Republican Party

Friday Funnies: Republican Brain

|

NEXT: Brickbat: Ancient History

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Didn’t anyone tell this guy that political tattoos have a very short shelf life and he’s just going to end up looking silly in two years?

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

      ?????????? http://www.walletwiki.Com

  2. This is part of Reason’s continuing series highlighting terrible political cartoons, right?

    1. It must be. This one is great candidate.

    2. Here’s proof that libertarianism leads to a decline in the quality of cartoons. We need a National Cartoon Czar to ensure we have better cartoons for everyone!

  3. Is Payne sneaking more subliminal phalli into Phriday Phunnies?

    1. subliminal phalli

      Nice band name.

      *slap!*

      1. *slap!*

  4. This “Gop” guy has some bad hay fever.

    1. Especially for a guy with no nostrils.

  5. OT: Coulda seen this one coming

    http://lakotavoice.com/2014/11…..ct-of-war/

    “The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” said President Scott of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. “We are outraged at the lack of intergovernmental cooperation. We are a sovereign nation and we are not being treated as such. We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL. Authorizing Keystone XL is an act of war against our people.”

    1. Mister President, your ‘nation’ is lacking all of the hallmarks of soverignty. Face it, you’re a bureaucratic subdivision of the United States, with even less authority than the fifty main states.

      1. “So Sioux me.”

          1. Me know how. All me want is chance.

      2. But the only bureaucratic subdivision of the United States that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to.

    2. Insurrections have consequences

    3. If they’re trying to stop the pipeline from being eminently domained through their land, more power to them.

    4. How many divisions do the Sioux have?

      1. Well, they are pretty divided…

    5. I knew a boy named sioux once.

      1. Only once?

  6. Hope everyone had a good thanksgiving. If you didn’t, hope you made bail at a decent hour. Oh, if anyone sees Almanian! give him this for me
    *SLAP*

    1. *slap!*

      1. Ow! Thanks

  7. Gee, from this cartoon, you might think they were an opposition party or something.

    Lame.

    If you want to critique the Republican party, by all means have at it. The leadership, if nothing else, deserves it. But, really, it’s embarrassing for Reason to go into the “not sufficiently supportive of our political leadership” meme.

    1. I think it’s more meant to criticize a mode of thinking along the lines of WWOD but in reverse.

      1. I get it. I just think its a retarded critique. I remember rolling my eyes at other Republicans for complaining about the Democrats along similar lines (you were in high school at the time, so I can understand your not recalling). And this isn’t really any different. It’s not the job of an opposition party to have a solution. It’s their job to show that the solutions of the party in power aren’t working. And really, the last thing I’d want is for the Republicans to be anything other than reflexively opposed to expanding government, pushing progressive values and using the government as an instrument of the Democrats’ campaign machine. That’s something I’d assume libertarians would be happy to see.

        1. It’s not about the responsibility of the opposition party to solve problems, it’s about a party whose political philosophy is dominated by dislike of one guy. Of course it’s natural to not like Obama or nearly all he proposes, but a political philosophy ideally is about more than ‘this guy, I hate this guy!’

          1. a political philosophy ideally is about more than ‘this guy, I hate this guy!’

            Exactly. It’s about ‘I hate this guy’s political philosophy!’

            1. And that’s where the criticisms over latte salutes, birth certificates, beige suits, eating arugula, etc comes from I guess.

              1. Well, at least the latte salutes, birth certificates, and eating arugula.

          2. Remember liberals who seemed to be more about hating everything about W Bush than anything else? Whose only political philosophy seemed to be a knee jerk, reflexive and visceral hatred of ‘BusHitler?’

            1. Gee, that only what, won them control of the government? No reason to think that’s not a legitimate technique. And that’s precisely what I rolled my eyes at Republicans over whinging about. The Dems were an opposition party then. Just like the Repubs are an opposition party now. They were out to cast Bush as a failure and a hypocrite. Just like the Republicans want to do to Obama. It’s not something that makes me concerned enough to go live under a bridge about.

              1. ” It’s not something that makes me concerned enough to go live under a bridge about.”

                Just concerned enough to hang out here and criticize the cartoons message, and then when someone calls you on that try to imply it’s really them that is *concerned*

                1. Gee, it’s completely unimaginable that someone who regularly posts on this website might post on a comic they don’t agree with. Completely beyond the pale.

