cheney connections to the oil industry. In the case of the President and Vice President, each had to divest themselves of anything that could be considered a conflict of interest. Cheney literally gave up millions to be Vice Presiident - because (in my opinion) he believed he could serve the country. I could be naive, but at 57 I've had time to become pretty cynical. In the case of Daschle, he has done nothing to seperate himself from the look of or potential for conflict of interest and he is in a position to push for legislation that helps his wife, thus himself. Further more, and this is what really angers me, it does not matter what President Bush says or does. Daschle will rant that it was: wrong, not enough or too much. If Bush says the wall is white, Daschle says it is black. After the 2000 elections the Senate was evenly split 50 / 50 between Republicians and Democrats. One Republican senator changed parties, well he didn't change what he did was to declare himself "Independent" - but he sold himself to the Democrats in trade for an assignment as the chairman of some committee. That changed the Senate to a 49 / 50 / 1 setup. That gave Daschle the position of Senate leader. Prior to that the Republican lead ( Trent Lott ) had agreed to a power sharing arrangement with Daschle. This agreement provided for ways in which the Senate could actually work. Once the defection happened, Daschle said, "screw this, we're going to stop Bush" and he proceeded to do anything and everything to stop Bush initiatives. As minority leader he continues to obstruct, then blame Bush for not getting anything accomplishe

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Thanks for the information! Mike Gaskey wrote: As minority leader he continues to obstruct, Sounds like the typical left wing opposition. :) I wonder though, how left is left? Would you call him a social democrat? The image I get of US politics, is that left is isn't really left. I consider communists being leftists. Social democrats I consider to span from liberal to near communist ideals. (When I say near communist ideals, I mean that they're not willing to do undemocratic actions) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Kant

You will like this one. http://www.globeandmail.com/series/cartoon/19wededcar.html[^] This is when Canadian govt took antiwar stance in the parliament. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
What is Cricket?[^]

Mike Gaskey

I'm not certain how to parse European parties but in general I think you could sum up the two parties here by the following: Republicans generally: Believe in self reliance Strong defense Sometimes are fiscally conservative (changes over time) The variations to this are the Republicans who are moderates. John McCain is an example. There are also those who are Republican in name only, need to be called republicans because their electorate is. Chaffee (from Rhode Island) is one such individual. There are also the hard core, we'll call them conservatives - you cannot call all Republicans conservative. President Bush identifies himself as a compassionate conservative. I happen to object to that because it implies conservatives have no compassion. This would probably make him a moderate - but that is like being half pregnant, I can never really figure out what it means. Democrats generally: Believe in a significant role for government in your day to day life. They prefer spending on anything over defence (for the most part, not all). The further left you go in the Democratic party the more heavily you'll see a push for reliance on the government as opposed to the Republican concept of self reliance. To fund their push for dependence on the government they believe heavily in entitlements. An entitlement, for example, would be a law that states, "we'll send you a check for $10 US every month, just because you probably need it (entitling you to the $10)". This creates a reliance on receipt of that $10. By doing so (I believe) they're actually buying your vote. But to buy your vote, they take my money. Even more diabolical (guess my opinion) they also buy your vote by dropping you off the tax roles. If you live here in the US you'll hear the Republicans push for tax cuts. The Democrats always content that the cuts are for the "rich" - which means anyone who pays taxes. They (along with some wrong-headed-well-meaning Republicans) have eliminated about half the population from the tax roles. Now think about that. It means that 1/2 the population can vote but have no stake in what they are voting for. Well - I took off on a rant. Hope this helps. Mike