My Latest Graphic

I’m just proud of this and wanted to share. It’s my latest photoshop effort, with a big hat tip to Jeff for the Saigon evacuation photo.


Here’s the editorial to go along with it.


  1. Rusty says:

    You have been an ardent supporter of Republican congresses for the past 12 years that have raised budgets and deficits to historic highs. Sorry dude, but you don’t get to call anybody a socialist.

  2. bird says:

    This is offensive.

    So much for a reasoned discourse for the sake of improving our Republic. Your site just lost its place in my bookmarks.

  3. griftdrift says:

    This is my favorite.

    “we will fight against Democrats intent on doing to Iraq what they did to Vietnam”

    If only the Democrats had had the stones three years ago to fight our rushing naively into another war in a tribal land where we chose to ignore intelligence, history and common sense and instead believe that might makes right no matter what the tactical and strategic realities.

    Of course it’s a helluva a lot easier to break every dish in the house and then blame the dog. Kind of reminds me of most three year olds.

  4. StevePerkins says:

    What’s been going on with you this week, Erick? I know you’re conservative, but you’ve also come across as pretty reasonable. Some of your stuff has seemed a bit uncharacteristic lately.

  5. Erick says:

    Sorry Steve. I try to keep the partisanship at a minimum here. I was just proud of my graphic — I think I’m getting Photoshop learned.

    I’ll do better. I promise.

  6. jsm says:

    “Sorry dude, but you don’t get to call anybody a socialist.”

    What? Leaders in the Democratic Party are clearly socialist. Ever heard of Hillary Care?

    From Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:

    Main Entry: so·cial·ism
    Pronunciation: ‘sO-sh&-“li-z&m
    Function: noun
    1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
    3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    I’m not excluding some Republicans from the title either, but raising budgets and deficits doesn’t make someone socialist.

    Pelosi says this Congress “is going to be about children.” I can’t wait to see what kind of socialist crap comes out of those guys in the name of protecting children.

  7. Rusty says:

    Ever hear of No Child Left Behind? The Medicare prescription benefit boondoggle? The Patriot Act? I call bullshit on anyone who says the Republican leadership is any less socialist than the Democratic leadership, if that’s the word you want to throw around.

    Besides, whether the Democratic leadership is or isn’t socialist is irrelevant to the statement I made. Point being that someone who supports a group of people who have grown the mommy state in both spirit and substance at an unprecedented rate comes off as quite the hypocrite to make hyperbolic graphics accusing a group of people of the exact same thing he has supported for 12 years.

  8. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Here’s the reason why the “Socialist” term is apt: the tenuous Democrat(ic) majority in the Senate — one vote — is only present because Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT), a member of the Socialist party, caucuses with the Ds and votes D on leadership.

    In that case, it’s not hyperbole — in the Senate, it is a very real Democrat-Socialist majority.

  9. Rusty says:

    I don’t really care if the term applies to Democrats or not in this case. My statement was that the Republicans have behaved like socialists. Would you say they haven’t?

  10. rugby_fan says:

    What egregiously terrible reasoning Jeff.

    First, Sanders is officially an Independent.

    Second, Senator-Elect Sanders was NOT the tie breaking vote, I am not sure where that comes from.

    I am guessing because you want to generalize about the entire Democratic Senate Caucus with one Senator.

    Using your logic it would be just as apt to say that Senator Baucus is the deciding vote. Ergo, this is a conservative Democrat Senate.

    Or perhaps it is because he is newly elected? Well then, shall we look at Senator-Elect Webb as being the deciding vote in the Senate? Still conservative.

  11. jsm says:


    No Child Left Behind was developed in cooperation with Ted Kennedy. Democrats have yet to criticize the Medicare Prescription plan, and they pushed to make it more widespread than Bush’s original plan. That’s what bipartisanship with socialist Democrats did for the GOP. Are you criticizing said bipartisanship?

    I have no idea how you equate the Patriot Act with socialism. It’s purpose is to protect citizens from terrorism, although some people think the government is going to intercept my cell phone calls to my girlfriend. Scary, right? Please.

    If you think the Dems are going to do the same thing the GOP has done for the last 12 years, you’ve got a big surprise coming. They’ll try to outspend the last Congress 2-to-1, giving lots more benefits to those who don’t pay taxes. Instead of bad, we now have worse.

  12. ColinATL says:

    Seriously, I get a good giggle from all the doomsday predictions from wingnuts. Could Pelosi and the Dems really do any WORSE than the Repubs? Silliness.

  13. rugby_fan says:

    So imagine if Lincoln Chafee had been re elected, remained GOP, but caucused with the Dems, would that make the Dems moderate?

