seiferguy posted:

I'm not going to say that right wing cartoonists (mainly Lester, McCoy and Ramirez) are racist because they always want to poo poo on Obama's legacy. I'm sure there's a racial aspect, but I think it's more that their current president is realllly unpopular and even people in his party hate em (although they'll go along with him because he mostly gives what the party wants). So it's a lot easier to make fun of Obama's legacy being destroyed than to prop Trump up as an actual good human being like Branco and Garrison do.

Technowolf posted:

3

Kopijeger posted:

Not the best example: she died of typhoid, not any sort of chemical attack. Maybe a generic prisoner throwing a can of Zyklon B would work better.

seiferguy posted:

I'm not going to say that right wing cartoonists (mainly Lester, McCoy and Ramirez) are racist because they always want to poo poo on Obama's legacy. I'm sure there's a racial aspect, but I think it's more that their current president is realllly unpopular and even people in his party hate em (although they'll go along with him because he mostly gives what the party wants). So it's a lot easier to make fun of Obama's legacy being destroyed than to prop Trump up as an actual good human being like Branco and Garrison do.

Lodin posted:

Oh I hope Drybones tries to spin Spicey's shite.

D.N. Nation posted:

But remember – you dare say anything about Bush in 2009 and you were just making excuses and also Obama caused the crash, QED, address my point libs.

Selachian posted:

He'll totally ignore it. Just like he said nothing about Bannon.

Iron Crowned posted:

Don't worry, next year when the market crashes bigly, it was all Obama's failed policies

quote:

Next Year in Jerusalem!

Trogdos! posted:

Vib Rib posted:

"It's not important what happened, or why, or how it affected relations, or the problems it creates, or how it does or doesn't line up with the policies Trump claims to have. Context, especially, does not matter -- neither for this president's actions, nor those of the last. What REALLY matters is I can stick it to "Obama's Legacy"."
What's up with this loving obsession over "Obama's Legacy"? McCoy, Ramirez, Branco, and a few others have been harping on it literally since the election. Do they just want to scrub any trace of Obama from the history books, or are they that intent on pissing on the idea of him? Or both?

quote:

By J.J. McCullough

A string of broken promises — from tax cuts to electoral reform — has left Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau desperate for a quick win on one of his surviving marquee platform pledges. Thus, late last month, it was announced that his Liberal government would finally get around to legalizing marijuana, with the gimmicky kick-off date at one time even rumored to be set for April 20 — the traditional holy day of pot smokers.

Those who consume marijuana on a regular basis have been persuaded to swallow all manner of nonsense about the drug, from it’s supposedly miraculous medicinal properties (vigorously denied by the Canadian medical establishment) to its ability to unlock vast reserves of creative brilliance in otherwise dormant minds. Yet even by the standards of marijuana mythology, the idea that Trudeau’s pot legalization will be a straightforward process that will effect great demonstrable improvement — or even visible change — to Canadian society is an insulting con. If the prime minister seeks to derive any political benefit from the initiative it will come from the false hope he’s sowing in the present, not the unglamorous future that awaits.

To begin, the passage of any legalization bill in parliament will immediately force the ten provincial governments to pass regulatory legislation of their own. As former MP Brent Rathgeber noted in an insightful column, the provinces will be free to be as restrictive or draconian about this as they please — they “could authorize only one agent to sell marijuana, locate it on top of a mountain and limit its hours to 4 a.m. to 4:15 a.m. every second Christmas Day” — given the broad constitutional powers provincial governments hold over regulating intoxicants.

Rathgeber’s words remind that “legal” is not synonymous with “anything goes.” Driving is legal, but it is still possible to commit an endless assortment of crimes — from going too fast in a construction zone to not wearing a seatbelt to displaying an out-of-date license plate — while engaging in the practice. Alcohol and tobacco have been legal for decades, yet consuming or selling is governed by an elaborate latticework of criminal, provincial, federal, and municipal statutes.

Given that the evidence of pot’s physical harm has grown less ambiguous in recent years, no Canadian government seeks a world in which pot sales to minors, under-age consumption, selling without a license, or general public exposure continues or increases. The prime minister himself has repeatedly stated that one of his primary motives in legalizing the drug is to curb its currently high rates of use. In other words, legalization could very well make pot-related persecutions more common than now, given it will herald the end of Canada’s current status quo, in which most big cities explicitly do not enforce the politically unpopular pot laws presently on the books, and the beginning of a new era of arrests, trials, and even incarcerations to demonstrate how much better Trudeau’s promised “new, stronger laws” work.

