@2 The leg-swap version actually did show up at Looking Spoon a couple days later. I thought this version made the same point in better taste, cartoonwise, though.
Or a liberal would just tear down the fence so everyone could watch for free, which would mean that the ball park would loose ticket sales, which means it would close, and the end result is that no one gets to watch the game, but at least they’d all be equally miserable.
The tall guy had to pay for a box he didn’t need so the short guy (who doesn’t work) could get two for free. The middle guy was in a union and got to keep the box he’s had all along thanks to his waiver.
The tragedy is, if I remember correctly, The Looking Spoon said that the illustration was originally truly a liberal post; he just tweaked the caption.
Which shows the deep, deep, fundamental divide in our country, if they thought that was a terrific illustration of sharing the wealth and kumbayaness.
I’m not particularly fond of this jerk-wad version but the liberal original is a great example of their perspective: they have in their mind a perfect outcome and they give no thought to the force used to attain it or whether it is even attained. They are all about forcing their imagined ideal outcome.
It’s like a Rorschach Test: given just the two pictures, a conservative would say that the tall kid charitably gave his box so the little kid could see. The liberal would say that it is irrelevant whether the tall kid gave his box or it was taken from him — the little kid deserves the extra box.
So I looked at the original photo and said, “That makes sense; the conservatives think everyone should get an equal opportunity (to get a box), and the liberals think everyone should get an equal outcome.”
It took me a few seconds to realize it was supposed to be a dis on conservatives.
Not pictured, the liberal’s enforcers holding a gun to the tall guy to make him “voluntarily” surrender his box.
It doesn’t show the socialist version of equality: The government confiscates the boxes and amputates the tall kid’s legs.
@2 The leg-swap version actually did show up at Looking Spoon a couple days later. I thought this version made the same point in better taste, cartoonwise, though.
Or a liberal would just tear down the fence so everyone could watch for free, which would mean that the ball park would loose ticket sales, which means it would close, and the end result is that no one gets to watch the game, but at least they’d all be equally miserable.
The tall guy had to pay for a box he didn’t need so the short guy (who doesn’t work) could get two for free. The middle guy was in a union and got to keep the box he’s had all along thanks to his waiver.
*and even though is was a broken old crappy box, he had to pay 5 times what it was worth.
The tragedy is, if I remember correctly, The Looking Spoon said that the illustration was originally truly a liberal post; he just tweaked the caption.
Which shows the deep, deep, fundamental divide in our country, if they thought that was a terrific illustration of sharing the wealth and kumbayaness.
I’m not particularly fond of this jerk-wad version but the liberal original is a great example of their perspective: they have in their mind a perfect outcome and they give no thought to the force used to attain it or whether it is even attained. They are all about forcing their imagined ideal outcome.
It’s like a Rorschach Test: given just the two pictures, a conservative would say that the tall kid charitably gave his box so the little kid could see. The liberal would say that it is irrelevant whether the tall kid gave his box or it was taken from him — the little kid deserves the extra box.
So I looked at the original photo and said, “That makes sense; the conservatives think everyone should get an equal opportunity (to get a box), and the liberals think everyone should get an equal outcome.”
It took me a few seconds to realize it was supposed to be a dis on conservatives.