Your favourite political cartoons CT satire and propaganda artwork.

Run_to_da_hills

I don't think you can go to any CT or alternative news site without finding David Dee.

Here is a recent classic depicting the militarisation of the US street cop.



David Icke is quite fond of artwork from Neil Hague as it is seen on his signature and of his various promotions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv3H517vCBw

Not sure who is behind this one.

The playground bully and spoilt child.

Run_to_da_hills

This could apply to the forthcoming US Presidential elections.

Torakx

Ok that last picture is hilarious! nice one.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

Ok that last picture is hilarious! nice one.

Yes, the toilet pic is very good.

francois

Cork boy 55

p0rkytso wrote: »

New world order.
This is a personal artwork designed to highlight public awareness towards "the new world order" and government conspiracies. 2012 - An interesting year to look out for. Grab onto your seats, it will be an interesting time of change.

http://p0rkytso.deviantart.com/art/New-World-Order-119575505

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills

I like this one.

hooradiation

Political cartoons are the worst.

Monty Burnz

Sacksian

Unfortunately, cannot embed these but fans of South Park are probably familiar with these two clips from "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce":

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155282/911-all-over-again
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103769/plug-these-leaks

Run_to_da_hills

UN tells Israel to let in nuclear inspectors.

hooradiation

It's a good thing the missiles have "Israel's nukes" written on them and the star of David.
Y'know, in case we mightn't quite get the subtle message the artist was trying to convey.
By labelling everything.

The talentless ass clown.

Oracle

Already been mentioned, David Dees is good. I like his sense of humour, reminds me of Mad magazine; irreverence mixed with incisive social/political comment. I discovered his personal web site recently, well worth a browse.

Torakx

Im detecting some anti-anti-semitism

Run_to_da_hills

An Early Christmas cart to the CT Forum.

asherbassad

hooradiation wrote: »

Political cartoons are the worst.

Oh, I don't think so.

I particularly liked a Doonesbury one from back in 1991. It depicted two soldiers in the desert just as the Gulf War was about to start. One was splayed out manning a machine gun, the other was a rather nervous looking ammo belt-feeder.
The ammo-belt guy whimpered "I only joined the military to get an education." The trigger man responded "Well pay attention, your first history class is about to begin". :pac:

asherbassad

hooradiation wrote: »

It's a good thing the missiles have "Israel's nukes" written on them and the star of David.
Y'know, in case we mightn't quite get the subtle message the artist was trying to convey.
By labelling everything.

The talentless ass clown.

But the Israeli Mordechai Vanunu was talking about Israeli nukes. Nothing subtle about that.

hooradiation

asherbassad wrote: »

Oh, I don't think so.

Then you're wrong.
They are a fucking cancer and the last refuge of the utterly insipid.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Wow, these just get more and more dishonest and ignorant as they go on, don't they.

kristopher_1

I agree, King Mob.

Pesticides are nutritious and essential for strong bones and teeth.
I always mix glyphosate in with my hot chocolate for a good nights kip.

For a relaxing bath, try some carboxiic acid and triazine for delightful tingling on the skin.

Look and feel sensational.

kristopher_1

kristopher_1 wrote: »

I agree, King Mob.

Pesticides are nutritious and essential for strong bones and teeth.
I always mix glyphosate in with my hot chocolate for a good nights kip.

For a relaxing bath, try some carboxiic acid and triazine for delightful tingling on the skin.

Look and feel sensational.

There's a difference between a small amount of pesticide on a piece of food (Or more specifically the parts of the plant you aren't going to eat and assuming that for some reason you don't have it washed.) and breathing in a lot of the pesticide when you spend a day spreading it on a field.

Pretending otherwise is either dishonest or ignorant.
Much like your silly little strawman there.

kristopher_1

Whenever I boil vegetables like broccoli, I always throw the water away unless it's organic in which case i'll use for a soup.

I only eat organic spinach because I've felt ill in the past with the other stuff.

Just an anecdotal story of my own experience but It's not to try convince others.

If you're happy eating vegetables with pesticides on them, even if it's just residual, no problem.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Wow, these just get more and more dishonest and ignorant as they go on, don't they.

Yes this is why I would prefer to buy Organic from a local source than to be buying in Tesco's and the like. Processed pealed carrots are even worse because they are washed in chemicals.

One would want to be a fool to think this stuff is OK to eat.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Yes this is why I would prefer to buy Organic from a local source than to be buying in Tesco's and the like. Processed pealed carrots are even worse because they are washed in chemicals.

One would want to be a fool to think this stuff is OK to eat.