  14. rugby_fan says:

    And ONE SENATOR does not make up the entire caucus Jeff.

    You are smart enough to know that that is at best, horrible and flawed logic.

  15. rugby_fan says:

    Before I let it go, there are technically two Independent Senators this session.

    Seeing has how Joe Lieberman is one of the two, I am going to say that this Democratic Caucus is perhaps the most hawkish and conservative since the days of Scoop Jackson.

  16. Chris says:

    Technically, the imagry used (red and yellow, 5 pointed star, etc) are communist not socialist. The use of the evacuation photo is a bit too busy. The line of people climbing the stairs conflicts with the sicle.

    Perhaps some street rioters.

  17. Rusty says:

    Keep those blinders on, buddy. The Patriot Act is socialist because it is designed around a collectivist notion that security comes before individual freedom.

    And you can keep your whiny “wah wah the bad Democrats did this or that” bullshit up if you’d like, but that’s what it is — bullshit. Your boys have increased spending and the size of government to historic highs during the past six years while controlling all branches of government. So, again, I call bullshit. There’s no one to blame but Republicans for the increase in mommy government the past six years.

    And you must be a prophet if you can tell me what the Democrat Congress’ budget will look like after they’ve been in power all of, what, one day? When they actually pass a budget you can talk, until then you can keep your bullshit to yourself.

  18. rugby_fan says:

    Rusty, I am going to call–excrement–on your comment. There were Republican girls involved with those decisions too.

  19. RuralDem says:

    I’m not sure what’s funnier, the graphic, or those who are trying to explain how it really fits the Democratic Party.

    Amazing how 10 years ago you had to beg someone to admit they were a Republican in Georgia. Now all of a sudden everyone wants to be one and they’ll easily bash the other side.

  20. Bill Simon says:

    jsm quotes this from the definition of Socialism: “2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.”

    In the United States now, thanks to the “signing statements” by Comrade Dubya-Do, we now have pseudo “private property” in this country.

    Thanks to the Patriot Act, your privacy can be invaded now without an order from a judge.

    Thanks to the signing statement regarding wiretapping by Comrade Dubya-Do, you can now have all of your communication transmissions tapped: either listened to, taped, or your email read by your Guvment WITHOUT a judge issuing a warrant. That’s equivalent to Orwell’s 1984 world.

    And, lastly, a recent signing statement by Comrade Dubya-Do just a few weeks ago allows the Guvment to intercept your SNAIL MAIL and read it…all without a warrant or a judge’s review of the invasion.

    Erick and JSM, seriously, remove your heads from your respective asses and buy a clue as to who is and who is not a Socialist. Dubya and his entire presidency is one big dip into socialism, couched in terms of “we’re doing this to protect you…”

  21. Donkey Kong says:

    I don’t have a problem with this. Perhaps slightly inflammatory, but the BS that comes out of the mouth of the “faces” of the Democratic Party–Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Pelosi, et al–is socialist. The bonehead crap that the GOP supported over their tenure controlling Congress does not negate that the Democrats support Socialist principles. I wouldn’t call them explicitly Socialist, but they do have STRONG Socialist influences in their political philosophy.

    Conservatives lament the absence of strong, principled leaders such as Reagan, but let’s not forget we get what we vote for. Consider our government a free-market business–we get what we demand the most. If we demand conservative stalwarts, that’s what we’ll get.

  22. Will Hinton says:

    I am in complete agreement with Rusty on this one. It is beyond farcical to suggest that the Democrats are socialists but Republicans are any less so. As a group, the Republicans over the past six years have done very little from a domestic policy perspective that couldn’t be defined as “socialist”. Erick: how can you make this claim with any seriousness?

  23. jsm says:

    Alright, Rusty.

    Regarding BS…

    “And you must be a prophet if you can tell me what the Democrat Congress’ budget will look like after they’ve been in power all of, what, one day?”

    You gonna tell me that the Democrats aren’t going to govern like they have in the past? I’m no prophet, but I can learn from history. Almost 60% of federal spending is entitlements enacted mostly by Democrats. Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, et al. haven’t had a change of heart. They want to enact more entitlements and raise your and my tax bills to fund them.

    And how about this from Donald Lambro,
    “As for spending, an examination of the Democrats’ campaign agenda, titled ‘A New Direction For America,’ proposes to increase a broad range of social welfare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. One analysis by the National Taxpayers Union puts an annual price tag of some $80 billion on the Democrats spending wish list, but that is likely to be only a small part of their spending plans.