                  And of course, someone trying to play the enforcer of the comic’s argument can only be the Guardian of the One True Libertarian Purity.

                2. And again, care to address the substance of my argument?

                  1. BE careful Bill,

                    Bo’s about to play the SOCONZZZ card on you. You’re already on his list.

          3. Its possible to hate the guy AND hate his policies.

            1. In theory you hate the policies and the guy who puts them forward because they violate your own political philosophy, which should be evident in some way. As I often say, libertarianism is going to necessarily involve opposing Democrats or Progressives, but it’s about so much more than that.

              1. your own political philosophy, which should be evident in some way

                Republican Party Platform

                (I am not a Republican.)

                1. Sheesh.

                  1. Sheesh, what do you want, Bo?

                    1. Yes, they have a political platform. That totally refutes the charge that they’ve been sucked into an inverse cult of personality and lost focus on their broader philosophy.

                2. Paychecks should not be wasted on poorly run government programs

                  Military must be strong and prepared to defend our shores

                  They should have put a few more lines between those two. I mean, making people think about poorly run government programs, then going on to advocate upping the DoD budget…

            2. In a perfect world, people would not have any feelings about political candidates personally.

              People getting emotionally invested in a candidate, whether it’s love or hate, is a bad thing. They stop thinking about the merits of that candidate’s ideas and focus on their emotions.

              Progressives alter their definition of good to be whatever Obama does. And conservatives adjust their definition of evil to be whatever Obama does.

              People should start thinking of candidates as someone we are hiring to do a job, not the guy we want to have a beer with. Not as celebrities. Not as reality TV stars. Not as people whose face we wear on t-shirts.

        2. That’s what’s ‘funny’ about this. So government is supposed to have “policy solutions”? Solutions to what? A huge chunk of the targets are problems these policy solutions created in the first place. For every problem that gets ‘fixed’, two more unexpectedly crop up.

    2. Where did you get that interpretation from? It certainly isn’t a plausible reading of the cartoon, which is quite obviously pointing out that the GOP isn’t really offering much in the way of policy, being instead focused on criticizing Obama.

      It has *nothing* to do with supporting political leadership. It may not be a great cartoon, but it isn’t totally opaque either.

      1. It made fun of Bill’s Team, so wagons had to be circled.

        1. I’ve seen plenty of critiques of Republicans on Reason that I’ve been happy to support, Botard. Just because I’m not dishonest about my political biases (as you’ve proven yourself to be countless times) doesn’t mean I have ideological blinders. This is just an idiotic critique.

          1. I’m sure you’re open to criticize the GOP, like Rush Limbaugh often does.

            1. And do you offer a substantive rebuttal of those criticisms? Or do you think we’re all such fools as to fall for your attempt to attack the messenger?

              Botard, you really are as transparent a progressive shill as I’ve come across.

              1. To an admitted Team Player Libertarians (or any third party persons) will of course seem to shills for the other Team.

                So, did you have the usual GOP Thursday get together last nite or is that postponed for Thanksgiving?

                1. I didn’t say you were a Democratic shill. I said you were a progressive shill. I’ve been very upfront about that claim. It’s odd that you take so a defensive a stance to that observation and immediately conflate it with partisan objectives. Almost as if I cut a little too close to home.

                  But, it’s clear from your response that, no, you don’t have a substantive rebuttal of that criticism. All you have is attacking the messenger and evasion.

                  You really are a disingenuous fuck, Botard.

                  1. So now you’re buthurt because I won’t rebutt your criticisms of the GOP? You’re flailing around here Bill.

                    1. No, Botard. I’m expecting you to try to keep the debate to substantive arguments rather than impugning the legitimacy of someone who argues with you. I know that’s a tall order for you. I know it’s a lot easier to dismiss someone as a Republican (like Ron Paul, Rand Paul and the last two Libertarian candidates for president before they ran on the Libertarian ticket) than address the substance of their arguments. But, I’m sure you can give it the old college try.

      2. It’s kind of like, “Oh, yeah, wise guys? Well, what would you do about the Jews?”

  8. Ferguson:

    During T-giving dinner my daughter, a former assistant prosecutor who presented many cases before grand juries, schooled me on the grand jury process. Defendants are NEVER permitted to testify, and exculpatory evidence is rarely presented. (Hence the proverbial ham sandwich comment) Thus, the Ferguson prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct in the way he conducted this case.

