AWESOME Cartoon - from 1948

Check this out:

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html

It has as much relevance today as it did over sixty years ago, perhaps more.

If only more people could see it

Proof that we haven't learned anything except new ignorances.

How true. The camel's nose is already under the tent, it worries me to see the amount of governmental interference in many parts of our lives. And that's come from both sides of the political spectrum in this country.

But this is still the greatest place to live on the planet, period. My mom and stepfather just returned from a trip around the Indian Ocean: South Africa, Madagascar, Myanmar, etc. and they said the living conditions in these places were atrocious.

That cartoon is proof time travel is possible. Someone from our time travelled back and made the cartoon as a warning.

carguy123 wrote: That cartoon is proof time travel is possible. Someone from our time travelled back and made the cartoon as a warning.

Or, it's proof that the warning from sixty years ago was never heeded.

We have ignored warnings from longer ago than that. Can you say Afganistan, I knew you could.

Kia_racer wrote: We have ignored warnings from longer ago than that. Can you say Afganistan, I knew you could.

Huh?

You have historical evidence of direct US involvement in Afghanistan prior to 1948? If so, what is it?

I think he's referring to the fact that Afghanistan has been the source of untold problems for several world powers now, including the Soviets and the British Empire.

One can actually make the argument that involvement in Afghanistan led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the fall of the British Empire, although I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. It makes for good political hyperbole, though.

In reply to billy3esq:

Yeah, Billy, I believe that's exactly what Kia_racer was alluding to.

But, it's a bit of a stretch to link it to the original message in the cartoon.

Jensenman wrote: How true. The camel's nose is already under the tent, it worries me to see the amount of governmental interference in many parts of our lives. And that's come from both sides of the political spectrum in this country.

You are SO correct. both the Liberal and Conservative groups in this country have spent untold billions of dollars, man power, and paper at the government to steer it towards taking away our rights and freedoms.

Both parties are not what they started out to be.. and who knows what they will become.. but we can hope they do not destroy our country in the process. I still advocate we need a viable Third party for everyone in the middle who just wants to live their lives with minimal governmental, religious, and corporate meddling.

"When anyone tries to pit us against one another..."

I'd say there are a lot of people in politics trying to tell us that the other side or anything related to the other side of the isle is associated with "ISM".

In reply to oldsaw:

I think Kia_racer was responding to the point about learning from history, not so much the cartoon.

I think that cartoon would have been relevant even in the '30s too.

mad_machine wrote:

Jensenman wrote: How true. The camel's nose is already under the tent, it worries me to see the amount of governmental interference in many parts of our lives. And that's come from both sides of the political spectrum in this country.

You are SO correct. both the Liberal and Conservative groups in this country have spent untold billions of dollars, man power, and paper at the government to steer it towards taking away our rights and freedoms. Both parties are not what they started out to be.. and who knows what they will become.. but we can hope they do not destroy our country in the process. I still advocate we need a viable Third party for everyone in the middle who just wants to live their lives with minimal governmental, religious, and corporate meddling.

You both are very right, but personally, I think we need NO parties. I also would say that the fault is generally with dems and repubs, not conservatives and liberals - because major factions of both of those parties tend towards libertarian rather that statist, whereas there is pretty much no room for non statist repubs or dems. Either way, if you only knew where a guy stood on the issues, and had no idea what party he was from, things would work out better. That's how I vote now.

I tend to me more about "asms" than "isms" anyway...

mad_machine wrote: You are SO correct. both the Liberal and Conservative groups in this country have spent untold billions of dollars, man power, and paper at the government to steer it towards taking away our rights and freedoms.

Just remember that these guys are elected officials and they give the country what the country wants. It may be perverted slightly but they generally give us what we ask for... Remember the old adage.. "Be careful what you wish for."

To facebook with ye cartoon!

Seriously, sharing this with all my friends.

People in America care to much about names. Republican or Democrat. These parties are bloated caricatures of their former selves. But people cling to those names. How much time and effort are wasted on telling people the other guy is wrong and evil and he hates you. I really hope America changes soon.

ignorant wrote:

mad_machine wrote: You are SO correct. both the Liberal and Conservative groups in this country have spent untold billions of dollars, man power, and paper at the government to steer it towards taking away our rights and freedoms.

Just remember that these guys are elected officials and they give the country what the country wants. It may be perverted slightly but they generally give us what we ask for... Remember the old adage.. "Be careful what you wish for."

