Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Inauguration

I thought this was a pretty funny comic on the day of the Inauguration of our 44th President.

posted by Brandon Johnson @ 10:49 AM   8 Comments

8 Comments:

At January 21, 2009 10:29 AM , Blogger Carissa J said...

Lol! That's funny, bro. I love how Obama was drawn. He looks hilarious!

 
At January 21, 2009 11:28 AM , Blogger Ang said...

So funny, but so sadly true. What a horrible time to be in office. Poor Bush....people blame him for all the problems. I hope Obama can turn things around for our sakes too!

 
At January 23, 2009 6:31 PM , OpenID anonymous2u22 said...

It was so much better when Bush signed for the corporate bail out when he said that he wouldn’t. Bush gets blamed for everything that he was responsible for or should have been responsible for. I’m so glad that we’ve forgotten about all those trillions of dollars of debt we are in because of the Iraq war. Money should be spent killing people, not reinforcing American jobs. I remember when Bush said that if you question your president and government you are against your country and are not a patriot. My have times changed. Now bashing our president before he has a chance to do anything is cool. It’s great to be bitter. All of Bush’s faults should be forgotten and all of Obama’s should be scrutinized and criticized. How good of a president can he be when we’ve just had eight sweet years with Bush? Obama doesn’t know how to run the country because he’s already got us into an erroneous war, trillions of dollars in debt, a recession and put a lack of credibility in the Whitehouse, oh wait.

 
At February 6, 2009 11:12 PM , Blogger Brandon Johnson said...

Wow, you make no sense at all anonymous2u22... I'm not sure if you are bashing Bush or supporting him. Which is it? Let's just say you are bashing Bush... Bush was not a fiscal conservative and neither was either house of congress over the last several years. Fiscal conservatives do not support Bush's "stimulus" bill nor Barrack's "stimulus" pork bill. Stop drinking Obamamania kool aid. This administration has been a disaster so far, with one bad cabinet appointee after another, and it's been less than a month... Looks like the media kool aid drinkers got it completely wrong this election.

If you want to judge good fiscal policies, look at the Reagan administration. Reagan doubled tax revenue and cut unemployment in half by decreasing taxes and deeply cutting government spending. This was after a deep recession created by a disastrous Jimmy Carter administration, where unemployment was at an all time high.

And don't think that the prosperity during the Bill Clinton years was because of massive government spending and liberal fiscal policies... The Republican majority Congress at the time, led by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, created the Contract with America document that required balancing the budget, along with cutting government spending and decreasing tax rates in the latter part of the Clinton years, were all part of creating the budget surplus and the economic prosperity during those years.

 
At February 9, 2009 3:11 PM , OpenID anonymous2u22 said...

Brandon, I’m sorry to have confused you. Satire can be tricky. Have you heard of the word “Projecting”? That’s when you project your thoughts and feelings on others. I mention this because in my last comment I never mentioned anything positive about Obama. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they support your adversary, Obama. So let’s face some uncomfortable facts. The reason why you dislike/hate/throw-up to Obama is because like most LDS people, they have this arbitrary belief that Republicans=LDS=CTR=God=Heaven=Candy (Heavenly Candy). Because you think that there must be an opposition in all things, then the Democrats must =The Ant-Christ=Baby Killers=Satin=Insurance Salesmen. You tear down anything that is Democratic, not because you’re a concerned citizen with an opinion about a brighter future, but because making Democrats wrong makes Republicans right makes the LDS religion right makes your beliefs right. You’re not constructively criticizing; you’re trying to validate your lifestyle and beliefs. A tell tale sign is that you are actively/obsessively look for negative facts/fiction about Obama. It’s obvious because you used the phrase “drinking the kool aid”. Either you have an obsession with the sugary drink or you’re just parroting what you’ve read. The biggest tell tale sign is in your third paragraph, how you make everything Republican sound like they’re the master race who covertly saves America’s economy the dreaded Democrats who steal from the poor and murder the innocent. Remember, if you’re right than so are your beliefs. Don’t let anything challenge your opinions because what other people think is different and dumb. I think that you should continue to support the division of America. Democrats are just no good. Maybe we should start a war. Do you think that we should start a war between the two, let the master race finish of the sinners? We have got to have better color uniforms than just Blue and Gray. (P.S. I’m neither a Democrat nor Republican because I don’t believe in blindly backing one donkey or elephant or having to fit my ideals into either category.) P.S.S. Look up satire, it’s funny.

 
At February 10, 2009 12:37 AM , Blogger Brandon Johnson said...

