Cartoon causes JCS complaints
- Thread starter RangerHAAF
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
DukeNukem said:
Which of course, gives comfort to the enemy and encourages them to continue the war in the hopes we will lose our will to fight.
You may notice that when we appear united and determined, our enemies seem to fade. When we appear divided, they rise up again. At one point, both Gaddafi and the Iranians came to us with tenders of cooperation, or at least a willingness not to push the envelope.
The irony is, united we cow our enemies and do not need to fight. Divided, they scorn us and we may be forced to fight -- and on terms not favorable to us.
The Iranians now seem convinced they are immune to any American action -- because we lack the political will. We may pay a horrible price for this.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Biker said:Didn't Bush 41 do a thing or two about imports
?
There ain't no good guys in this two man race. Kinda makes me think that the two evils are equal when all is taken into account.
Biker
Keep thinking that when they come to take your guns.
joab
Member
The cartoon is meant to be political satire not necessarily humor.
Political cartoons are meant to evoke outrage, or at the very least some abstract thinking on the subject presented.
Many cartoons that seem overtly offensive to the reader are simply just going over their heads
If you want funnies turn to the colored in part of the paper Hagar is usually pretty straight forward
Political cartoons are meant to evoke outrage, or at the very least some abstract thinking on the subject presented.
Many cartoons that seem overtly offensive to the reader are simply just going over their heads
If you want funnies turn to the colored in part of the paper Hagar is usually pretty straight forward
Vern Humphrey
Member
Biker said:Well, I don't figure that "they" will belong to or answer to a particular political party.
Is that the best you've got?
Biker
I challenged you to list the top 10 gun-grabbers in the Senate and House (and spotted you five in the Senate) and you still haven't come up with an answer.
Vern Humphrey
Member
joab said:
So is spitting in a man's face -- but I don't recommend the practice.
Lone_Gunman
Member
The top ten gun grabbers in the Senate are Democrats, but so what? They are still the minority.
What could a Democrat president accomplish when the House and Senate are both property of the Republican Party?
I suspect a Democrat president would be quite ineffective at accomplishing any of his agenda given the current make up of the House and Senate. It would be a good think for both the Republican and Democratic agendas to come screeching to a halt for a while.
Lone_Gunman
Member
The top ten gun grabbers in the Senate are Democrats, but so what? They are still the minority.
What could a Democrat president accomplish when the House and Senate are both property of the Republican Party?
I suspect a Democrat president would be quite ineffective at accomplishing any of his agenda given the current make up of the House and Senate. It would be a good think for both the Republican and Democratic agendas to come screeching to a halt for a while.
As for Clinton's damage to gun ownership... his legacy is no worse than that of Bush the First. The Assault Weapons Ban is gone.
If you look at George W. Bush, while he hasn't hurt us on the 2nd Amendment, he most certainly has hurt us on other basic rights, including the 1st Amendment. The Campaign Finance Reform Law does not sunset like the assault weapons ban.
I voted for Bush twice. I'd be willing to reactivate the Assault Weapons Ban if we could get rid of Campaign Finance Reform in return, as it is much more damaging to our country.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Lone_Gunman said:
Ineffective? Like Clinton was, when the Republicans finally became the majority in the House and Senate? Clinton did all sorts of nasty things -- from encouraging lawsuits to making the infamous deal with S&W to appointing anti-gun judges who are still with us.
And, by the way -- successful Presidential candidates tend to have coat tails -- when a man wins the Presidency, his party's strength in the House and Senate usually goes up.
As I said, elect a Democrat and kiss your guns goodbye.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I suppose we will have to disagree. The Republicans have been using that scare tactic all my life, but it hasn't happened. I beleive the Republicans have banned about as many guns as Democrats over the years. Reagan signed the 1986 FOPA, which eliminated new production of full autos for civilians, and Bush I banned imports of certain firearms by executive order.
Giving one party complete control of all three branches of government is bad. I realize the Democrats are worse than Republicans on the gun issue. But the Republicans are worse than Democrats on other issues.
In the end, we are better having the parties split the power, and let grid lock rule.
I guess you don't want to comment on the loss of First Amendment rights under Bush, huh Vern? There is more to the Bill of Rights than just guns.
joab
Member
Since when is physical assault an accepted form of political expression.
and how does drawing a cartoon equate with that
NineseveN
member
Biker said:
Only on an executive order, without control of the other relevant bodies and the Supreme Court...which is unlikely, but possible...anything is possible in my eyes after I have seen what the Repubs are capable of these days, the Dems can't be much better. Do you really think they'll give up all of the power the Bush Administration has seized, or use it for their own purposes? If you know politicians as I suspect you do, you know the answer. What does any person in power want most? More power.
Vern Humphrey
Member
joab said:
Neither one causes physical harm -- spitting in one's face is assault ONLY because it is so insulting.
joab
Member
Not in Fla, thanks to the Ocoee Squirter.
If you can't see the difference between physical contact and being mentally offended then you are way to sensitive to the issue.
It is easy to see that the object of ridicule is Rumsfeld not the soldier.
I think your PAST experiences are clouding your vision on the subject at hand.
This is nowhere near the soldier with a baby on his bayonet type statement that you seem to supposing it to be
Lone_Gunman
Member
Ending private firearm ownership would take more than an executive order.
Like I have said, I have no doubts the Dems are worse on the gun subject than Republicans, but the Republicans have abused the First Amendment for sure during the last six years, and haven't done any good to the Fourth Amendment either.
Of course, when this is pointed out to blind Republican partisans, they simply ignore it.
Guns are a tangible object, and it is easy to tell when a physical object has been banned. Even at the height of the AWB, 99.9% of the population couldn't care less because they didn't own or want to own anything that resembled an assault weapon.