What about tax revenues? A 2016 report from CIBC economist Avery Shenfeld estimated that legal pot could generate $5 billion a year in revenues– that is, if government can kill off the black market for the drug — an enormous stipulation. As The Beaverton recently observed in a satirical article (“Liberals plan legislation to make marijuana s****er, harder to get”), nothing is more efficiently distributed than an illegal good whose illegality is not enforced. High taxes and bureaucratic micromanagement actually encourage the persistence of illegal sales, which is why many of the American states where pot is legal have been forced to cut pot taxes to price out criminals, and why a quarter of all Ontarians buy tobacco on Indian reserves.

In any case,against the fashionable fantasy of a pot-fueled revenue boom, Prime Minister Trudeau has vowed any drug-generated cash will be funneled into addiction and education programs. A net profit would only be possible if legalization occurred in a context of lowered government spending on policing — which is to say, cop layoffs, since police don’t charge by the crime — and no government has given any indication that’s in the cards. Just the opposite in fact. Premier Wall’s government in Saskatchewan, for instance, has gone on the record stating it anticipates “ increased enforcement costs” relating to pot-impaired driving, “whether technology or additional police officers — or both.”

Legalizing marijuana will be a bizarre undertaking, one unprecedented in modern government. Ottawa is giving its explicit seal of approval — there may indeed be literal seals of approval — to a commercial product it has explicitly stated it believes the public should not consume. The state will exert enormous effort protecting the public for the risk they have willingly exposed them to, efforts which will only become more bossy and frantic as proof of pot’s dangerousness accumulates. Anti-pot laws and medical marijuana regulations which are barely being enforced at present will be swapped for an incoherent, unprofitable web of regulations that will please neither drug users nor those anticipating some great libertarian transformation of their society.


Voters will be asked to thank the prime minister for keeping his promise.

Trazz posted:

It really sticks in their craw that the first black president was, actually.

seiferguy posted:

I'm not going to say that right wing cartoonists (mainly Lester, McCoy and Ramirez) are racist because they always want to poo poo on Obama's legacy. I'm sure there's a racial aspect, but I think it's more that their current president is realllly unpopular and even people in his party hate em (although they'll go along with him because he mostly gives what the party wants). So it's a lot easier to make fun of Obama's legacy being destroyed than to prop Trump up as an actual good human being like Branco and Garrison do.

Johnny Walker posted:

I think the Obama bashing comes from a lot of places, really, but I think that's one. Their elevation of Reagan to presidential sainthood has helped enable 30+ years of the Republican agenda.

Sandpuppy posted:

4

F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:

It may be weird (and a low bar), but it kinda does my heart good to see most of the right-wing cartoonists not jumping to United's defense. Even they can see how much of a tone deaf disaster this is for that company.

F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:

It may be weird (and a low bar), but it kinda does my heart good to see most of the right-wing cartoonists not jumping to United's defense. Even they can see how much of a tone deaf disaster this is for that company.

F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:

It may be weird (and a low bar), but it kinda does my heart good to see most of the right-wing cartoonists not jumping to United's defense. Even they can see how much of a tone deaf disaster this is for that company.

Sandpuppy posted:

4

Pentaro posted:

How else could you come up with these absurdly idiotic cartoon premises?

Sandpuppy posted:

4

Sandpuppy posted:

14

SomeMathGuy posted:

I hate that at no point in the process of making GBS threads out this cartoon did Ramirez think about how he supports literally every facet of our society that led to that incident.

Angular Cyrus posted:

Sandpuppy posted:

6

Sandpuppy posted:

3

Trogdos! posted:

quote:

Sandpuppy posted:

14

Shangri-Law School posted:

What, pray tell, does neoliberalism have to do with foreign policy?

HootTheOwl posted:

EVERYTHING! I made up this term to seperate American liberals I don't like from the Bernie supportersProgressives I do like! Bernie wouldn't have bombed anyone! OBAMA BAD!
BUY MY BOOK!
-Ted Rall

Shangri-Law School posted:

What, pray tell, does neoliberalism have to do with foreign policy?