Kaislioc posted:

I always get sad whenever I hear about political PBF because it makes me think of a version I saw of this this image where the kids were the U.N., Israel was the egg and the house was the Middle East and I have never been able to find it since then.

voltroon posted:

Donkey's pants are not on the ground. 5/10.

Small Frozen Thing posted:

forget it jacques, it's eurotown.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

Post 9-11 User posted:

Found this while cleaning up old files, presented here because the understanding of what Antisemitism looks like seems to have been lost.

Tobermory posted:

Hang on. Do fundamentalists believe that animals didn't do horrible things to one another before the Fall? Like all the animals were sitting around being chill, and then in one magic moment they all started eating one another? And mothers devouring their offspring and siblings murdering one another? Laying eggs in the still-living bodies of their victims?

On one hand, that's completely nuts. On the other hand, that would be the most awesomely moment ever.

Duckbag posted:

It depends what you mean by "best," really. She's the best known and the best funded and despite decades of relentless right-wing attacks she (and Bill) still enjoys fairly high approval ratings with the general public. Add all these up and throw in a dose of first woman ever appeal (about 55% of voters are women) and you have a candidate who is amazingly attractive to the pragmatist, moderate, and establishment wings of the Democratic party. There's a significant portion of the Democratic party that would rather win for the wrong reasons than lose for the right ones and these people tend to like the Clintons. There's just one problem: 2008. Six years ago, we learned that the party establishment isn't quite as good at picking the winners as we'd been led to believe. Clinton's campaign was a debacle with poor message control, internal dysfunctions that made it into the press, and real failures to articulate a coherent vision for America's future that made her vulnerable to a strong insurgent candidate running from her left. The fact that the Obama administration really hasn't been very different from what we would have expected from her just underscores how much that loss represented a failure of messaging rather than actual policy. In many ways she's much stronger than she was six years ago. Her time as Secretary of State has helped her get out of her husband's shadow and proven that she has real leadership and foreign policy qualifications and the receding of the Iraq War in popular consciousness means that her hawkish tendencies are somewhat less of a liability than they used to be, but other things have changed as well. The dark side of her husband's economic legacy (NAFTA, financial deregulation, welfare "reform") looks a lot worse now than it did then (remember the recession started in '07, but the true extent of the crisis didn't become clear until Lehman collapsed in September of '08, long after the primaries) and the Clintons' long history of holding lucrative board memberships, charging extravagant speaking fees, and schmoozing with billionaire donors could badly undermine her credibility as an economic populist. Ultimately though, it all depends on who else is running and not just on the Democratic side of things.

One interesting thing to consider is that Hillary Clinton's status as "the Democrat who can win" seems a little silly if the Republican field is full of losers. In a world where assclowns like Bush, Paul, and Christie can dominate the Republican field despite their horrible baggage, where Romney can rise from the dead, we may not have to worry too much about the Republicans this time. By all appearances, it looks like we're in for another crowded primary Republican shitshow, but this time there's not a "sensible moderate" in sight to rise above it the way McCain and Romney did and, in any case, neither of them turned out be quite as threatening as they first appeared. Combine that with demographic shifts that continue to work to Democrat's advantages (despite what the angry centrist pundits tell us, the party really can alienate old white men and still win, at least at the presidential level) and you have a situation where Democrats actually have the opportunity to stand on principle for a change. This opens up real possibilities of another insurgency against Clinton this time maybe even from an actual leftist. The question is though, who's in position to be that insurgent? Bernie Sanders has a lot of great things to say, but he's apparently too old and socialist for our media to take seriously, Elizabeth Warren says she's not running, and most of the Democratic governors are either still fairly unknown (O'Malley) or not particularly leftist (Webb) or both, so although the opportunity to challenge Clinton is there, I'm not sure if there's a candidate. We've got a year left before the primaries start for real, so stay tuned, and try to remember at this time in 2007, many people were already rushing to crown Hillary while a certain junior senator from Illinois was barely a blip on most pundits' radar.

tldr ask in a year

Selachian posted:

Just curious, is it A Thing in Oz to wear the flag as a cape while shirtless? Never seen that before.

Gilganixon posted:

It would be fine if the cartoonist didn't draw his poors as subhuman ape-things idly drinking, smoking and playing with all the phones they bought (while on benefits) among piles of filth. A good cartoonist might be sending up what the right wing thinks of people on benefits, but it's Mac and it's in the Daily Mail. They might not like the conservatives going for that vote but they definitely do hate those morlocks scrounging off the taxpayer.

Exclamation Marx posted:

The LNP lost bigtime at the Queensland election, and Tony looks like he's going to be dolchstoßed

JaggerMcDagger posted:

Europe and the Jews
,
We like to think of the attempt to destroy the Jews as a Nazi effort and fool ourselves by ignoring the traditional Jew-hatred of much of European society. Then, as now, it wasn't only the Germans.
Labels: antisemitism, Europe, History, Holocaust, IDF, Israel, Jewish State, war crimes

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

Saint Sputnik posted:

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

OptimusShr posted:

Mister Beeg posted:

Mallard Fillmore: Year One (July 11-16, 1994)

Mister Beeg posted:

Since people like them, I thought I mention that there's a new Sleeper Ave. up, although it's not exactly political

Mister Beeg posted:

As an artist, I can relate to Ed here. I would be tempted to add details to drawings, which would just end up ruining it. Haaah

Unfunny Poster posted:

Not to derail the thread further witht he "lmao @ MRAs" stuff, but this is a video of a guy upset and "taken out of the moment" while playing Battlefield 4's campaign because of a female character being part of the plot.

No, its not a troll.

Skip to 2:20 for the inane ranting, there's story spoilers but uh....it's a loving Battlefield game so who cares about that stuff? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-AsJsJNsso

colonel_korn posted:

I'm the weird red squiggles that appear to have been drawn in MSPaint for no apparent reason