Hate to tell you this Rtdhs, even "organic" food contains scary chemicals.
And I'm sure you even wash them in chemicals too, like the dreaded dihydrogenmonoxide.

Again your language betrays either a willingness to scaremonger or that you don't actually understand what you are talking about.

kristopher_1

King Mob wrote: »

Hate to tell you this Rtdhs, even "organic" food contains scary chemicals.
And I'm sure you even wash them in chemicals too, like the dreaded dihydrogenmonoxide.

Again your language betrays either a willingness to scaremonger or that you don't actually understand what you are talking about.

You're making generalisations here.

Granted, some supermarkets label food as "organic" but could contain chemicals which are synthetic but I'm not talking about that nor is RTTH I suspect.

It's perfectly possible to grow vegetables without any kind of petro based chemicals, it just takes more effort.

For example, a friend of mine uses a wormery to create organic fertilizer and he swears it's far superior than any chemical on the market.

kristopher_1

kristopher_1 wrote: »

You're making generalisations here.

Granted, some supermarkets label food as "organic" but could contain chemicals which are synthetic but I'm not talking about that nor is RTTH I suspect.

No, all vegetable have chemicals in them.
It's what they are made out of.

kristopher_1 wrote: »

It's perfectly possible to grow vegetables without any kind of petro based chemicals, it just takes more effort.

And produces less yield for no benefit at all.

kristopher_1 wrote: »

For example, a friend of mine uses a wormery to create organic fertilizer and he swears it's far superior than any chemical on the market.

And then I assume that you would have no issue eating a nice big bowl of that or any other organic fertiliser then?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Hate to tell you this Rtdhs, even "organic" food contains scary chemicals.
And I'm sure you even wash them in chemicals too, like the dreaded dihydrogenmonoxide.

Again your language betrays either a willingness to scaremonger or that you don't actually understand what you are talking about.

Depends where you get them, If you go to Tesco, Dunnes Stores, Lidl or Aldi you would be absolutely correct

If you go to your local farmers Market on a Saturday morning you can get acquainted to home producers. Some even let you inspect their organic farms.

I know one guy that sells Garlic, Onions and Carrots at a market in Clare, you can tell by the taste and looks that they are not mass produced under a synthetic environment of chemicals and artificial growth.

Chicken is another topic.

Most of the chicken that you would eat would be full of toxic chemicals, colouring and brine. (Because you don't seem to be able to differentiate between Organic or not)

Unraveling food industry lies - Your chicken is full of liquid fillers and chemicals

Any of those super market processed chicken dinners, fast food, Kentucky fried foetus chicken and Super max chicken dinner meals would not be good for you at all. ,

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Depends where you get them, If you go to Tesco, Dunnes Stores, Lidl or Aldi you would be absolutely correct

Again, all vegetables, no matter where you get them contain chemicals.
You are made of chemicals.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If you go to your local farmers Market on a Saturday morning you can get acquainted to home producers. Some even let you inspect their organic farms.

I know one guy that sells Garlic, Onions and Carrots at a market in Clare, you can tell by the taste and looks that they are not mass produced under a synthetic environment of chemicals and artificial growth.

And good for them. They are using a less efficient method of farming and charging you more for exactly zero benefit.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Again, all vegetables, no matter where you get them contain chemicals.
You are made of chemicals.

I am referring to mass crop spraying techniques, pestilence and growth enhancing chemicals carried out by commercial growers. :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

And good for them. They are using a less efficient method of farming and charging you more for exactly zero benefit.

Yes you are correct, less efficient and more costly to produce and more expensive to buy but in the long run you make up for this in healthier living and cutting down family doctor bills by not getting sick and not requiring harmful mercury containing vaccinations for your children.

kristopher_1

King Mob wrote: »

No, all vegetable have chemicals in them.
It's what they are made out of.

I thought we were discussing pesticides here, you do understand those are man made chemicals, yes?

And produces less yield for no benefit at all.

And then I assume that you would have no issue eating a nice big bowl of that or any other organic fertiliser then?

Why would I eat a bowl of organic fertilizer?

It isn't sprayed on the crop, you do understand what fertilizer is, don't you?

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I am referring to mass crop spraying techniques, pestilence and growth enhancing chemicals carried out by commercial growers. :rolleyes:

But organic farmers also use these things, only less efficient ones from arbitrarily defined "organic" sources.

If you want to seem to be making a reasonable post, don't use language that makes it seem like you don't know what you are talking.
Just refering to "chemicals" as if that word was scary makes it seem like you don't understand basic science.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Yes you are correct, less efficient and more costly to produce and more expensive to buy but in the long run you make up for this in healthier living and cutting down family doctor bills by not getting sick

This is not true. Organic foods have never been shown to be more healthy than non-organic food.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

and not requiring harmful mercury containing vaccinations.