Do you expect anyone to believe that you are the objective one here when you come up with that heated, defensive response to my comment? Start a war between Democrats and Republicans?? Let me guess, you’re “projecting” again… Even if it is true you are “neither a Democrat nor Republican” and that you are objective, you lost all credibility with any audience that this blog may have when you started using the ad hominem attacks and bigoted generalizations toward the author of this post and the entire LDS population, not to mention all the words you put into others’ mouths and the invalid logic used throughout your argument.

You act as though you know something about the LDS Church, and I’m sure you’ve done some research or maybe you are an actual member or you were once a member. But you are grossly misguided on at least one thing - the LDS Church does not and will never support or reject any political party, but rather supports/rejects certain principles (if you know what those are). There are many LDS democrats (ever heard of Senator Harry Reid? If not, he is the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate and is LDS), and even many LDS non-democrats that voted for and support Barrack Obama (over 50% of Salt Lake City’s population voted for Obama, including many of my LDS neighbors and my bishop). It is unfair and juvenile to group any demographic together as a whole as if they all believe exactly the same.

Obviously, you are somewhat uneducated and inexperienced, as witnessed by all of the following: 1) the ad hominem attacks and generalizations; 2) you did not understand the original posting, which was only attacking the liberal spending policy of Barrack Obama and not his personal character or any other policies that he might have, nor was it attacking Democrats in general; 3) you act as though you are the voice of reason, but after two comments on my blog you still have not used any valid logic, reason, or facts, nor any reason why Barrack Obama’s liberal fiscal policy from the original posting will help give us a “brighter future” as you talk about; 4) you think I am glorifying Republicans in my previous comment, when I am only using two historical, factual examples of why conservative SPENDING policies have helped yours and my standard of living (I can’t write about the other side on this topic because I don’t know of any periods when liberal spending policies have helped America’s standard of living in the long run, nor the standard of living of ANY other nation. But if you know of any then prove me wrong); 5) you put all of the following words in my mouth that I NEVER said nor alluded to, “my adversary, Obama”, “I dislike/hate/throw-up to Obama”, “Republicans=LDS=CTR=God=Heaven=Candy (Heavenly Candy)”, “I believe there must be an opposition in all things”, “Democrats must =The Ant-Christ=Baby Killers=Satin(sp)=Insurance Salesmen “, “I tear down anything that is Democratic”, “I’m trying to validate my lifestyle and beliefs”, “I’m actively/obsessively look(sp) for negative facts/fiction about Obama”, “I make everything Republican sound like they’re the master race who covertly saves America’s economy ?? the dreaded Democrats who steal from the poor and murder the innocent”, “what other people think is different and dumb”, “I continue to support the division of America”, “Democrats are just no good”, and “we should start a war” (pretty much your entire first and second comments); 6) your first comment sounded like an upset four-year-old and made no sense whatsoever, and you insist that you were “projecting thoughts and feelings on others” (which is something an upset four-year-old would do) and then you get offended (as witnessed by how pissed off you were in your second comment ) that nobody can understand what you’re talking about; 7) you accept your opinions as fact, and none of your logic is valid, i.e., you are actively/obsessively looking for negative facts/fiction about Obama , therefore you are trying to validate your beliefs as a member of the LDS Church... This is a logical fallacy termed intentional false dilemma, and all other logic you used in both comments contain fallacies as well (do some research into valid logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic) and fallacies in logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlative-based_fallacies – it will do you a world of good in your future arguments). And although it is not a “sin” to be uneducated and inexperienced, it sure doesn’t do you any good, nor does it do any good to those you associate with or speak to. Therefore, please don’t push your uneducated comments and views on the audience of this blog.

P.S. I am neither Democrat nor Republican, but I do hold mostly Conservative views and principles, which I feel in my own personal opinion are the best guiding principles for me and my family. My religious views are separate from my political views, except that both hold the family to be of greatest importance, which to me is of greatest importance. If a politician, whether Democrat or Republican, holds views and principles that suggest the family is most important, I will vote for that person (and yes, I did vote democrat on at least one candidate this past election, definitely not Obama though). I follow my religious views and my political views because they have brought happiness and prosperity to me and my family, not because I follow blindly what others have taught or what I have heard from others as you suggest. I am sure you have found your own happiness by following your own personal views and opinions, even though you don’t fit your ideals into any category whatsoever, and I respect that. But you don’t have to push your beliefs onto me. I consider myself to be at least somewhat informed in world views and politics. And although I don’t know all there is to know, I know enough about all sides where I can make an educated decision for myself and my family. The reason why I oppose certain policies, which in this case happens to be liberal fiscal policy, is that I believe it is not the right course for America’s economy and the future prosperity of my kids.

