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.
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.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m just going by what I see and hear in many American shows and movies.
The phrase Traditional Family Values is practically code for a Republican rep and it often seems that it is also code for hippocrite in those same shows.
I was making a joke about the fact that Republicans try to universal-ize their own traditions and values. Its the same exclusionary tactics that resulted in the phrase “All American” meaing “WASP” until the 70s.
Please don’t assume that what you see in movies and TV shows bears any resemblance to how the vast majority of Americans actually live and behave. Otherwise you’ll get some really strange ideas.
Interesting note on hypocrisy, though: while both liberals and conservatives are often caught in hypocritical behavior, the consequences vary widely. When conservatives violate their stated values, it’s usually harmful, although the harm is often limited to the hypocrite in question and possibly his/her family. When liberals violate their stated values, it often benefits them and their families. You hafta ask, which is a better standard, one you suffer for violating, or one you actually benefit by violating?
Some families will have the first when they’re young couples, and the second after the first leaves the nest. That’s a full blown twenty year gap you can have between siblings. I don’t think Robin’s anything quite that extreme, but then again thirty is generally considered an excessively young age to be a successful politician. Wouldn’t be outlandish for Robin to be closer to forty.
Heck, my sister’s eight years younger than me and the internet she’s growing up with is not the internet I grew up with. Youtube was created in 2005. That’s six years ago. I was eighteen at the time. She was ten.
If Robin’s been busy with politics to a degree that she’s not staying savvy to this stuff then it’s more than possible that a lot of this stuff is foreign to her at this point even with a relatively minor age gap.
Hell, when I was growing up videophones were a fantasy device on the pokemon animated series. Now look look how these cell phones have developed. My sister has one growing up, I got one when I could afford to pay for one and felt like replacing my home phone line. It doesn’t take that many years to make a difference.
Yep, quite young. When Geocities was in fashion I was either still chilling in playgrounds or Stickin around had finally cemented my status as a couch potato.
I am assuming that you mean that when you READ about Charles Babbage was when you first dealt with computers right?
In my case, that job with the punch cards was back in the late 70s, I heard that punch cards were still used for computers uptil the mid 80s in some places.
Same old Robin. Although I have to ask HOW she got elected in the first place. I mean, was it another sugar bender or did she go about this in a completely normal manner?
Nah, she ran on a platform of 1) Greedo never shot, and 2) Jar Jar shall be removed from all things Star Wars. The geek vote is more powerful than the senior citizen vote when done right.
your right, i dont hate her i hate what she just did. I must now go and spread this message of love and tolerance through out the world! Thank you for bringing me to my senses.
even i cant tell how much of that was serieso and how how much was a joke, lets assume everything past the first sentance was joke
Chill out. Faux rizzle. I think that you’ve actually been upset by the response you got…. Which is silly. Point and laugh because nothing anyone says on the internet has any weight ever. I don’t believe for a moment you’re going to care what I have to say but I can hope, I suppose.
I’d try to be more incensed about what Robin just did, but… Myeh. I really, but REALLY dislike Roz, and seeing her get turned into a campaign-winning tool by Robin only makes me smile.
Okay, my question of why Robin would come to this school to respond to the ‘Roz’ situation rather than make a statement or hold a press conference or something is now answered. It’s because she’s an idiot. (And not at all because Willis wanted an excuse to get her to the school, of course – what a silly notion!)
I do find myself wondering here – which stance is the fake one? I mean, about half of real-life republican politicians deem to only be pretending to care about “traditional family values” to get/stay elected; perhaps Robin is similarly shilling a line? Perhaps she really *does* accept her sister’s exhibitionistically slutty ways, and is only doing this horrific train wreck of a spin job in order to please her conservative constituents (she hopes). I mean, if she was a *really* hard-core conservative, she would have just disowned her.
Not that that would make her current behavior any less ideologically irritating to Roz, of course.
There’s no way she accept her sister’s slutty ways, she’s making a big show of FORGIVING her sister for having them. She’s just trying to play herself up as a very social conservative, who’s not so far right they’re completely unelectable *cough*Alan Keyes*cough*.
If she wasn’t accepting of her sister’s ways she would just denounce her sister’s actions and distance herself. Even a *moderate* politician could do that and remain very, very electable, so long as they don’t go nuts with the denouncing.
Okay, so maybe the only fear Roz has is in how much her sister will humiliate her this time. Ah, well. I enjoyed my unlikely theory while I could.
Meanwhile, I’m a bit weirded out by how much Leslie resembles a glowing Fisher Price figurine right now. I’m also a bit puzzled about her reaction to Robin’s exploitation of something so unrelated to the material. Stay professional, Beany baby!