    Justice Scalia on grand juries:

    Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
    It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire ? upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice ? 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

    1. This is an issue where progs and libertarians have common ground and we should build on that.

      1. The first principle for Progressives is that any principle may be sacrificed for the greater goal of obtaining power because without power it would not be possible to act on those principles.

    2. Your daughter’s comment (as presented by you) and Scalia’s comment do not agree. Scalia said “suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify” and your daughter said “Defendants are NEVER permitted to testify”. There is a difference between the defendant forcing the grand jury to hear his testimony and the defendant being asked by the prosecutor to testify before the grand jury. It rarely happens (this being the only case I have heard about), but as far as I know it is not illegal.

      1. Typically, defense attorneys are adamant about not letting their client’s testify because defense counsel is not in the room and whatever they say can be admitted as evidence at trial.

        And since when do libertarians support Scalia’s idea of grand juries as kangaroo courts. Grand Juries were originally supposed to be a limit on prosecutorial discretion, not a rubber stamp for it. Yes, that theory has been totally subverted, but there is no reason to endorse that subversion because of this particular case.

        Finally, most, but not all states require that the prosecutor provide their grand jury with exculpatory evidence. That requirement does not exist at the federal level.

        So the jurisdiction of your daughter’s experience is highly relevant to her statement and may well not be the legal reality in MO.

    3. I agree, bringing an indictment was a miscarriage of justice. Never should have been a grand jury under the facts as known at the time.

      Oh, was that not what you meant?

  9. The joke is that the Policy Solution part of their brain is abnormally huge, right?

    1. I think we’ve had enough “policy solutions” to last for a while.

  10. OT:I could almost forgive SNL for 1986 for this – almost…

    Just A Bill 2014

    1. SM you SF’d the link

        1. One site talking about the skit also put up the original “Just a Bill” short from the “Schoolhouse Rock” set. Rewatching that one, I wondered if anyone recalled any other “Schoolhouse Rock” ‘episodes’ besides “Just a Bill”?

          1. There’s a dvd with all of them.

          2. I sure as hell don’t. I’m pretty sure that had The Simpsons not parodied it, even Just A Bill would have been long forgotten.

            1. Having not seen said parody, and still remembering the “Just a Bill” short, I have to disagree that it was key to remembrance of the original.

            2. I can sing the entire thing from memory. Never seen the simpson’s episode.

              I also remember verb, conjunction junction and Molly’s Molly’s Molly’s get your adverbs here.

          3. Conjunction junction, what’s your founctino?

            Electricity, EEEE-lectricity

            1. “Founctino”? Um, er, that was supposed to read “function”.

              I think there was a “figure eight, four plus four” episode also. Ah, yes, this seems to be it.

          4. Not sure if this is Schoolhouse Rock, but this one I remember:

            Beans and rice is nice

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_o7TScTlWI

  11. I’m against every thing Obama wants to do,and congress.The only bills I could get behind are one repealing useless and unjust laws and regulations..

    1. By whose definition of “Justice”? the word is a distorted and abused as any in the English language.

      1. All laws should be based in harm to another person.That should empty a large part of the legal code.As for regs,putting a man in prison for bagging seafood in the wrong package screams unjust.There are too many examples to go into

        1. “Sir, that bag says ‘shellfish free’. Isn’t that going to cause trouble for someone with allergies when you put crag legs in there?”

          “It’s a clear bag and they’re still in the damn shell.”

          1. Sir,why are you driving down the road with 2000 dollars in your pocket.You must have sold drugs,I’ll be taking that.

          2. put down the banana,your under arrest

          3. all though it was just the wrong sized bag

      2. It’s a spelling error. Some starting saying “justice”, when they meant “just us”.

  12. Short SHEET Obama?

    Code word dog whistle racist!

    1. “HO” “HO” “HO”!

  13. Hey, let’s face it, a Republican controlled Congress that implemented next to no “Policy Solutions” and simply concerned itself with erasing Obama’s “Legacy” would be the best Congress we’ve had in decades.