The ones you have to worry about are not elected officials. they do not even work in government positions.. but behind the scenes of each party.

Yes, mm, you are correct. I have been studying this and thinking about it. The "ones" have set up "foundations" and other similar organizations. Then they just look around and see who seems fairly organized and is espousing what the foundations want. Next, they give those people money and promote them. moveon_org being a single example. There are many other examples. These zealots take the money and run with it, get their ideas out to YOU berkeleying MORONS that believe what they tell you, you vote for some dumbass politician that is espousing the same thing, and here we are. This is much more efficient than the foundations directly trying to influence you. You question it if Hewlett Packard came out and told you that giving up your Constitutionally guaranteed rights to keep and bear a firearm was "really in your best interest," but if some lefty organization told you, you would think, oh yeah, that's the ones that are "sticking it to the man" and I believe them.

It only takes a little seed money to get these things going. "Little" being quite relative, of course, but little to people like the Soros' of the world. And here's how they get their money: They give it to each other. Case in point: Google. A decent concept among many decent concepts of the time. This one got promoted and bankrolled. How many years did it take for them to even have a profit? And the last profit I saw was like a buck a share. Now, at five bills a share, that's a profit to share price ration of so far in the toilet as to be virtually non-existant. However, the shares are pumped up, giving much money to the "shareholders" of Google, most of which are the original founders, who, oh yeah, just happen to give googles of money to various "ism" causes. Another case: There was this couple. I forget their names. They made several BILLION dollars in the junk mortgage business, while so "in" with the political establishment that you can't tell where one stops and the other begins, then just happened to get out completely just before the crash. They give googles of money to various "ism" causes too.

Your president (the one without the birth certificate) is a major recipient of these monies.

Come next November, If you vote for an incumbent, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Dr. Hess wrote: Come next November, If you vote for an incumbent, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Fixed it.

In a two party system where both parties are playing us like a fiddle to promote their own agenda voting isn't going to change anything. Have you ever noticed how much REALLY changes from one administration to the next independent of party they came from?

Bill Hicks said it best:

(paraphrasing) "There are two puppets--one on the left and one on the right. One guy says 'I like the puppet on the right'. Other guy says 'I like the puppet on the left'. Then they both realize there's one guy w/ a hand in each puppet".

I'm still sick of the neo-con paranoid knee-jerk naysaying, but this Afghanistan thing is disappointing to me. Certainly not what I voted for.

Wow Hess, haven't seen you quite this fired up before...

Joey

Dr. Hess wrote: Yes, mm, you are correct. I have been studying this and thinking about it. The "ones" have set up "foundations" and other similar organizations. Then they just look around and see who seems fairly organized and is espousing what the foundations want. Next, they give those people money and promote them. moveon_org being a single example. There are many other examples. These zealots take the money and run with it, get their ideas out to YOU berkeleying MORONS that believe what they tell you, you vote for some dumbass politician that is espousing the same thing, and here we are. This is much more efficient than the foundations directly trying to influence you. You question it if Hewlett Packard came out and told you that giving up your Constitutionally guaranteed rights to keep and bear a firearm was "really in your best interest," but if some lefty organization told you, you would think, oh yeah, that's the ones that are "sticking it to the man" and I believe them. It only takes a little seed money to get these things going. "Little" being quite relative, of course, but little to people like the Soros' of the world. And here's how they get their money: They give it to each other. Case in point: Google. A decent concept among many decent concepts of the time. This one got promoted and bankrolled. How many years did it take for them to even have a profit? And the last profit I saw was like a buck a share. Now, at five bills a share, that's a profit to share price ration of so far in the toilet as to be virtually non-existant. However, the shares are pumped up, giving much money to the "shareholders" of Google, most of which are the original founders, who, oh yeah, just happen to give googles of money to various "ism" causes. Another case: There was this couple. I forget their names. They made several BILLION dollars in the junk mortgage business, while so "in" with the political establishment that you can't tell where one stops and the other begins, then just happened to get out completely just before the crash. They give googles of money to various "ism" causes too. Your president (the one without the birth certificate) is a major recipient of these monies. Come next November, If you vote for an incumbent, YOUR PART OF THE PROBLEM.

carguy123 wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: Come next November, If you vote for an incumbent, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Fixed it.

D'oh... I know better too. Just happens when my fingers are trying to match my stream of consciousness.

You new here, joey?