P.S.S. You sure have a lot of talking points that have absolutely nothing to do with the original subject of fiscal policy. Maybe you should look into political science, as you’d make a great evasive politician someday.

 
At February 10, 2009 9:09 PM , OpenID anonymous2u22 said...

Brandon is a blogger. Bloggers can write ignorant statements. Therefore, Brandon is a blogger who can write ignorant statements. The validity of the argument is TRUE. Brandon is a male. Brandon is a female. The correlative conjunction is true because Brandon is not a female. These are valid arguments, but as anyone who is family with logic knows that they don’t translate into verbal or written arguments. Brandon, by stating that my argument is invalid does not prove it’s invalid. Casually name-dropping logic, which is based more on mathematics, reeks of intellectual insecurity. By brining up complex terms, one would assume you know what you’re talking/writing about, but you never actually put them to practice. For example from my last post (I’ll put it in your terms): LDS people believe that God is on their side. Most LDS people are Republican. Therefore, God is on the side of Republicans. God is on the side of Republicans. Republicans are not Democrats. Therefore, God is not on the side of Democrats. There you go, Valid and True argument. Note that this type of logic isn’t helping my argument “it will do you a world of good in future arguments”, as previously suggested. Does calling someone else “uneducated and inexperienced” (to what is not mentioned) really prove a point? It’s not even a “valid argument” which makes you a hypocrite. You’re probably not a hypocrite, but you probably looked up valid logic and decided by dropping in conversations you will appear smart, that’s the reason why you haven’t affectively incorporated it in your argument. But let me tell you about what is being uneducated. Being uneducated is reading my first post and not being able to understand the sarcastic tone and satire of it. “I'm not sure if you are bashing Bush or supporting him. Which is it?”. Being uneducated is reading yet another bit of satire that one part of America should fight the other with blue and gray uniforms and not pick up that this is a civil war reference means that partisan politics divides America like the war between the Union and the Confederacy. "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." (William Shakespeare). Shakespeare is a genius. Brandon is not Shakespeare. Therefore, Brandon is not a genius. You have some serious reading comprehension problems. Let me elaborate. “You believe that you are the objective one”, I never said that I was the objective one, that’s apart of your projecting. “Let me guess, you’re “projecting” again”. In my last statement I wrote you were projecting, a proper response would be “it looks like you’re the one projecting” because we haven’t established that I was projecting, I can’t do something again that I haven’t done yet. “The LDS Church does not and never will never support reject any political party.” I never said they did, but I do know LDS people who think that you can’t be a good Mormon and vote Democratic (hint, he’s your father-in-law). “There are many LDS Democrats”, read back to my first post because I wrote “Most” and not “All” LDS people are Republicans. There are also a lot of gay Mormons. “It is unfair and juvenile to group any demographic together as a whole as if they all believe exactly the same”. I didn’t, I said most, which is not all; for example, me. Was I unfair to the LDS people coupling them with you? Yes. I think that the other LDS people wouldn’t have gone the “I’m so smart and you’re uneducated” rout to prove a point. Let me give you a hint, it doesn’t prove anything other than you can write uneducated with a keyboard.
Proof that your biased towards Republicans. You wrote the cartoon was “attacking the liberal spending and policy of Barrack Obama”. To conservatives the world “liberal” is just as negative as an F-word and unnecessary because it isn’t liberal spending, it’s Obama’s spending idea. Conservatives dislike liberals. Brandon is conservative. Therefore, Brandon dislikes liberals. You mention that over 50% of SLC voted for Obama but omitted the fact that the state of Utah vote for McCain was in the high 80 percentile. You know the highlights for the Republican party and nothing but the negative about the Democratic party. My first post wasn’t to support Obama and his spending, but to condemn people like you that criticize Obama, not for what he does, but because a Republican lost to him. You’re feeding off your hate, which is probably the reason why you mention several times that I’m “uneducated and inexperienced”. I guess I’m uneducated at being biased and inexperienced at acting like a twat when forced to engage in an intellectual conversation without resorting to calling the other names. If someone says that you’re views on politics and insecurity is ant progressive and will do nothing but divide America, why don’t you just call them dumb? Game set and match.

 
At February 12, 2009 8:46 PM , Blogger Brandon Johnson said...

