PDA

View Full Version : 1934 Political Cartoon


Pell Mell
04-10-2009, 06:23 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/3424931162_8138a16a35_o.jpg

PaceAdvantage
04-10-2009, 07:30 PM
Sounds and looks a little familiar. Thanks!

JustRalph
04-10-2009, 08:13 PM
Let's hope Obama doesn't draw the recovery out ten years like FDR

GaryG
04-10-2009, 08:26 PM
Let's hope Obama doesn't draw the recovery out ten years like FDRNo, his eminency will be long gone before that. Promising change as he sashays out the door.

Tom
04-10-2009, 09:13 PM
No, his eminency will be long gone before that. Promising change as he sashays out the door.

Out the window, Gary...out the window! :lol:

9RV3QxYBLhM

ArlJim78
04-10-2009, 09:25 PM
incredible, that cartoon is perhaps more relavent 75 years later.

mostpost
04-10-2009, 11:58 PM
OK I get it now. You posted that cartoon to show that the conservative posters on Pace Advantage are as out of touch with reality as the Chicago Tribune was in 1934. None of that stuff happened. We didn't deplete the resources of the strongest government in the world. Communists didn't take over. In fact the country ended up much stronger than during the Hoover Administration.

Junk the Constitution? There were many more attempts to circumvent the Constitution during the Bush years.

Declare a dictatorship? If we have a dictatorship, why did we let Republcans run the country for 36 of those years? That's a heck of a dictatorship when the oposition party is in power 47% of the time.

All this cartoon proves is that you folks have no new ideas.

BlueShoe
04-11-2009, 12:34 AM
Which dictator do you think Barack Obama is most like?Is it Hitler or is it Stalin?Perhaps a bit of both.His ideology is more in line with Stalin,but his methods seem more like those of Hitler.When did you say the election is?Hope we last that long as a free republic.

Lefty
04-11-2009, 03:02 AM
As has already been said: The war spurred economic recovery not FDR's spending spree.

The Judge
04-11-2009, 10:37 AM
was a government spending spree.

mostpost
04-11-2009, 11:10 AM
As has already been said: The war spurred economic recovery not FDR's spending spree.
As has already been said: Wrong again, Lefty. Economic indicators rose sharply from 1933 to 1937. Only when Roosevelt succombed to pressure to balance the budget did the recovery slow,

Lefty
04-11-2009, 11:47 AM
ok, right, uhuh, yep...

mostpost
04-11-2009, 03:59 PM
[QUOTE=Lefty]ok, right, uhuh, yep...[/QUOTE

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm So glad you agree with me:rolleyes: You must have seen the info at this link.

To summarize; between 1933 and 1937, it shows GDP up 44%, Consumption up 30%, Government purchases up 30%, and investments up a whopping 473%. There was a downturn in 1938, but the figures were still far above 1933 levels. The recovery resumed in 1939 which was two years before we entered World War II.

You know it's nice to have strong beliefs, but It's so much better when they're based on facts:jump:

Marshall Bennett
04-11-2009, 04:04 PM
Which dictator do you think Barack Obama is most like?Is it Hitler or is it Stalin?Perhaps a bit of both.His ideology is more in line with Stalin,but his methods seem more like those of Hitler.When did you say the election is?Hope we last that long as a free republic.
I'll never be a fan of Obama but , I beleive this is somewhat of an exaggeration .

JustRalph
04-11-2009, 04:08 PM
OK I get it now. You posted that cartoon to show that the conservative posters on Pace Advantage are as out of touch with reality as the Chicago Tribune was in 1934. None of that stuff happened. We didn't deplete the resources of the strongest government in the world. Communists didn't take over. In fact the country ended up much stronger than during the Hoover Administration.

Junk the Constitution? There were many more attempts to circumvent the Constitution during the Bush years.

Declare a dictatorship? If we have a dictatorship, why did we let Republcans run the country for 36 of those years? That's a heck of a dictatorship when the oposition party is in power 47% of the time.

All this cartoon proves is that you folks have no new ideas.

yep, a little war got in the way

Rookies
04-11-2009, 06:41 PM
OK I get it now. You posted that cartoon to show that the conservative posters on Pace Advantage are as out of touch with reality as the Chicago Tribune was in 1934. None of that stuff happened. We didn't deplete the resources of the strongest government in the world. Communists didn't take over. In fact the country ended up much stronger than during the Hoover Administration.

Junk the Constitution? There were many more attempts to circumvent the Constitution during the Bush years.

Declare a dictatorship? If we have a dictatorship, why did we let Republcans run the country for 36 of those years? That's a heck of a dictatorship when the oposition party is in power 47% of the time.

All this cartoon proves is that you folks have no new ideas.

:ThmbUp:

Although Mostpost, I'm pretty sure Rove would have found this one in a few days ! :lol: Although, he's probably trolling the 18th. century Whig papers for anti Obama stands.

Trust Tom to find the most discredited part of the FOX whacked out empire (Red Eye... you know the one Pace says noooooobody watches) to bolster another inane Obama attack.