    Hell, they could set a trend. The next Congress could concern itself with undoing the stupidities of the Clinton administration, the one after that with eradicating the idiocies of Jimmy Carter, and so on back to Woodrow Wilson. With a little luck, repealing legislation and regulation that shouldn’t have been passed in the first place could keep the Legislative Branch harmlessly occupied through the end of the 21st Century.

    “Policy Solutions” from Washington are largely overrated, when they aren’t outright disasters, and Congress does far too little repealing.

    1. “We have just repealed the bill repealing the Militia Act – Go buy muskets!”

    2. Welcome fellow traveler.

    3. No stupidities of W Bush to reverse in that march? HW? I think I see a pattern about those upset about this cartoon (other than upset about how generally terrible these always are).

      1. His are on the top of my list,homeland security,war on ‘TERROR’,TSA ,patriot act,ect

        1. In my experience the current administration in power is always the worst offender in terms of liberty since….the immediately preceding one.

      2. Well, let’s be realistic. The Republicans are hardly going to repeal Republican initiatives before Democrat ones, and the cases of disasterous Democrat overreach could keepmthem busy for quite some time.

        I would be almost as happy with a Democrat congress that spent all its time repealing Nixon era idiocies (we need the BATF why, exactly? I mean other than for comic relief?). Maybe as happy. I just consider it slightly less likely. Not that EITHER scenario is likely; politicians just looooove them some legislative overreach.

  14. The next Congress could concern itself with undoing the stupidities of the Bush II administration and the Clinton administration, the one after that with eradicating the idiocies of Bush I, Jimmy Carter, Nixon, and so on back to Woodrow Wilson.

    CSPS you seem to have forgotten some idiocies. FIFY

    1. No, I was simply assuming that IF (and it’s a big IF) a Republican Congress could be channelled into repealing laws instead of passing them, they would concentrate of Democrat foolishness and leave their own party’s idiocies be. That’s politics for you. And don’t tell me you think Democrat controlled Congress would repeal laws, even paws passed by their hated Republican rivals. I expect Obama to call a press conference where he admits that Obamacare was basically a lousy idea before that happens.

  15. First policy solution: do no harm.

    1. Brand it on their buttocks so that every time they go to jam their heads up their rectums they get reminded.

  16. Over turning Wickard v Filburn too

    1. How do you legislatively overturn a court case?

      1. It was part of the New Deal,it can be done.Congress can make the commerce clause mean what it was intended .Plus,property rights need to be enforced

      2. You can enact legislation that makes a court case irrelevant by basically clarifying the law.

  17. I don’t know which is worse, the tattoo or the mohawk.

  18. Refreshing honesty from Payne.

    “Leave Obama ALOOOOONE!”

    Poor thing.

    1. OMG! DON’T leave him ALONE! He plays with matches! And Middle Eastern Governments (but I repeat myself).

      1. I have no problem with Obama playing with matches per se. If only he did it someplace that was much less flammable.

        1. If only his supporters would remember where the fire came from when he gets burned…

  19. By whose definition of “Justice”? the word is a distorted and abused as any in the English language.

    I feel exactly that way about rights.

    I try never to even use the word. People seem to use “right” when they mean “power”.

  20. Leilafair . you think Allen `s comment is astonishing, on friday I bought a gorgeous Aston Martin DB5 when I got my cheque for $8527 this past month and just over ten grand this past-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the most-financialy rewarding I have ever had . I began this 8-months ago and practically straight away began to earn at least $72, per hour .
    Published here ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com ??????????

  21. 1. Looks like the Republicans are just reflecting the will of the voters.

    2. What the fuck are “policy solutions” and how is it libertarian to want them rather than government gridlock? This is more of that “DO SOMETHING” attitude, isn’t it? Take that to HuffPo.

    1. Well, to be fair, “Leave it alone, it isn’t any of the government’s goddamned business” is a policy, and would be terrific solution to a great deal.

      Not terribly POPULAR??.

      And also not, I suspect, what the cartoonist had in mind.

    2. Yeah, I wouldn’t see it as a bad thing if, hypothetically, the parties just stayed perpetually too angry at each other to get anything done.

      1. Couldn’t agree more.

  22. So “policy solutions” are located on the Republican brain stem? So coming up with solutions to policy problems is an automatic process for Republicans?

  23. Henry, I think you are the one not using your brain. Open your eyes and read rather than propagating thoughtless stereotypes. Use some Reason!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.