I live in Kansas, and our governor is trying to get a federal grant to start up a state marriage program to try and get unwed parents to tie the knot. They’re calling it an effort to reduce child poverty, yet this same summer they tried to shut down our social services office to save state money.
And don’t get me started on the “fo’ rizzle” parts.
Loading ...
This totally isn’t Palin, eh? Eh?
Minus the dead bodies hidden in the Alaskan Wilderness.
Where does Robin hide hers then?
Bottom of Lake Monore.
On the 3rd panel: Isn’t that sisterly love?!? How magnanimous of her!
And totally selfless too, given the last panel!
My thoughts exactly.
Minus a pig farm full of human remains.
theres no pig farm full of remains, those pigs will eat everything
I was refering to Robert Pickton.
No dead moose or pregnant kids… I hope.
Moose? Is that what they call male prostitutes in Anchorage?
I know that’s what I call ’em!
Or pregnant moose!
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.
Let’s compromise: she’s RoBIn!
Running in the repub-mocra-ndependent party! (their color is rainbow!)
Gotta say though, she’s got balls.
joe’s balls.
That’ll restrict hi use of his Penis.
What just happened and how did I get a Vote DeSanto badge?
You beat me to the line. Got the last one. Dammit.
I would pay for “Vote Desanto” badges.
Make it happen, Willis. Here’s your chance to make MONEH.
Gotta get them constituents! Vote DeSanto today!
And don’t worry about the badges! We have truck loads more!
Cadbury chocolate egg cereal, no doubt.
This. Just, this.
“Why do you always treat everything as a photo oppotunity, Robin?”
In this universe they are both Media whores.
One is more of a literal whore than the other.
slut maybe, theres been no indication of money changing hands
I never did say WHO was more of a literal whore you know. 😀
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.
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.
You know, she COULD just be having sex for sex…
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
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.
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
Cause it always is.
“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!”
Fo’ rizzle!
There’s the Robin we know and love.
For Rizzle.
You know it, my peeps. 😛
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 😀
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Important and basic things, such as…?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
It’s all about context. For realz.
I thought it was ‘trans people are stupid and wrong’, and also ‘anything other than a nuclear family is unhappy and therefore wrong.’
“Stupid and wrong”, “Evil and horrible”, it all really ends up in the same place.
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.
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.
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 ^^;
“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?
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
Dumbing of Age does not take place in any particular year.
But it does take place in the 21st century at least right? Or these youtube references might not make too much sense.
They still might not make sense in a couple of years.
You predicting the end of Youtube?
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.
Almost certainly. Youtube isn’t eternal. Nothing is eternal.
Even if it takes half a century, it’ll die some day.
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.
While Youtube was better before it was bought out, it didn’t reach the level of suck that Myspace reached after Rupert bought it.
Fauxlosophy is eternal.
Also cheerleaders.
“I forgive your stupid FAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE.”
“Robin: “And I forgive your DEPRAVITIES!”
And I forgive your FEMURS. And your mother. She didn’t deserve that nickel.
My mother forgives you. Even though she didn’t think you meant that it was literally the size of a nickle.
“Traditional family values,” eh? That’ll be interesting. I wonder what Robin thinks those are. Are serfs involved?
There’s nothing more traditional than squatting in a cave, huddling under a pile of leaves for warmth (fire’s unnatural, y’know).
More importantly, is Robin one of those Republicans who’s secretly gay?
i know she’s gay for traditional family values, but that isn’t a secret.
T – “Traditional family values” to her probably means “supporting whatever gets me reelected.”
It’s beyond obvious that she’s a gay “family values” supporter.
The Mafia is a family….
Oh thank god. Serious!Robin would have been awful.
Traditional family values huh? That’s a Republican cliche if I heard one.
Assuming she defines “traditional” the same way. We have no idea what traditions run in that family.
I’m just going by what I see and hear in many American shows and movies.
The phrase Traditional Family Values is practically code for a Republican rep and it often seems that it is also code for hippocrite in those same shows.
I was making a joke about the fact that Republicans try to universal-ize their own traditions and values. Its the same exclusionary tactics that resulted in the phrase “All American” meaing “WASP” until the 70s.
AH! I see.
Please don’t assume that what you see in movies and TV shows bears any resemblance to how the vast majority of Americans actually live and behave. Otherwise you’ll get some really strange ideas.
Interesting note on hypocrisy, though: while both liberals and conservatives are often caught in hypocritical behavior, the consequences vary widely. When conservatives violate their stated values, it’s usually harmful, although the harm is often limited to the hypocrite in question and possibly his/her family. When liberals violate their stated values, it often benefits them and their families. You hafta ask, which is a better standard, one you suffer for violating, or one you actually benefit by violating?
Awesome ones, obviously.
You mean the cock snorting pediophile Republicans?
“cock snorting”???
I must be more sheltered than I thought.