They're princes those clowns... laughing at troops in the line of fire.

Point registered here , though... no source to low...

Lefty
04-11-2009, 08:00 PM
rookies, as noted before, redeye is a comedy show. Did you get your panties in a bunch by the SNL skits attacking Sarah Palin?

As far as ideas, the dims really have some new ones, huh. Here they are:
tax, tax ,tax, spend, spend spend.

Rookies
04-11-2009, 08:28 PM
Hardly. Palin, Obama, who cares about political satire...

That's not the point & you know it. SNL, never attacked the U.S. ARMED FORCES, did they ??? That show of scummy, bottom feeders did attack the Cdn. Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

Of course, the little wuss who was outed wouldn't dare show up in Edmonton a few days later. He would have had a warm Canadian welcome...

Tom
04-11-2009, 08:31 PM
You STILL whining about that?
Geeze, go see a shrink if you can't handle it. :lol:

Lefty
04-11-2009, 09:29 PM
I don't know if SNL ever attacked our troops but Dems in power did.

cj's dad
04-11-2009, 09:59 PM
The War was a government spending spree.

Quite possibly the most idiotic statement ever posted on this site !!

Rookies
04-11-2009, 10:05 PM
I don't know if SNL ever attacked our troops but Dems in power did.

Lefty... don't give an IDENTICAL answer to someone here already (Ralph). You need to think this through and compare apples to apples.

THAT show ****ed up big time... SNL (for example) did not.

The poster above you (that likes to dish it out, but starts whining immediately when the tables are turned and people target him) used the same show.

IF ANY show from the left side of the spectrum EVER derided troops in battle like these assholes did, many of the conservative posters here would never let it go ! For god sake, pizza becomes an issue here with these lunatics.

So, I'm not letting it go... especially when somebody chooses to use it to make satire about the other side.

Lefty
04-11-2009, 10:20 PM
If I gave same answer as JR it's because I overlooked his answer. As for as perspective, you need some if you think it's worse for a comedy show to denigrate the troops than the dems themselves. Murth, kerry and quite a few others accused our troops of horrible crimes. So YOU get some perspective.

Rookies
04-11-2009, 11:00 PM
If I gave same answer as JR it's because I overlooked his answer. As for as perspective, you need some if you think it's worse for a comedy show to denigrate the troops than the dems themselves. Murth, kerry and quite a few others accused our troops of horrible crimes. So YOU get some perspective.

Lefty, here's my perspective. Wars have a way of dividing the populace. However, most rationale persons who are opposed to a particular war, at least lately, find that they can separate their oppositions to the war or its grounds for pursuit to the support they have for the troops (their fellow citizens, perhaps neighbours or friends) engaged in the pursuit of said war.
People like to use Vietnam as the example where BOTH the war and the troops were derided. In fact, it goes back to at least WW2, where not all countries were on side about engaging in the war, and some of those that were, expressed vigorous internal opposition. The U.S. is an example of the former and Canada the latter.

I'm not sure what "horrible crimes" those you've mentioned have accused the troops of, so please tell me what they said specifically. If it goes beyond the ridicule and derision directed against Canadian troops on that show, then yes, I'd agree that an active politician of the country carries more weight. If they expressed mere opposition to the war, this to me, is not equivalent.

Lefty
04-11-2009, 11:33 PM
Murtha accused them of murder, kerry said they were raiding civilian homes in the middle of the night, scaring women and children. There was lots of things said, forget the exact quotes. Moveon ran an ad in NY Times calling General Pettraus, Gen Betrayus. All much more serious than some stupid comedy show. I don't know what was said on the comedy show as i'm not a fan, but these allegations by democrats and leftwing groups should be of much more concern.

PaceAdvantage
04-12-2009, 02:10 AM
For god sake, pizza becomes an issue here with these lunatics.More feigned shock and outrage. Lunatics? Really....

Why would you continue to participate here if you really believe what you state?

After all, it isn't healthy or polite to argue with (or make fun of) a crazy man.

The Judge
04-12-2009, 11:06 AM
Again you post the most idiotic statement of the meet. What kind of a war would it have been without the government cranking-up the printing press and spending money?

If you want to make a patriotic speech everytime WAR is mentioned go ahead nobody is stopping you.

Floyd
04-12-2009, 01:33 PM
Why would you continue to participate here if you really believe what you state?
It's a gift to you. Part of the economic stimulus package, if you will. More page views means more advertising dollars in your pocket. Why else would you continue to encourage the trolling, mean spirited cheap shots, and bigoted bluster that passes for discourse here?

chickenhead
04-12-2009, 02:05 PM
Quite possibly the most idiotic statement ever posted on this site !!

It's pretty clear that "recovery" started as has been noted well before the war. The war was a bonanza that put things over the top.

We ran around 120% of GDP deficits early in the war. Relative to todays economy, that would be around a $16 trillion dollar deficit -- in one year. And another $10 trillion the next year. And another $8 trillion the year after. It was an astoundingly large amount of money dumped into the economy, by the government. It dwarfed the amount of government stimulus ever spent up to that point.

