I have no idea what is going on. Is she ROBIN! or Robin?
But I bet Willis is going to be able to drag this out to Friday before resolving the nature of her character in DOA again, and thus continue to dine on our suffering as is his pleasure.
I never did say WHO was more of a literal whore you know. 😀
CP
One is emotionally dishonest to get media coverage, the other has sex to get media coverage. I’d say that Roz is definitely more a literal media whore than Robin, given that Robin isn’t a literal media whore at all.
Scytheakse
sex for attention is slutty, (skanky if shes dirty but with her push for condoms im gonna doubt that) whores get atleast something concrete, jewelry, cars, cash… etc.
Kristy
You know, she COULD just be having sex for sex…
Scytheakse
exactly. if you have sex for sex with the number of people implied i would cassify her as a slut, joes definetly a man slut
Kristy
I’m just pointing out that sex may not be for money (etc) OR for attention. It doesn’t have to be for anything else at all. Contrary to popular rumor, women do have a sex drive.
Scytheakse
oh i know, and i much enjoy a womans sex drive, and im not a horrid prude nor am i against sex before marriage, but in this particular situation i feel justified in calling slut
“But I say this to our citizenry: we, ever your servants, will continue to defend your liberty and repel the forces that seek to take it from you! Your Ministry… remains… strong!”
But it’s true, family values and togetherness are essential for this day and age. If we don’t have that, we have nothing. That’s what I think anyway 😀
I could take it or leave it. Got a family, I do right by them, hardly see it as a building block for a nation though. If a politician starts telling me they’re pro family values I start wondering whether they’re genuinely unaware of what a politician does or if they just don’t have a platform at all.
Tell me what your plan is to create more jobs. Tell me how you’re gonna improve the economy. Tell me how you plan to enforce the rights of the downtrodden, and how much money you plan on putting into our infrastructure. Tell me whether or not our educational system is a major priority for you and how that will show itself in your actions during your administration.
If a politician’s talking about family values then they have nothing to say. Family values are micro. I’m trusting politicians to work on a macro level. At the very smallest they should be worried about communal values and ideally national values would not in fact be beyond them. By the time we’re up to president global values are a necessity and even then none of these words tell me what these values are or how they translate into policies.
It’s an entirely hollow statement that’s flawed from the very premise. It’s an empty can of soup sitting in a brewery auction. Not only will it not generate the necessary product, but were I to buy it there’s still not even any of the soup pictured on the label contained within it. It’s not true at all. It’s the farthest thing from true. Tell me what a vote for you would actually do.
A big part (perhaps the only truly significant part) of being a politician is being a celebrity. All the stuff you just listed off right there is stuff that politicians only wish they could have a predictable effect on. As long as a politician promises to do his best to avoid pointless wars, then basic morality is really the only thing left on the table that’s actually something a politician can’t afford to compromise on.
I’d vote for a president who promised to do absolutely nothing to change the status quo while in office, and let the economy float freely recession if it works out that way, as long as he was capable of being a good, moral example for people. It’s when politicians start claiming the laughable ability to do something about the economy and whatnot that I stop believing them.
G.S.Mercs
Yet, the reason the world is in an economic mess is because the gvoernment hasn’t be doing anything with the economy. I’m not supporting anything, I’m just pointing out that the greatest the economy has ever been was when politicians at least participated to a certain level in it.
CP
I see very little evidence of that. The recent US recession is largely a result of government interference in the housing market during the 90s, and consequences that rose naturally out of that interference. Not that I’m saying that it was in any way intentional, but that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
Clinton’s administration put a big focus on getting a house for everyone who wanted one. Seems like a great idea, right? Homeowners are statistically more stable members of society, and contribute more to GDP. And it worked for more than a decade! But then people start adapting to the economic climate the policy created and all of a sudden the bubble bursts.
Political interference in society is never predictable, and rarely positive in the long-term.
David
I feel like “political interference is mostly bad” is a belief that requires a lot of selective memory, or at least a lot of taking for granted some very important and basic things.
Wizard
Important and basic things, such as…?
Wizard
The problem was, they confused cause and effect. Practicing certain habits (often referred to as “middle class values”) greatly increases one’s chances of owning a home. Home “ownership” achieved through gimmicky loans does nothing to inspire good habits. (Ownership in quotes, because someone with zero or negative equity doesn’t “own” anything in any meaningful sense.) By this logic, you could make someone a better athlete just by giving them a trophy.