Yet more dishonesty and/or ignorance.
Vaccines do not contain mercury.
Non-organic foods do not cause any illness that is treated or prevented by vaccines.
Eating organic food does not grant you the benefits of vaccines.

kristopher_1

King Mob wrote:

Just refering to "chemicals" as if that word was scary makes it seem like you
don't understand basic science.

You're just being pedantic and extremely overbearing...*yawn*

kristopher_1

kristopher_1 wrote: »

I thought we were discussing pesticides here, you do understand those are man made chemicals, yes?

As I said to Rtdhs, just using the scary word "chemicals" makes it look like you don't understand what they are.
Now you'll have to define what the difference between man made chemicals and other chemicals is that makes one somehow always bad and evil.

kristopher_1 wrote: »

Why would I eat a bowl of organic fertilizer?

It's the same question you asked me. If that fertilizer is safe, then you should have no issues eating it raw, right?
Or is the question unfair somehow?

kristopher_1 wrote: »

It isn't sprayed on the crop, you do understand what fertilizer is, don't you?

Yes, and organic farmers use both fertilizers and pesticides, just less efficient "natural" ones (consequently requiring more of both).

kristopher_1

So what? That's already been accepted but you keep crying like a baby about it.

The end product of proper organic farming is of superior quality.

Of course growing vegetables the natural way takes more effort but I already indicated that several posts ago...you're not educating me about agriculture buddy in any way at all nor could you ever.

I know people that grow food for years, I'm pretty sure they know more than you.

kristopher_1

kristopher_1 wrote: »

So what? That's already been accepted but you keep crying like a baby about it.

The end product of proper organic farming is of superior quality.

Of course growing vegetables the natural way takes more effort but I already indicated that several posts ago...you're not educating me about agriculture buddy in any way at all nor could you ever.

I know people that grow food for years, I'm pretty sure they know more than you.

But that's not been shown. Organic food has not ever been shown to be more beneficial for anyone aside from the farmer who is able to charge more.

My point remains that the cartoon Rtdhs posted, and most in this thread and including the silly strawman you use against that point, are dishonest oversimplifications of reality that are intended to scare and confuse than educate.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

But organic farmers also use these things, only less efficient ones from arbitrarily defined "organic" sources.

How do you know?

I know several Organic growers including two that have been close friends of the family. They use free range horse sh*t instead of chemicals for fertilizer

King Mob wrote: »

If you want to seem to be making a reasonable post, don't use language that makes it seem like you don't know what you are talking.
Just refering to "chemicals" as if that word was scary makes it seem like you don't understand basic science.

That's exactly what they are.

Mass GM food producers do not care two sh*ts what goes into their products as long as they fill the supermarket shelves.



This will be america in a few years time when they will ban you from growing your own crops. You are already banned from growing crops in your front garden in many states and also in public areas. This is because the Government knows that home grown and organic crops are good for you. The US Government now wants to label orrganic growers into the same classification as preppers.

King Mob wrote: »

This is not true. Organic foods have never been shown to be more healthy than non-organic food.


Yet more dishonesty and/or ignorance.

Non-organic foods do not cause any illness that is treated or prevented by vaccines.
Eating organic food does not grant you the benefits of vaccines.

The reason you believe all this is because you are read about this stuff in the main stream media newspapers.

GM has been tested on live rats, and I would believe this, it will get worse as more and more GM products build up more immunities to pestilences etc..

King Mob wrote: »

Vaccines do not contain mercury.

Again you haven't a clue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOqKLoYptF8

kristopher_1

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not been shown. Organic food has not ever been shown to be more beneficial for anyone aside from the farmer who is able to charge more.

My point remains that the cartoon Rtdhs posted, and most in this thread, are dishonest oversimplifications of reality that are intended to scare and confuse than educate.

If you have a vegetable grown organically, it tastes much better than those grown with petro based chemicals and that in itself is the benefit.

You could argue tap water is safer than well water because it's chlorinated and of course much cheaper than digging your own well...but how does the tap water taste?

I understand organic methods are more expensive but when oil and gas start to become more expensive, what will people do then?

Phosphate is a finite resource just like fossil fuel and it's used for fertilizer.

Worms are the earths natural composter, you think scientists can replace what earth has provided for millions of years?

