Political Cartoon On Democratic Candidates
Forlorn
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
<div class="IPBDescription">I like this one, discuss</div> This political cartoon says a lot about the canidates that I've felt for awhile now.
Comments
On hot issues, politicians try to please both sides. They need to to get the votes, regardless of whether or not one side is really wrong. They aren't going to tell them that, because making them mad = no votes = no power.
So, instead of debating real issues, they find something stupid to argue about. Whoever impresses the most simpletons, wins!
*cough* **** rights! *cough*
Really, there has to be more monumental issues than this. Although I have to admit this is mostly the media's doing.
What bother me the most is that they accuse each other of catering to special interest groups. THEY ALL CATER TO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. They have to, where do they get their funding to run? Whether it's teacher's unions, big business, labor unions, or whomever, there's always some one else pulling the strings.
Exactly!
Nemesis:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What exactely does it say? That they're both white, rich, and gigantomanic? I always assumed all three as requirements for the job...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It says a couple of things:
- Both try to appeal to the 'poor' classes of America, as if they can understand where Bush supposedly "Fails".
- They are each bragging about (irl) their econmic backgrounds... but is rediculous looking to the public eye
- Edwards was talking about disadvantaged classes, yet he himself owns a 3.5 million dollar home, for starters on his wealth.
- This cartoon simply expresses how shallow these canidates are... so much of a better choice than Bush, right?
This political cartoon apeals to me also because I love a good hyprocrite.
Apart maybe from Nader, the hypocrisy portrayed here is really a general character trait in all possible candidates.
Do you think there's a legitimate hope for a third party president in the next few terms? Also if you are voting who are you voting for? (hands out Vote 4 Nader posters)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This political cartoon apeals to me also because I love a good hyprocrite.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It could easily be argued that Bush is worse than either of them. Bush works very hard to create and maintain his "cowboy" image, despite the fact that he's wealthy by inheritance and daddy bought his way into an ivy league school. Bush bought his ranch in 1999 just before he started his campaign, but acts like he was a professional for years. The presidential cowboy image isn't an original either. Both Reagan and LBJ used the cowboy image to help their political careers.
Every American president, regardless of political party, tries to pass themselves off as "just another person" regardless of how obscenely wealthy they are or how they got that money.
On the other hand, it explains why you love Bush. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
He doesn't claim to know something about the poor classes that we somehow missed out on.
Bush fully acknolwedges he's rich, and he just lives with it.
Even if he is a bit stupid, he's honest, which is something I can appreciate.
a) is wealthy.
b) has to attempt to get the votes of people far less well-off than he is.
The difference is that Kerry and Edwards at least marginally care about the poor, while Bush every now and then is forced to acknowledge they exist. You know, between vacations.
(People will call that glib; well, so is the cartoon.)
He doesn't claim to know something about the poor classes that we somehow missed out on.
Bush fully acknolwedges he's rich, and he just lives with it.
Even if he is a bit stupid, he's honest, which is something I can appreciate. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You completely ignored the 'cowboy' image both Finch and myself raised as a sign of social hypocrisy.
Do you think there's a legitimate hope for a third party president in the next few terms? Also if you are voting who are you voting for? (hands out Vote 4 Nader posters) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you voting for Nader because you want to stick it to someone else, or are you voting for him because you think he is best candidate?
<span style='color:white'>Kindly transfer your question <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=64247' target='_blank'>here</a>.</span>
- Both try to appeal to the 'poor' classes of America, as if they can understand where Bush supposedly "Fails".
- They are each bragging about (irl) their econmic backgrounds... but is rediculous looking to the public eye
- Edwards was talking about disadvantaged classes, yet he himself owns a 3.5 million dollar home, for starters on his wealth.
- This cartoon simply expresses how shallow these canidates are... so much of a better choice than Bush, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Edwards owns it <i>now</i>, but he grew up in a blue collar family in a small Southern town. Interesting that a self-made millionaire is now something that offends conservatives?
Bush bragged about his upbringing, too-- the fact that he was from Midland, Texas, and that he spent approximately seventy two seconds in a public high school.
<a href='http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4362613' target='_blank'>Bush, the populist.</a>
There's that Bush duality we all love. Toppin' off a day 'a strappin' on them cowboy boots and playin' up the good 'ol boy persona for a mess 'a Nascar fans with a sixty dollar steak.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This political cartoon apeals to me also because I love a good hyprocrite.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah! So that's why you're so infatuated with the Republican party!
But seriously, as it's been said, Bush could easily be caricatured alongside the others in a similar way.
"I'm like [insert random similar president]. I made most of my personal money off my father's name and a socialized stadium deal!"
Also, as I said, I don't see the hypocricy in Edwards' case-- "I grew up pretty poor, so I understand poor people!". I didn't realize that you get a lobotomy with your first million.
It's not his millions that offend me. It's the fact that he's a bottom feeding, blood drinking, stick it to the other guy trial lawyer.
Other than that I'm sure he's a helluva guy.
Hmmm . . . a bottom feeding, blood drinking, stick it to the other guy trial lawyer, or an incompetent, gleefully uninformed, misleading, corporate lackey. (Bush. Sorry, but I had spell it out lest I give the conservatives an easy joke).
Not an attractive choice.
Hmmm . . . a bottom feeding, blood drinking, stick it to the other guy trial lawyer, or an incompetent, gleefully uninformed, misleading, corporate lackey. (Bush. Sorry, but I had spell it out lest I give the conservatives an easy joke).
Not an attractive choice. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's always a choice of the lesser evils, unfortionately.
Wouldn't it be nice to find a perfect human being to vote for?
I think it's nice to be able to vote with more choices than 2, don't you agree?
Vote nader!
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah! Where's the 'none-of-the-above' bubble when you need it?
As for Nader, he's a big threat to the democrats. Not because he has a hope in hell of winning, but he is going to pull some votes that Kerry will need to defeat Bush.
Yes, because everyone that votes for Nader would vote Democratic otherwise... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yes, because everyone that votes for Nader would vote Democratic otherwise... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, this time around, it's safe to say that those voting for Nader would <b>not</b> have voted for the Democratic candidate. I don't think he'll be taking votes away so much as receiving those which would not have otherwise been cast.
stupid link..