Plus, the government was pursuing two directly opposed goals. They wanted to incease home ownership, but they didn’t want to do this by the obvious method of allowing housing prices to fall. High and rising home prices made homeowners feel rich and happy, which is always good for votes. Thus, the only way to make housing more “affordable” was to make it easier for potential buyers to take on debt. This meant artificially low interest rates and subsidies and incentives for banks to make loans that otherwise made no sense. It all looked good for a while, but the bubble eventually burst just like they always do.
Oh, and don’t forget other ways governments distorted the housing market. If you look closely, you’ll notice that many of the hardest-hit areas had highly restrictive zoning and land-use regulations, which made housing artificially scarce and therefore more expensive. Areas without such policies tended to experience much less dramatic price inflation during the boom, and much less trauma when the bubble burst. (What can I say, living in the sticks has its upside.)
The Law of Unintended Consequences is one law Congress can’t repeal, and it always enforces itself sooner or later.
gangler
“All the stuff you just listed off right there is stuff that politicians only wish they could have a predictable effect on”
All the stuff I list is what they’re supposed to be working on. It’s not easy. We’re talking about running a friggin society here. It’s a big job, and a lot of people are involved in it.
Whether or not they can have a predictable effect is irrelevant. They need to be working with goals in mind. Is the goal to improve the economy and get more jobs, or is the goal to eliminate threats to our national wellbeing? Whatever the goals are they aren’t “Reinforcing family values”. That doesn’t say anything. Unless they’re campaigning to combat spousal abuse or something, in which case there are better ways to say that.
Treating the job like a mere celebrity title is entirely the problem. There are better mediums for a popularity contest.
If your platform is based around maintaining the status quo that’s fine. That’s still a platform. Not saying every politician needs to change the world or even change anything, just saying they have to be more than a pretty face that spouts off slogans that sound reassuring but don’t actually say anything.
You wanna make a living off your charming personality? Be a japanese idol or a talk show host.
CP
Politics is NOT supposed to be about running a society. The very idea is laughable. What do politicians know of society? Politics is about LEADERSHIP. And as far as I can tell, leadership only matters in society in a very small number of areas, such as foreign policy, and politicians can stay the heck out of the rest of society’s issues.
And having goals is fine, but claiming the ability to achieve goals based on a ridiculous lack of evidence is not. I’m tempted to say that you only believe that politicians can impact the economy in a predictable way because they say they can, but I suppose you’d probably be offended by that. Still, I dare you to cite any incontrovertible evidence whatsoever in support of your view.
Wizard
Well, right there’s your problem: no one runs “society”, least of all politicians. (And thank all the gods that never were for that.) Human society is far too complex to be managed by any person or even group of people. Those who attempt to do so never have all the critical information, so their plans are inevitably flawed and incomplete. The more they try to force society to conform to their imaginary ideals, the more damage they do. “Creating jobs” is just one example of this. Politicians do not create jobs, or if they do, they do so only by destroying others, which might have been more productive. The only way politicians can actually help the economy is by stressing the rule of law and strengthening rights of property and contract, and then staying out of the way.
That totally depends on what you mean by “family values”.
If you mean “Be good to your family,” then sure, cool, I can get behind that.
But a lot of people use the term to mean “Gays are evil, contraception is evil, trans people are evil, and women don’t get to control their own bodies,” which is a bit shite.
Or, “family values” could mean a tour with some shitty nu-metal bands.
You are wonderful, good sir or madam.
(by the username i’m thinking probably madam, but “good madam” just doesn’t quite have the ring to it that “good sir does.)
I know exactly what you mean. I tend to get worried when a politician uses that phrase ad nausem. Because it typically means they have a very narrow view of what constitutes a family and what doesn’t.
madd
I get worried ’cause typically they’re spouting narrow views to their supporters while secretly “indulging” in the very thing they speak out against.
To me, Family Values is a crappy sequel that got Tag Team to modify their one hit wonder song about the booty (which I wholeheartedly endorse, the song and the booty, that is), before Hollywood really ran out of ideas, and is attempting to ruin my childhood, especially with movies like The Smurfs and Battleship.
Hell a few years ago, no one expected the end of MySpace, and look what happened to it. I doubt youtube is going anywhere in the next few years, but hey, never know.