Tzar Chasm

king mob, if you think tneres a conspiracy by the organic food producers to dupe consumers into buying something which has no difference to the industrial farmed mass market product, please start a thread on it, i'd be interested in debating the subject in a serious manner, but only if you're willing to have a serious grown up discussion, no DiHydrogenMonoxide or other hilarious stuff like 'everything is chemicals

kristopher_1

kristopher_1 wrote: »

If you have a vegetable grown organically, it tastes much better than those grown with petro based chemicals and that in itself is the benefit.

You could argue tap water is safer than well water because it's chlorinated and of course much cheaper than digging your own well...but how does the tap water taste?

And that is purely subjective, unless you have some experiments showing that organic foods are always identifiable by their supposedly superior taste.
Cause I can point to others that show the opposite.

kristopher_1 wrote: »

I understand organic methods are more expensive but when oil and gas start to become more expensive, what will people do then?

Phosphate is a finite resource just like fossil fuel and it's used for fertilizer.

But that's not the point I was making, and it doesn't match with the point Rtdhs was making.
His cartoon implies that non-organic pesticides are dangerous for the consumer purely because people wear masks when applying it.
You continued this point by implying that I believed that drinking and eating raw pesticides and other materials is perfectly safe.

Do you think these are fair and valid points to be making?

kristopher_1 wrote: »

Worms are the earths natural composter, you think scientists can replace what earth has provided for millions of years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

kryogen

You can't hug your children with Nuclear Arms

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

How do you know?

I know several Organic growers including two that have been close friends of the family. They use free range horse sh*t instead of chemicals for fertilizer

Because manure is not as efficient as some non-organic fertilisers, more is needed to produce a similar effect.

And I assume, since you think your propaganda is fair, I take it you have no issues eating hore****?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That's exactly what they are.

Mass GM food producers do not care two sh*ts what goes into their products as long as they fill the supermarket shelves.

This has no relation to the point it quotes.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This will be america in a few years time when they will ban you from growing your own crops. You are already banned from growing crops in your front garden in many states and also in public areas. This is because the Government knows that home grown and organic crops are good for you. The US Government now wants to label orrganic growers into the same classification as preppers.

None of this is true and seems to be based entirely on what you read in the "alternative media" and propaganda.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The reason you believe all this is because you are read about this stuff in the main stream media newspapers.

No, it's because I understand basic science and don't believe everything I am told by cranks.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

GM has been tested on live rats, and I would believe this, it will get worse as more and more GM products build up more immunities to pestilences etc..

I never mentioned GM anything. This is just an excuse to throw up more scary looking pictures instead of a rational argument.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Again you haven't a clue.

I do have a clue cause again, I don't buy what I am told by pseudoscientists with agendas.
No vaccines contain mercury.
Some vaccines contain an organomercury compound.
The compound is quite safe.

Saying that it's just mercury and implying it's dangerous, is yet again, more dishonest oversimplification to scare people rather than educate them.

Tzar Chasm

in fairness rtdh's cartoon was funny, you've just BuzzKilington'd the humor out of it

Tzar Chasm

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

king mob, if you think tneres a conspiracy by the organic food producers to dupe consumers into buying something which has no difference to the industrial farmed mass market product, please start a thread on it,

I do not believe it's a conspiracy any more than any other product is over hyped or sold up to people. I do not believe they are engaging in deliberate cover-ups or outright falsification. Though some do take advantage of peoples ignorance of science and distrust of big business in their marketing.

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

no DiHydrogenMonoxide or other hilarious stuff like 'everything is chemicals

Again I only used it to highlight how rtdhs is using deceptive language. If you have an issue with me using that example, one wonders why you are not upset with the tactics others are using.

Corkfeen

Woah, RTDH spouting the vaccines causing autism rubbish. The MMR controversy is well known and was debunked because of misconducted trials. This is common knowledge at this point.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8695267.stm

The man who's rambling about Autism not existing prior to the 1930s is frankly wrong. Many conditions weren't recognised at that point, diagnosing people with it doesn't mean that it didn't exist prior to the 1930s. There is evidence that people throughout history had autism, it just wasn't a recognised condition. For example, aspergers wasn't diagnosed when I was a child. This doesn't mean that it only came into existence when it got added to the DSM.

Also a list of some figures that were likely to have some form of autism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_figures_sometimes_considered_autistic

Tzar Chasm

yet you say
organic farming has never been shown to be more beneficial to anyone other than the farmer growing it who can charge more money

that seems to suggest you believe it to be a scam, and it might be reasonable to conclude that you believe the farmers may be active in some form of deception perpetrated on the consumer, ie the essence of a conspiracy.