I'm getting a little tired of playing games with a person who needs to hide his/her true identity and his/her true political beliefs, Mr./Ms. Anonymous. It’s pretty obvious by now you dislike Conservatism and any beliefs that are not progressive - which is basically the opposite of Conservative - as you only have negative things to say about Conservative thought. It has already been established that you are not an intellectual; therefore this never was an intellectual conversation, and this is probably the last time I will be publishing any of your ranting, bad spelling and grammar, or bad logic on my blog. I will only publish comments that are constructive and lead to positive discussion from now on.

Now, let me explain a few things… First, the reason it was necessary to establish your unintelligence and inexperience in my last comment is that you have attempted over and over again to position yourself as a more intelligent, open-minded, objective individual than me and the audience of my blog. You challenge my intelligence by stating that I follow blindly my ideals and that I only “know the highlights for the Republican Party and nothing but the negative about the Democratic Party”. It was a necessary part of my argument to demonstrate otherwise. Sometimes the truth hurts. Sometimes you appear a certain way to yourself in writing but totally different to everyone else. So, here is what I see: 1) you assume too much about other people, 2) either you are a terrible writer/debater or you are not very intelligent, and 3) you are definitely not open-minded (as suggested in your comment that you are “neither Republican nor Democrat” and you don't follow blindly any particular ideals).

Second, I don’t care what you think most LDS people think or believe. You are still using blatant generalization whether you use the word most or the word all, because you don’t know enough LDS people to say what most of them believe. There are enough LDS people in the world to fill a country larger than 68.3% of all countries in the world (13 Million members, which is larger than the 70th largest country, Senegal, out of 221 countries in the world – do the math), and there are members in most of the 221 countries (nobody has that many friends in that many countries). And since you base your entire argument on this logical fallacy that you know what most LDS people believe – a fallacy called dicto secundum or quid ad dictum simpliciter, or destroying the exception - you don’t have a valid argument. You also added a logical fallacy the second, third and fourth times, which is termed argumentum ad nauseam, or argument to the point of disgust by repetition. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, you still didn’t prove anything. Therefore your argument has been nullified by the invalidity of your logic and you proved no point whatsoever. I will explain more about logic shortly.

Third, I don’t think you understand the immeasurable spectrum of beliefs and principles within politics. Since there are two major parties in the United States, you have this idea that everything is a dichotomy in politics (all Republicans believe a certain way and all Democrats believe the exact opposite), and you group all LDS and all Republicans into a one-dimensional political belief structure. I told you I was neither Republican nor Democrat, but that I hold mostly Conservative principles and beliefs. I also said that I voted for at least one Democrat this past election and that the original posting was attacking only a single policy that I disagree with. Yet you still group me in that one-dimensional belief structure and continue to state that I dislike liberals and that I am biased toward Republicans and that I believe that God likes Republicans and not Democrats and that I want to start wars. Let’s come down to your level of intelligence for a moment and give you some education… Here’s something you can try and grasp - many Democrats hold some Conservative beliefs and principles and many Republicans hold some Liberal beliefs and principles (oops I said the “F-word” - Liberal). Here is something else to try and grasp - there are also a large number of other political schools of thought, including Liberal-conservatism, Conservative-liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism, Libertarianism, Progressivism, Majoritarianism, Panarchism, and Anarchism. Many people have some beliefs in several of these political schools of thought. Many politicians have beliefs in some or all of these political schools of thought, as evidenced by Senator John McCain (who definitely would not have been my first choice for President this election, but was a better choice than Obama because of his stance on cultural, social, and fiscal policy issues). Let’s see if you can grasp this – when somebody uses the term “Liberal” (oops the “F-word” again), he is not necessarily referring to a group of people nor a person, nor is “Liberal” the same thing as Democrat, as you seem to believe when you say that Obama’s spending idea isn’t Liberal spending but rather Obama’s spending idea - it doesn’t matter if it was Bush’s policy or Obama’s policy, it is still a liberal spending policy. Liberalism is an ideology that contains many sub-categories, including and not limited to the following: fiscal liberalism (increasing taxes and spending huge amounts of tax dollars on a liberal agenda including increased entitlements and government programs, i.e. George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Barrack Obama); economic liberalism (encourages free markets without government regulation); social liberalism (very similar to socialism and supports giving the same rights to everybody and the same standard of living to every person no matter what has been earned); cultural liberalism (which focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, and protection from government intrusion). At the same time, “Conservative” is not necessarily a group of people or a person, nor is it the same thing as Republican, as you seem to believe, but is an ideology with many sub-categories, including and not limited to the following: fiscal conservatism (prudence in government spending and decreasing taxes, i.e. John McCain, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, along with Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council); cultural conservatism (preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture and of norms handed down from the past); supply-side economics (the belief that economic production will increase by reducing regulation and capital gains tax); social conservatism (includes the belief that government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent); and religious conservatism (seeks to apply particular religious ideologies in politics). Both ideologies have positives and negatives.