P.S. Yes, I know MySpace isn’t completely gone, but considering it’s down to a quarter of the size in work force, and way less then that in it’s net worth compared to just 3 years ago, it’s close enough.
Jetstream
Almost certainly. Youtube isn’t eternal. Nothing is eternal.
Even if it takes half a century, it’ll die some day.
Someone
More to the point, nothing ever succeeds without someone coming in to figure out a way to both capitalize and ruin it in one fell swoop.
179 thoughts on “Forgiveness”
Jen Aside
This totally isn’t Palin, eh? Eh?
Mkvenner
Minus the dead bodies hidden in the Alaskan Wilderness.
David Herbert
Where does Robin hide hers then?
Mkvenner
Bottom of Lake Monore.
wandering meme
On the 3rd panel: Isn’t that sisterly love?!? How magnanimous of her!
And totally selfless too, given the last panel!
iSaidCandleja-
My thoughts exactly.
Mkvenner
Minus a pig farm full of human remains.
Scytheakse
theres no pig farm full of remains, those pigs will eat everything
Mkvenner
I was refering to Robert Pickton.
Plasma Mongoose
No dead moose or pregnant kids… I hope.
Mkvenner
Moose? Is that what they call male prostitutes in Anchorage?
madd
I know that’s what I call ’em!
Kernanator
Or pregnant moose!
T.C.R.M
I have no idea what is going on. Is she ROBIN! or Robin?
But I bet Willis is going to be able to drag this out to Friday before resolving the nature of her character in DOA again, and thus continue to dine on our suffering as is his pleasure.
wandering meme
Let’s compromise: she’s RoBIn!
Running in the repub-mocra-ndependent party! (their color is rainbow!)
wandering meme
Gotta say though, she’s got balls.
ryan
joe’s balls.
Rowen Morland
That’ll restrict hi use of his Penis.
Mkvenner
What just happened and how did I get a Vote DeSanto badge?
dchorror
You beat me to the line. Got the last one. Dammit.
Rikushadow5
I would pay for “Vote Desanto” badges.
Make it happen, Willis. Here’s your chance to make MONEH.
wandering meme
Gotta get them constituents! Vote DeSanto today!
And don’t worry about the badges! We have truck loads more!
Heavensrun
Cadbury chocolate egg cereal, no doubt.
NF
This. Just, this.
Plasma Mongoose
“Why do you always treat everything as a photo oppotunity, Robin?”
Mkvenner
In this universe they are both Media whores.
Plasma Mongoose
One is more of a literal whore than the other.
Scytheakse
slut maybe, theres been no indication of money changing hands
Plasma Mongoose
I never did say WHO was more of a literal whore you know. 😀
CP
One is emotionally dishonest to get media coverage, the other has sex to get media coverage. I’d say that Roz is definitely more a literal media whore than Robin, given that Robin isn’t a literal media whore at all.
Scytheakse
sex for attention is slutty, (skanky if shes dirty but with her push for condoms im gonna doubt that) whores get atleast something concrete, jewelry, cars, cash… etc.
Kristy
You know, she COULD just be having sex for sex…
Scytheakse
exactly. if you have sex for sex with the number of people implied i would cassify her as a slut, joes definetly a man slut
Kristy
I’m just pointing out that sex may not be for money (etc) OR for attention. It doesn’t have to be for anything else at all. Contrary to popular rumor, women do have a sex drive.
Scytheakse
oh i know, and i much enjoy a womans sex drive, and im not a horrid prude nor am i against sex before marriage, but in this particular situation i feel justified in calling slut
dchorror
Cause it always is.
A. Colunga
“But I say this to our citizenry: we, ever your servants, will continue to defend your liberty and repel the forces that seek to take it from you! Your Ministry… remains… strong!”
yairm210
Fo’ rizzle!
meanderling
There’s the Robin we know and love.
Joebo
For Rizzle.
Kelvin
You know it, my peeps. 😛
saturnwonder
This just so reminded me of Palin lol
But it’s true, family values and togetherness are essential for this day and age. If we don’t have that, we have nothing. That’s what I think anyway 😀
gangler
I could take it or leave it. Got a family, I do right by them, hardly see it as a building block for a nation though. If a politician starts telling me they’re pro family values I start wondering whether they’re genuinely unaware of what a politician does or if they just don’t have a platform at all.