I take exception to the dhmo jibe as i view it as a weak attempt to belittle other posters in a side manner

Tzar Chasm

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

yet you say
organic farming has never been shown to be more beneficial to anyone other than the farmer growing it who can charge more money

that seems to suggest you believe it to be a scam, and it might be reasonable to conclude that you believe the farmers may be active in some form of deception perpetrated on the consumer, ie the essence of a conspiracy.

There are plenty of companies and even industries out there that sell stuff that has no benefit.
However most of these companies are not working together to secretly deceive people.

I'm sure there are plenty of organic farmers who genuinely believe that organic farming is more beneficial or any number of other claims. But the fact is no study has ever show this and there is a few that show the opposite.

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

I take exception to the dhmo jibe as i view it as a weak attempt to belittle other posters in a side manner

I used it because it is exactly the same sort of language Rtdhs is using.
Do you think that using "chemicals" as a scary word is a fair or reasonable thing to do?
Do you think his cartoon is a fair representation of the facts?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Because manure is not as efficient as some non-organic fertilisers, more is needed to produce a similar effect.

And I assume, since you think your propaganda is fair, I take it you have no issues eating hore****?

Again you haven't a clue about crop production, you eat the crops grown with the fertilizer, in this case manure, you don't eat the fertilizer itself,
You obviously grew up in the city.

King Mob wrote: »

None of this is true and seems to be based entirely on what you read in the "alternative media" and propaganda.

I would prefer to take heed on the matter on alternative media than believe in corrupt government lies from MSM.



That thing about the rats is a classic example of a giant corporate like Monsanto paying off brown envelopes to Government and media representatives. At least some independent nations are taking heed to the warnings of GMO.

King Mob wrote: »

No, it's because I understand basic science and don't believe everything I am told by cranks.
I never mentioned GM anything. This is just an excuse to throw up more scary looking pictures instead of a rational argument.

If you want a rational argument why are you discussing it in this thread? :rolleyes:

Can you not even read the title. :rolleyes:

YOUR FAVOURITE POLITICAL CARTOONS CT SATIRE AND PROPAGANDA ARTWORK. :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

I do have a clue cause again, I don't buy what I am told by pseudoscientists with agendas.
No vaccines contain mercury.
Some vaccines contain an organomercury compound.
The compound is quite safe.

Mercury has and is being used as a preservative in vaccines.

Only in today's news.
AAP opposes U.N. mercury ban

King Mob wrote: »

Saying that it's just mercury and implying it's dangerous, is yet again, more dishonest oversimplification to scare people rather than educate them.

Mike Adams would know a lot more than you about mercury and other toxic chemicals that are used by big pharma to develop harmful vaccinations.

Vaccinated children have up to 500% more disease than unvaccinated children

I think at this stage you should give up reading the labels on your kellogs corn flakes packets about how good they are for you. "The Best for you each Morning"

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Again you haven't a clue about crop production, you eat the crops grown with the fertilizer, in this case manure, you don't eat the fertilizer itself,
You obviously grew up in the city.

So then your cartoon is indeed ignorant or dishonest?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would prefer to take heed on the matter on alternative media than believe in corrupt government lies from MSM.

Because as we all know, the alternative media can't possibly be corrupt or have an agenda or lack professional standard :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That thing about the rats is a classic example of a giant corporate like Monsanto paying off brown envelopes to Government and media representatives. [URL="http://www.ienearth.org/docs/what-countries-
If you want a rational argument why are you discussing it in this thread? :rolleyes:

Again I never once mentioned GM food and they have nothing to do with my point.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Can you not even read the title. :rolleyes:

YOUR FAVOURITE POLITICAL CARTOONS CT SATIRE AND PROPAGANDA ARTWORK. :rolleyes:

And I am pointing out that your cartoons, satire and propaganda is awful, horrible and dishonest.
You seem to have no issue with that.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Mercury has and is being used as a preservative in vaccines.

Only in today's news.
AAP opposes U.N. mercury ban

Again: Organamercury is used in some vaccines.
From the article you posted:

“Despite claims of anti-vaccine proponents who have erroneously linked thimerosal to autism, studies during the past 15 years have not shown any evidence of harm,” the AAP wrote. “Some of those activists confused ethylmercury with the dangerous neurotoxin methylmercury.”

This is because ethylmercury is not the same as pure mercury.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Mike Adams would know a lot more than you about mercury and other toxic chemicals that are used by big pharma to develop harmful vaccinations.

No he wouldn't.
He would know a lot about writing the same sort of propaganda you lap up and making money off the fear of real medicine...
But he couldn't possibly be corrupt :rolleyes:

Tzar Chasm

what's to say the cartoon specifically references fertilisers the napsak is marked with the international symbol for poison, now I don't know about you, but i'd presume its referencing petrochemical herbicides/pesticides