    “A Senate cost analysis of Democratic spending amendments for fiscal 2006 and 2007 totals $95.2 billion and $74 billion respectively. One of the plans in their agenda is an income redistribution scheme aimed at lower to median income Americans that would match the first $1,000 contributed to an IRA account at a cost of nearly $40 billion over five years.”

    Call me whiny, and say I’m slinging BS all you want. Show me the facts.

    I can agree to disagree on the Patriot Act for now. I think the jury is still out on the result as well as the future viability of that legislation.

    And Bill,

    I said early in this thread that I’m not excluding some Republicans from the Socialist title. However, I think it’s pretty clear which party leans further in that direction.

    I’m glad somebody’s out there intercepting communications among suspected terrorists without having to wait for a warrant. I understand your beef, but we’ve got to use some common sense.

  24. Rusty says:

    Citing for an analysis of a Democratic agenda is as credible as citing The Israel Zionist for a characterization of Palestinian diplomatic efforts. I’d like to use a word other than bullshit, but that’s what it is.

    When a budget is passed, you can talk about numbers. Until then, cut the bullshit.

  25. jsm says:

    It’s easy refuting something without facts just because you don’t like the source, isn’t it? That’s what is BS.

    We’ll see what that budget looks like.

  26. Rusty says:

    What facts am I supposed to present to prove that something won’t happen? That’s called trying to prove a negative, and it’s impossible. It’s a bullshit tactic that gives partisan hacks such as yourself a method to conjure up all manner of bullshit. I could say, for example, that the mailman is having sex with your mother. Can you prove it didn’t happen? No, you can’t.

  27. jsm says:


    You’re just trying to piss me off. Be glad you’re not in striking distance after the little remark about the mailman. It only proves you’re full of BS.

  28. Rusty says:

    Everybody grows a set of brass balls when they post on the Internet. I’ll believe you to be anything other than a toothless windbag when I see it. And you still can’t prove your mother didn’t have sex with the mailman.

  29. gatormathis says:

    Momma’s baby…….papa’s maybe……..

    but the mailman’s???????

    gator****is mortified.

  30. jsm says:


    The issue here is that you feel the need to use an inflammatory remark to try to make a point, because your argument lacks merit and because you lack intellect. I stay above that kind of senseless drivel.

    However, you should hope you never meet this toothless windbag.

  31. Rusty says:

    The issue here is that you are a reliable panderer of polemic, hyperbolic remarks and cheap rhetorical devices. And that you cry like a little pussy when said devices are turned against you.

  32. Jace Walden says:

    However, you should hope you never meet this toothless windbag.

    I doubt he will. Even if he meets you, how will he know who you are? You try to act like a bad ass, but I think you’re forgetting one thing: You are too afraid to make threats under your real name. Why should anyone ever take your threats seriously?

    Not trying to start an argument here…just pointing out the obvious…

  33. jsm says:

    I’m amazed this site would have any posters who would support someone using a crude reference to someone’s family in an effort to prove a point. I think any of you, if given the opportunity, would knock the crap out of someone who made such a remark about your loved one.

    My point was not about a physical threat but rather about the inappropriateness of the remark to cover up a lack of a substantive argument. There is no need to make shameful personal jabs, no matter how subtle, to make up for a lack of the ability to respond.

    I stand behind my remarks, not to “act like a bad ass,” but to stand for a woman due more respect than the brainless author of some idiotic comment could ever hope for.

    Speaking of “obvious”…

  34. rugby_fan says:

    jsm, you miss the point of Rusty’s comment.

    It is actually you who are free from substance. There has not been a single Democratic budget passed and you claim to be an expert on it.

    Then you use a logical fallacy and when Rusty pointed it out to you in what was (I will admit) a crass example, you get testy and claim that Rusty has nothing to say.

    I could go on, but really, I don’t care because you are so blinded by your partisanship and unwillingness to see anything that is objectively true that proves you are wrong, it would be a waste of my time.

  35. jsm says:


    I appreciate you bringing the thread back to the discussion on budget & spending. I don’t mind arguing whose view has substance. I can accept that we disagree on that.

    Do you not think that history provides a valid basis for arguing the spending habits of leading Democrats? I don’t dispute that this group’s budget could be anything, since it has yet to be passed. I just don’t see Democrats changing direction from the past. If I’m wrong when the budget comes out, then so be it. I will admit it and be happy about it.

  36. rugby_fan says:

    Yes, I would say you are wrong because in the past 15 years, the Democrats have had an idealogical shift to financial moderation, so yes, I do disagree with the past in this respect.

    Will it be as conservative as Republicans have been in the past (the last few years excluded) no.

    But it will NOT approach the levels of recent GOP spending–just my prediction.

Comments are closed.