Tell me what your plan is to create more jobs. Tell me how you’re gonna improve the economy. Tell me how you plan to enforce the rights of the downtrodden, and how much money you plan on putting into our infrastructure. Tell me whether or not our educational system is a major priority for you and how that will show itself in your actions during your administration.
If a politician’s talking about family values then they have nothing to say. Family values are micro. I’m trusting politicians to work on a macro level. At the very smallest they should be worried about communal values and ideally national values would not in fact be beyond them. By the time we’re up to president global values are a necessity and even then none of these words tell me what these values are or how they translate into policies.
It’s an entirely hollow statement that’s flawed from the very premise. It’s an empty can of soup sitting in a brewery auction. Not only will it not generate the necessary product, but were I to buy it there’s still not even any of the soup pictured on the label contained within it. It’s not true at all. It’s the farthest thing from true. Tell me what a vote for you would actually do.
TL’DR: I respectfully disagree.
CP
A big part (perhaps the only truly significant part) of being a politician is being a celebrity. All the stuff you just listed off right there is stuff that politicians only wish they could have a predictable effect on. As long as a politician promises to do his best to avoid pointless wars, then basic morality is really the only thing left on the table that’s actually something a politician can’t afford to compromise on.
I’d vote for a president who promised to do absolutely nothing to change the status quo while in office, and let the economy float freely recession if it works out that way, as long as he was capable of being a good, moral example for people. It’s when politicians start claiming the laughable ability to do something about the economy and whatnot that I stop believing them.
G.S.Mercs
Yet, the reason the world is in an economic mess is because the gvoernment hasn’t be doing anything with the economy. I’m not supporting anything, I’m just pointing out that the greatest the economy has ever been was when politicians at least participated to a certain level in it.
CP
I see very little evidence of that. The recent US recession is largely a result of government interference in the housing market during the 90s, and consequences that rose naturally out of that interference. Not that I’m saying that it was in any way intentional, but that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
Clinton’s administration put a big focus on getting a house for everyone who wanted one. Seems like a great idea, right? Homeowners are statistically more stable members of society, and contribute more to GDP. And it worked for more than a decade! But then people start adapting to the economic climate the policy created and all of a sudden the bubble bursts.
Political interference in society is never predictable, and rarely positive in the long-term.
David
I feel like “political interference is mostly bad” is a belief that requires a lot of selective memory, or at least a lot of taking for granted some very important and basic things.
Wizard
Important and basic things, such as…?
Wizard
The problem was, they confused cause and effect. Practicing certain habits (often referred to as “middle class values”) greatly increases one’s chances of owning a home. Home “ownership” achieved through gimmicky loans does nothing to inspire good habits. (Ownership in quotes, because someone with zero or negative equity doesn’t “own” anything in any meaningful sense.) By this logic, you could make someone a better athlete just by giving them a trophy.
Plus, the government was pursuing two directly opposed goals. They wanted to incease home ownership, but they didn’t want to do this by the obvious method of allowing housing prices to fall. High and rising home prices made homeowners feel rich and happy, which is always good for votes. Thus, the only way to make housing more “affordable” was to make it easier for potential buyers to take on debt. This meant artificially low interest rates and subsidies and incentives for banks to make loans that otherwise made no sense. It all looked good for a while, but the bubble eventually burst just like they always do.
Oh, and don’t forget other ways governments distorted the housing market. If you look closely, you’ll notice that many of the hardest-hit areas had highly restrictive zoning and land-use regulations, which made housing artificially scarce and therefore more expensive. Areas without such policies tended to experience much less dramatic price inflation during the boom, and much less trauma when the bubble burst. (What can I say, living in the sticks has its upside.)
The Law of Unintended Consequences is one law Congress can’t repeal, and it always enforces itself sooner or later.
gangler
“All the stuff you just listed off right there is stuff that politicians only wish they could have a predictable effect on”
All the stuff I list is what they’re supposed to be working on. It’s not easy. We’re talking about running a friggin society here. It’s a big job, and a lot of people are involved in it.
Whether or not they can have a predictable effect is irrelevant. They need to be working with goals in mind. Is the goal to improve the economy and get more jobs, or is the goal to eliminate threats to our national wellbeing? Whatever the goals are they aren’t “Reinforcing family values”. That doesn’t say anything. Unless they’re campaigning to combat spousal abuse or something, in which case there are better ways to say that.
Treating the job like a mere celebrity title is entirely the problem. There are better mediums for a popularity contest.