Okay, let’s put your first lesson into practice… I could be a fiscal conservative, a cultural conservative, and a social liberal while having a more centrist view on the economy based on where I stand on those issues. I would then decide to vote Republican on some issues and Democrat on other issues. I’m not going to waste your time by telling you where I really stand on all issues, but as I’ve said before I stand more on the Conservative side of most (but not all) issues. So just because I didn’t vote for Obama, doesn’t mean that I disagree with him on all issues and doesn’t mean that I agree with John McCain on all issues. I look at where a candidate stands on ALL issues when I vote, and sometimes I need to make compromises on some issues in order to vote for the person whose beliefs and policies will most match what I believe is right. Republicans have a history of following a more Conservative ideology, so the candidates nominated by the Republican Party usually fit the bill for me better than candidates nominated by other parties (you don’t have to prove anything there, I said it). But I would vote for a Democrat if the candidate is a better choice. Many LDS members and Utahns that I know also hold mostly Conservative values and beliefs, and that’s why 63% (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/state/#UT ) of Utahns - which is much less than the 80% you lied about - voted for McCain over Obama. So when I say I am attacking liberal fiscal policy, I am not attacking a political party, but a single ideal or policy that I disagree with. That was the intent of the original posting. It could also just as easily be Bush’s face on that cartoon and I could attack the liberal fiscal policy of the Bush administration. Massive government spending, in my opinion, is wrong. It might be a little tough for you to understand your first lesson in political science, but you can find a lot of information online or you could read an actual textbook.

Fourth, you may not have noticed but this is an argument. Logic is the most relevant topic related to argument. Logic can be a tricky thing, so I’ll go ahead with your next lesson… Formal and Informal Logic, along with Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (which are the types of logic used in this argument) are not at all based on mathematics as you suggest, but are based entirely on philosophy (which is basically everything outside of mathematics and science). Do you think lawyers use logic because it is mathematical??? Logic is based on the Greek word logos, which means "possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative” and also “word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle". It can be explained as the principles of valid demonstration and inference, and it can make or break your argument. It can make you sound smart if used correctly, and it can make you sound unintelligent if used incorrectly (thus it was established you are not an intellectual). The logic used in an argument has nothing to do with whether or not your argument is true or false. It has to do with the manner in which you present an argument to prove a point. Logic is either valid or invalid – there is no proof needed and no gray matter. It is a fact that you use invalid logic, period. That doesn’t mean that your argument is false. It just means that the manner in which you are attempting to prove a point is invalid and therefore your argument does not prove your point. But I’m glad you are trying to use your new found knowledge about logic. You have a long ways to go, as you continue to use invalid logic in all of your arguments and you clearly don’t even understand what logic is. You will need to study a little more than just half a page from a wiki. I was just giving you a starting point. What you really need is to get some education and read some textbooks. Until then, you would actually appear a lot smarter if you keep your mouth shut, because every time you write something new on my blog you sound less and less intelligent. After five years of college and more textbooks than you can count, I have realized that education is what opens a person’s mind and not just saying you are open-minded.

Finally, since you know my father-in-law, or you know something about him, why don’t you take this argument to him, as you seem to know what he believes on this subject? I will give you a word of caution: you’re going to have to work a lot on your arguments, as you won’t make any sense to him either… My father-in-law is very knowledgeable about world views and political thought, and he knows better than to group an entire demographic together as though they all believe the same. I’m sure what he was saying is that he can’t see why a good LDS person could vote Democrat on ISSUES that oppose what the LDS Church teaches about the importance of family, such as supporting such policies as the end of traditional marriage and the Freedom of Choice Act, among other policies that are not very family friendly. I am positive that my father-in-law would vote for a Democrat if he felt like the candidate supported issues that were most similar to his values compared to the other candidates.

I’m sure you are a good person and that you believe you are following what is right. I think it’s great that you are trying to use your knowledge and beliefs to help others know what you think is important for America’s future. But you are way too assuming about other people. The next time you go around trying to pick a fight, you should probably not be so assuming about the beliefs and open-mindedness of the person you are starting an argument with.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home