Nothing gets you high quite like granulated rooster, didn’t ya know?
Best use of a typo EVAH.
I meant coke.
Yup, those types.
At least we don’t re- elect ours after they’re caught, like Democrats do. ;p
Yeah, I’m calling BULLSHIT on that.
Yeah? Go ahead and look up the Congressional page scandal of 1983 on Wikipedia. I’ll wait.
How do i know you didn’t tamper with it.
Don’t be a paranoid idiot.
Nah, Republicans just elect them knowing it in the first place. *cough*Dubbya*cough*
At least Obama actually admitted to using coke. Bush had to be accused by “anonymous (code word: made up) sources.”
Obama admitted to using pot not coke. Bush had a drinking problem and an evil petty man as VP.
No, Obama admitted to using both cocaine and pot in high school and college in his book “Dreams of My Father.”
David Vitter. That is all. Republicans are no better than Democrats on this issue.
Going by the etymology of “encyclopedia,” a “pediophile” would be one who loves education. (So, not Republican at all.)
Pediophile: One who uses sex toys, or more specificly, blow up dolls.
Quoted from Urban Dictionary
And now we see the source of the nervousness in Leslie’s smile.
Fo’ rizzle!
I assume robin can’t be that much older than Roz. Still, that last panel is exactly how my grandparents talk about technology and fads.
I have a sister 12 years older than me… that’s enough for a generation gap.
Some families will have the first when they’re young couples, and the second after the first leaves the nest. That’s a full blown twenty year gap you can have between siblings. I don’t think Robin’s anything quite that extreme, but then again thirty is generally considered an excessively young age to be a successful politician. Wouldn’t be outlandish for Robin to be closer to forty.
Heck, my sister’s eight years younger than me and the internet she’s growing up with is not the internet I grew up with. Youtube was created in 2005. That’s six years ago. I was eighteen at the time. She was ten.
If Robin’s been busy with politics to a degree that she’s not staying savvy to this stuff then it’s more than possible that a lot of this stuff is foreign to her at this point even with a relatively minor age gap.
Hell, when I was growing up videophones were a fantasy device on the pokemon animated series. Now look look how these cell phones have developed. My sister has one growing up, I got one when I could afford to pay for one and felt like replacing my home phone line. It doesn’t take that many years to make a difference.
Damn, you’re young. When I was sixteen, I had a Geocities page.
Yep, quite young. When Geocities was in fashion I was either still chilling in playgrounds or Stickin around had finally cemented my status as a couch potato.
You all are making me feel old, my first experience with computers was creating new punch cards to replace the bent/damaged ones.
You’re making ME feel old, my first experience with computers was when Charles Babbage postulated the idea of a difference engine.
I am assuming that you mean that when you READ about Charles Babbage was when you first dealt with computers right?
In my case, that job with the punch cards was back in the late 70s, I heard that punch cards were still used for computers uptil the mid 80s in some places.
No, I’m actually a couple of hundred years old. 😀
Hopefully that’s not the best Robin can come up with, as a Congresswoman.
Wow! I’ve never seen Roz so angry looking like that!
Interesting that in this universe, it seems that it’s Roz who hates Robin rather than the other way around.
You have to wait for the cameras to stop rolling.
This whole arc has shown a very angry Roz, which IIRC was never shown on SP!. Having her hating her older sister is icing on the cake.
-airfox
Really? I didn’t get hate. Oh sure she was annoyed about the use of the word depravities. As I’m sure most of us would be.
Guess we’ll see.
Oh my God, DOA!Robin is even more wonderful than I imagined.
I hope Robin sticks around. So far she has been hilarious!
Same old Robin. Although I have to ask HOW she got elected in the first place. I mean, was it another sugar bender or did she go about this in a completely normal manner?
Given that she doesn’t have super powers in DOA, I’m betting it isn’t a sugar-bender.
let’s see, in shortpacked! she was elected because of her platform to force hasbro into making a funeral gown padme toy.
i’m guessing in this strip, her platform was to ban star wars updates forever. also, traditional family values.
Nah, she ran on a platform of 1) Greedo never shot, and 2) Jar Jar shall be removed from all things Star Wars. The geek vote is more powerful than the senior citizen vote when done right.
i never liked jar jar, but in a sick way he redeemed himself when i realized the birth of the empire was all his fault.
and i hate her
Fo’ rizzle? You only known her for one panel, dawg.
/robinspeakfail
your right, i dont hate her i hate what she just did. I must now go and spread this message of love and tolerance through out the world! Thank you for bringing me to my senses.
even i cant tell how much of that was serieso and how how much was a joke, lets assume everything past the first sentance was joke
Chill out. Faux rizzle. I think that you’ve actually been upset by the response you got…. Which is silly. Point and laugh because nothing anyone says on the internet has any weight ever. I don’t believe for a moment you’re going to care what I have to say but I can hope, I suppose.