If your platform is based around maintaining the status quo that’s fine. That’s still a platform. Not saying every politician needs to change the world or even change anything, just saying they have to be more than a pretty face that spouts off slogans that sound reassuring but don’t actually say anything.
You wanna make a living off your charming personality? Be a japanese idol or a talk show host.
CP
Politics is NOT supposed to be about running a society. The very idea is laughable. What do politicians know of society? Politics is about LEADERSHIP. And as far as I can tell, leadership only matters in society in a very small number of areas, such as foreign policy, and politicians can stay the heck out of the rest of society’s issues.
And having goals is fine, but claiming the ability to achieve goals based on a ridiculous lack of evidence is not. I’m tempted to say that you only believe that politicians can impact the economy in a predictable way because they say they can, but I suppose you’d probably be offended by that. Still, I dare you to cite any incontrovertible evidence whatsoever in support of your view.
Wizard
Well, right there’s your problem: no one runs “society”, least of all politicians. (And thank all the gods that never were for that.) Human society is far too complex to be managed by any person or even group of people. Those who attempt to do so never have all the critical information, so their plans are inevitably flawed and incomplete. The more they try to force society to conform to their imaginary ideals, the more damage they do. “Creating jobs” is just one example of this. Politicians do not create jobs, or if they do, they do so only by destroying others, which might have been more productive. The only way politicians can actually help the economy is by stressing the rule of law and strengthening rights of property and contract, and then staying out of the way.
RachelEvil
That totally depends on what you mean by “family values”.
If you mean “Be good to your family,” then sure, cool, I can get behind that.
But a lot of people use the term to mean “Gays are evil, contraception is evil, trans people are evil, and women don’t get to control their own bodies,” which is a bit shite.
Or, “family values” could mean a tour with some shitty nu-metal bands.
It’s all about context. For realz.
Tristan J
I thought it was ‘trans people are stupid and wrong’, and also ‘anything other than a nuclear family is unhappy and therefore wrong.’
RachelEvil
“Stupid and wrong”, “Evil and horrible”, it all really ends up in the same place.
Moh!
You are wonderful, good sir or madam.
(by the username i’m thinking probably madam, but “good madam” just doesn’t quite have the ring to it that “good sir does.)
Shade
I know exactly what you mean. I tend to get worried when a politician uses that phrase ad nausem. Because it typically means they have a very narrow view of what constitutes a family and what doesn’t.
madd
I get worried ’cause typically they’re spouting narrow views to their supporters while secretly “indulging” in the very thing they speak out against.
Bill M.
To me, Family Values is a crappy sequel that got Tag Team to modify their one hit wonder song about the booty (which I wholeheartedly endorse, the song and the booty, that is), before Hollywood really ran out of ideas, and is attempting to ruin my childhood, especially with movies like The Smurfs and Battleship.
saturnwonder
Wow, I only meant for it to be true because we really need to be closer family wise, not saying it was true for her to use for being re-elected ^^;
Doctor_Who
“This November”. So, with this strips use of “Comic Book Time”, does that mean it is still 2010 to these characters? Or that it’s already 2012?
saturnwonder
I was just thinking about that, though if it’s for re-election it must get bumped up to 2012.
LOVE your name and pic btw <3
David
Dumbing of Age does not take place in any particular year.
Plasma Mongoose
But it does take place in the 21st century at least right? Or these youtube references might not make too much sense.
dchorror
They still might not make sense in a couple of years.
Plasma Mongoose
You predicting the end of Youtube?
Radome
Hell a few years ago, no one expected the end of MySpace, and look what happened to it. I doubt youtube is going anywhere in the next few years, but hey, never know.
P.S. Yes, I know MySpace isn’t completely gone, but considering it’s down to a quarter of the size in work force, and way less then that in it’s net worth compared to just 3 years ago, it’s close enough.
Jetstream
Almost certainly. Youtube isn’t eternal. Nothing is eternal.
Even if it takes half a century, it’ll die some day.
Someone
More to the point, nothing ever succeeds without someone coming in to figure out a way to both capitalize and ruin it in one fell swoop.
Plasma Mongoose
While Youtube was better before it was bought out, it didn’t reach the level of suck that Myspace reached after Rupert bought it.
Fauxlosopher
Fauxlosophy is eternal.
Also cheerleaders.
Darth Shadow