The issues of privacy and freedom of speech are much more intangible. It is more difficult to tell when those rights have been abused. Most people don't care if those rights are limited, just like most people didnt care about the AWB.
Like I have said, I have no doubts the Dems are worse on the gun subject than Republicans, but the Republicans have abused the First Amendment for sure during the last six years, and haven't done any good to the Fourth Amendment either.
Of course, when this is pointed out to blind Republican partisans, they simply ignore it.
Guns are a tangible object, and it is easy to tell when a physical object has been banned. Even at the height of the AWB, 99.9% of the population couldn't care less because they didn't own or want to own anything that resembled an assault weapon.
The issues of privacy and freedom of speech are much more intangible. It is more difficult to tell when those rights have been abused. Most people don't care if those rights are limited, just like most people didnt care about the AWB.
Vern Humphrey
Member
joab said:
So Florida did not have a law making spitting in the face assault until the Ocoee Squirter came along?
Or the Florida legislature has a chrystal ball, and they PREDICTED the Oconee Squirter and passed the law ahead of time?
Spitting in the face is assault BECAUSE it is so insulting.
joab said:
If you think there is a difference between those things, you really need to stay out of bars.
joab said:
Then why is the soldier in the picture at all? As someone pointed out, it could be a broken down Army mule and that would make the point much clearer.
joab said:
On the contrary, my past experiences make me able to see much more clearly than those who don't have those experiences.
NineseveN
member
Vern Humphrey said:
Vern, I can understand your passion on this issue, but you are so wrong on this I don't even know where to begin. I know "insult" and "assault" sound similar, but they do not mean the same thing and do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Vern Humphrey
Member
NineseveN said:
It's simple -- anyone who has been swimming has had droplets of water strike them in the face. There is no physical danger involved. Spitting in the face is not an assault -- because no physical harm is done and the "victim" is in no danger. It is illegal and classed as assult because it is so insulting.
Spitting in someone's face is a psychological, not a physical attack. It is a step up from fighting words.
DRZinn
Member
Poking you in the chest with my finger or pushing you is not physically harmful either, and not necessarily insulting. It is assault because there is deliberate unwarranted physical contact - not because it's insulting.
Vern Humphrey
Member
DocZinn said:
No. It's assault because it is insulting, offensive and a provocation to violence.
NineseveN
member
Vern Humphrey said:
Actually, that’s not correct.
There are two reason why spitting on someone is generally against the law.
The first is a health/sanitation issue. While it does take a quart or more of saliva to transmit the aids virus, there are many other biological and viral contaminants that can be transferred through saliva. This is why spitting on the ground or in public areas is also an offence against the law (in most, if not all places). This is the same reason why defecation or urination is also against the law; it produces an unsanitary condition that can be harmful or hazardous to public health.
Bodily fluids are the property of the human being that secretes them. They are in essence, an extension of the human being (check medical laws, HIPPA etc…). With the health concerns in mind, purposely causing your bodily fluids to come in contact with another human being is assault. It has nothing to do with being offensive (even though it is). It’s offensive to some for someone to wear a shirt that says “Your mom is a hooker” (not against the law) or for interracial couples to hold hands (also not against the law) or for someone to tell another person they smell of a foul odor (also not against the law unless we’re talking employment law or harassment and harassment is more concerned with the pattern of unwanted behavior than it is the behavior itself).
There is no law against insulting someone or their sensibilities, and that is one of the wonderful things about this country. Heck, it was founded by folks who went out of their way sometimes to offend others.
Assault has nothing to do with being offended or insulted.
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: 1as·sault
Pronunciation: &-'solt
Function: noun
Etymology: Old French assaut, literally, attack, ultimately from Latin assultus, from assilire to leap (on), attack
1 : the crime or tort of threatening or attempting to inflict immediate offensive physical contact or bodily harm that one has the present ability to inflict and that puts the victim in fear of such harm or contact —compare BATTERY
2 : the crime of assault accompanied by battery; specifically : SEXUAL ASSAULT in this entry called also assault and battery
aggravated assault
: a criminal assault accompanied by aggravating factors: as a : a criminal assault that is committed with an intent to cause or that causes serious bodily injury esp. through the use of a dangerous weapon b : a criminal assault accompanied by the intent to commit or the commission of a felony (as rape) —compare SIMPLE ASSAULT in this entry
assault with intent
: a criminal assault committed with the intent to commit another specified crime <assault with intent to rob> <assault with intent to kill>
civil assault
: an assault considered as a tort rather than as a crime —compare CRIMINAL ASSAULT in this entry
criminal assault
: an assault considered as a crime rather than as a tort —compare CIVIL ASSAULT in this entry
NOTE: An assault may be both a criminal assault and a civil assault.
felonious assault
: a criminal assault that is classified as a felony and involves the infliction of serious bodily injury by the use of a dangerous weapon
indecent assault
: intentional offensive sexual contact that does not amount to sexual intercourse or involve penetration and that is committed without consent of the victim and without the intent to commit rape
sexual assault
: sexual contact usually that is forced upon a person without consent or inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (as a doctor) in a position of trust —see also RAPE
NOTE: Sexual assault in its most serious forms (often classified as first degree sexual assault) involves nonconsensual sexual penetration. In its less serious forms it may be the equivalent of statutory rape.
simple assault
: a criminal assault that is not accompanied by any aggravating factors (as infliction of serious injury or use of a dangerous weapon) —compare AGGRAVATED ASSAULT in this entry
NOTE: Simple assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The spitting is an insult, and contrived to provoke a violent response. It is not an attempt to inflict bodily harm -- and in earlier, less politically correct times, only the attempt or threat of bodily harm was an assault.
- Status