It doesn't much matter what you do with that much money -- though they did spend it on things that put people to work, and they built up useful infrastructure with it....but also a lot of it, a huge proportion of it, went into essentially metal contraptions that we shipped oversees and left there (in the form of bombs, bullets, and blown up planes and tanks). But with that sort of quantity of money you can't help but put spur major economic activity no matter how you spend it.

I guess I'd like to hear the other side of the argument. It wasn't just government stimulus, it was the single biggest government stimulus this country has ever seen in relative terms -- at least since the civil war.

PaceAdvantage
04-12-2009, 09:32 PM
It's a gift to you. Part of the economic stimulus package, if you will. More page views means more advertising dollars in your pocket. Why else would you continue to encourage the trolling, mean spirited cheap shots, and bigoted bluster that passes for discourse here?Because I would be a hypocrite if I did not. I allowed the trolling, mean spirited cheap shots and bigoted bluster that passed for discourse from the left when Bush was in charge here.

Why would I want to be hypocritical and shut down the right's ability to do the same now that Obama is in charge?

Why would YOU want that?

Floyd
04-12-2009, 10:33 PM
Because I would be a hypocrite if I did not. I allowed the trolling, mean spirited cheap shots and bigoted bluster that passed for discourse from the left when Bush was in charge here.

Why would I want to be hypocritical and shut down the right's ability to do the same now that Obama is in charge?

Why would YOU want that?

Oh, no. I get it. Tit for tat, sauce for the goose, pathetic death throes of a disastrous ideology, whatever. I understand.
Wouldn't want to short circuit the grief process. It's healthy for Republicans to lash out in anguish as their entire worldview is shown to be a farce.
Maybe some day they can begin talk about possible solutions to this mess we seem to find ourselves in.
Or, on the other hand, we could sit around and call each other names.

PaceAdvantage
04-12-2009, 11:02 PM
Maybe some day they can begin talk about possible solutions to this mess we seem to find ourselves in.I thought Democrats and those that support them already have the solution....spend light-years MORE than Bush, the very same Bush who supposedly saddled our children with insurmountable, horrifying, country-crippling debt.

No name calling in that reply. Please respond in kind.

ArlJim78
04-12-2009, 11:07 PM
Maybe some day they can begin talk about possible solutions to this mess we seem to find ourselves in.
Or, on the other hand, we could sit around and call each other names.

its looks to me like you pretty much spent the whole day offering no solutions while engaging in tedious tit for tat exchanges.

Tom
04-12-2009, 11:14 PM
Here's the deal, Floyd.
I only plan on my crusade for the first 100 days.
Just to give the libs here a taste of what we had to put up with.

Two objectives.
>Proof I can do it better than them. Judging by the ruffled feathers so far...:ThmbUp:
>Show them I know when to stop. 4/29/09.

If you do a search, you will find most everything I have posted as thread starters closely mirrors something already started about Bush. A few of my replies have been almost word for word, just the names were changed.

Tom
04-12-2009, 11:19 PM
Oh, no. I get it. Tit for tat, sauce for the goose, pathetic death throes of a disastrous ideology, whatever. I understand.
Wouldn't want to short circuit the grief process. It's healthy for Republicans to lash out in anguish as their entire worldview is shown to be a farce.
Maybe some day they can begin talk about possible solutions to this mess we seem to find ourselves in.
Or, on the other hand, we could sit around and call each other names.

This what you mean?
Actually, I was asking a serious question about your Zombie Jesus who throws people off of ships, I'd like to hear more. Are there some books I can read? You know, chapter books, not the "graphic" books. (If you look in the back of your "graphic" book it should say what the original source was. Thanks.)

Floyd
04-13-2009, 08:06 AM
Here's the deal, Floyd.
I only plan on my crusade for the first 100 days.
Just to give the libs here a taste of what we had to put up with.

Two objectives.
>Proof I can do it better than them. Judging by the ruffled feathers so far...
>Show them I know when to stop. 4/29/09.

If you do a search, you will find most everything I have posted as thread starters closely mirrors something already started about Bush. A few of my replies have been almost word for word, just the names were changed.

Thanks for stating your terms, I'd been unaware of the history here.
I'll quit whining now.

Floyd
04-13-2009, 08:12 AM
This what you mean?

Exactly. I'm really curious about this violent murdering Jesus Boxcar believes in, as I'd never heard of such a thing.
You'd have to read the thread to get the context.

BlueShoe
04-14-2009, 03:42 PM
"Ill never be a fan of Obamas but,I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration".This is a late response to post #14,but my answer is,not really.His ideology appears to be firmly Marxist/Leninist.His conduct may turn out to be more like Lenins rather than Stalins,but still Bolshevik.As for Hitler,just look at the growing power of the government and listen to what he would like to do,and compare it to 1930's Germany.He is proposing a "youth volunteer service" (Hitler Youth);"civilian security force" (SA Brownshirts),and "gun Control" and wiretapping (Gestapo).That 1934 drawing is right on target,just change the names.