Nothing anyone says on the internet was any weight ever. Except this comment.
You lie.
YOU LIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!
When will the lies end?
Bright are the stars that shine/Dark is the sky/I know this hate of mine/Will never die/And I hate her…
So, will Robin be a “wide stance” Republican?
Traditional Family Values: New DOA meme?
because we needed more.
These are not traditional family values.
The traditional family values are my penis.
For a nickel.
Suddenly I sympathize SO MUCH MORE with Roz…
The way the panel perspective shifts slightly between the last two panels makes it look like Leslie is slowly creeping up behind the other two. =/
Funky CreepyCreepy?
Cue the ‘Jaws’ music!
More liek Faux Rizzle.
thank you.
You’re welcome.
Oh Robin, I think you are my favorite character in the entire Walkyverse.
That’s a bummer, considering this is the Dumbiverse. 😛
In the entire Multiwalkyverse, then?
Good Ol’ Robin, ever the mature and responsible one.
I’d try to be more incensed about what Robin just did, but… Myeh. I really, but REALLY dislike Roz, and seeing her get turned into a campaign-winning tool by Robin only makes me smile.
I’m getting the distinct impression that DoA!Robin just acts like SP!!Robin, but doesn’t really think like her.
panel four leslie has emotionally and psychologically scarred me.
You know, by my calculations, assuming the DOAtime to Realtime ratio is constant, it’ll be 2551 by the time Robin is re-elected.
Four more years, four more years.
Okay, my question of why Robin would come to this school to respond to the ‘Roz’ situation rather than make a statement or hold a press conference or something is now answered. It’s because she’s an idiot. (And not at all because Willis wanted an excuse to get her to the school, of course – what a silly notion!)
I do find myself wondering here – which stance is the fake one? I mean, about half of real-life republican politicians deem to only be pretending to care about “traditional family values” to get/stay elected; perhaps Robin is similarly shilling a line? Perhaps she really *does* accept her sister’s exhibitionistically slutty ways, and is only doing this horrific train wreck of a spin job in order to please her conservative constituents (she hopes). I mean, if she was a *really* hard-core conservative, she would have just disowned her.
Not that that would make her current behavior any less ideologically irritating to Roz, of course.
There’s no way she accept her sister’s slutty ways, she’s making a big show of FORGIVING her sister for having them. She’s just trying to play herself up as a very social conservative, who’s not so far right they’re completely unelectable *cough*Alan Keyes*cough*.
If she wasn’t accepting of her sister’s ways she would just denounce her sister’s actions and distance herself. Even a *moderate* politician could do that and remain very, very electable, so long as they don’t go nuts with the denouncing.
Okay, so maybe the only fear Roz has is in how much her sister will humiliate her this time. Ah, well. I enjoyed my unlikely theory while I could.
Meanwhile, I’m a bit weirded out by how much Leslie resembles a glowing Fisher Price figurine right now. I’m also a bit puzzled about her reaction to Robin’s exploitation of something so unrelated to the material. Stay professional, Beany baby!
I love how Robin’s Aide is just called Congressional Aide in the Tags.
I say keep an eye on the guy. His name hasn’t been revealed yet because it’s too important.
Nooo! Robin cant defend the same values of Palin! They are supposed to be archenemies for the Lulz!
She’s always taken on Palin on her own turf though.
I see where this is going… The arch-“Family Values” politicians -always- end up gay. She’s totally banging Leslie on the side already.
Heh. She really IS in politics.
Ughh, not the “family values” card.
I live in Kansas, and our governor is trying to get a federal grant to start up a state marriage program to try and get unwed parents to tie the knot. They’re calling it an effort to reduce child poverty, yet this same summer they tried to shut down our social services office to save state money.
And don’t get me started on the “fo’ rizzle” parts.
Am I the only one who thinks notices Robins and Rozs heads appear to be melding together in the las panel?
My goodness! Robin has eyebrows! I never noticed before! They are ADORABLE!
Finally, someone with priorities. XD
I can’t believe no one has jumped on this already! Roz forgives Robin’s stupid FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!!!!!
Seriously, you all have failed as internet trolls.
Can we have a world where our leaders doesn’t get to decide for us what family values are, please?
Wow, this is just the opposite of where the hate vibe comes from between these two.
You know, most people who consider “dumb” an ableist also consider “stupid” ableist as well.
There is no evidence that Roz considers the word “dumb” to be ableist. It’s possible she might, but she hasn’t stated so in the strip at any point.
Well she did something ridiculous and unexpected, but it’d be better with a sombrero
THIS from Robin… just… kettle, other-universe-pot 😀
*face palm* Damnit Robin. I liked you when your politics were only induced by blackout sugar rushes.