I take exception to the implication of the cartoon, and the not as subtle comments by some here, that liberals of any ilk have any desire to destroy our country. I take EXCEPTIONAL exception to the futher implied (and not implied) assertion that liberals are in some way aiding radical Islamists (or any radical Anti-American groups) in achivieving the destruction of our country. As to whom wants more a more intrusive government, I find it interesting (to say the least), that some here who preach smaller, less intrusive government are eager to have an American citizen denied his rights under the Constitution.

I think one can believe liberal policies and ideas even through good intentions are destroying the country. Without saying liberals are bad people. If I thought the ideas were good I would support them. But being I think most big government ideas are horrible thought out ideas. It really doesn't matter what word you use, destroy, hurt, or cripple. Do I think a majority of liberals what to destroy this country? No of course not. I just happen to believe their agenda will.

Sure it does. Being that a majority of Americans today would associate the word liberal with the ideas of today's democrat party. I highly doubt most people when they look at the picture think libertarian.

 

I interpret the cartoon to be a complaint about civil liberties being an obstacle to security. Members of the Democratic party and libertarians tend to support civil liberties in the tradeoff between security and freedom.

I interpret the cartoon to be a complaint about civil liberties being an obstacle to security. Members of the Democratic party and libertarians tend to support civil liberties in the tradeoff between security and freedom.

 

Really? Higher Taxes, gov't spending, soda bans, smoking bans, gun restrictions? Those are just a few examples. Trust me I know republicans are not innocent with the patriot act. But lets not act like the Democrats are not for big government first.

Really? Higher Taxes, gov't spending, soda bans, smoking bans, gun restrictions? Those are just a few examples. Trust me I know republicans are not innocent with the patriot act. But lets not act like the Democrats are not for big government first.

 

Like I said, they are generally in favor of a government that intervenes more in economic affairs, but are generally supportive of civil liberties vis-a-vis security, which I take this cartoon to be concerned with.

Like I said, they are generally in favor of a government that intervenes more in economic affairs, but are generally supportive of civil liberties vis-a-vis security, which I take this cartoon to be concerned with.

 

I just listed 3 examples of liberals infringing on civil liberties.

I just listed 3 examples of liberals infringing on civil liberties.

 

And none of those have to do with security. Do you think this cartoon is complaining that liberals want higher taxes or that they are likely to support due process, have a much higher threshold for unreasonable searches and seizure, and oppose profiling, among other things? That's my interpretation of the cartoon, so I have no idea where the other things fit in or why you're trying to argue with me about the platform of the Democratic Party.

The one thing Radical Islam and Liberals have in common is they both look at government to reach a desired goal. Those goals may be different, but both still use government -- obsessively.

I look at the Government like I look at the Police. Most poeople hate them until they need their help.

I look at the Government like I look at the Police. Most poeople hate them until they need their help.

 

That same definition applies to the ACLU, for what it's worth.

The one thing Radical Islam and Liberals have in common is they both look at government to reach a desired goal. Those goals may be different, but both still use government -- obsessively.

 

Bingo Marvel! Well done.

And none of those have to do with security. Do you think this cartoon is complaining that liberals want higher taxes or that they are likely to support due process, have a much higher threshold for unreasonable searches and seizure, and oppose profiling, among other things? That's my interpretation of the cartoon, so I have no idea where the other things fit in or why you're trying to argue with me about the platform of the Democratic Party.

 

I'm just trying to figure out what you are saying. You said civil liberties and now you are just narrowing it down to security. I'm totatly confused on where Liberal democrats are better. They voted in a president who continued and grew the patriot act. I will agree with those who are against the patriot act that its a bad thing. But you are jumping from point to point.

I'm just trying to figure out what you are saying. You said civil liberties and now you are just narrowing it down to security. I'm totatly confused on where Liberal democrats are better. They voted in a president who continued and grew the patriot act. I will agree with those who are against the patriot act that its a bad thing. But you are jumping from point to point.

 

I’m trying to clarify my points. I’ll summarize everything I’ve said to this point.

 

This is how I interpret the cartoon: It is a partisan editorial saying that Islam is a threat to the United States (I’m assuming the innuendo is terrorism) and it is being aided by those who won’t “do what it takes” to combat the threat. In my experience, that complaint is usually lodged at people who fuss about “rights” - whether that be opposition to the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, torture, profiling, etc. The people who fit that bill have typically been Democrats and libertarians, thus the cartoon’s fingering of them (it's unclear which they mean, specifically, but it fits in both cases). Additionally, the cartoon has resurfaced after the bombing in Boston as the bombers were Muslims and many people were arguing about whether or not the surviving one should be read his rights, tried as an enemy combatant, or whether profiling and surveillance should be increased against Muslims, etc. In other words, Islam is a threat and people are being too “soft” about it. This is a frequent debate. I find the cartoon nonsensical as many of these limitations placed on the government that are “getting in the way” are what help distinguish our system from more authoritarian varieties.

 

This is not to say that there are no other issues and debates surrounding a limited government and obviously the Democratic Party and allies are traditionally on the other side of many of those issues, which is why I have no interest in hashing out what they do or don’t believe. Those are debates for another thread. I didn’t draw the cartoon nor do I agree with it. And you’re more than welcome to interpret it differently.

Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter. The Hatred in the Heart of White America

Like I've previously stated, both parties are guilty here. People on this thread and across America find it a lot easier to shift the blame about our rights dissolving to the other party, and will never admit fault within their own party. I'm not directly affected by all this 2nd Amendment talk, but several of those I am around are. I know bad people will get guns regardless, that's how crime works. If you are a decently smart criminal, you don't commit crimes with a gun registered in your name. I see no harm being done in the push for universal background checks. I know it's not really a solution to the problem, but it gives people a sense of false security that a majority of Americans want.

 

I don't blame either party....I blame undeducated people who get all their facts from 3 minutes of headlines.

Like I said, they are generally in favor of a government that intervenes more in economic affairs, but are generally supportive of civil liberties vis-a-vis security, which I take this cartoon to be concerned with.

 

I can't agree with all of this. The first part...ie Keynesian economics, yes. More civil liberties?...there is a contradiction..more government, means more control over what people can and can't do which means less freedom. Then it becomes not the individual's choices, but behavior prescribed by laws. Yes, possibly laws supported by most of the people, but that does not make them good laws.