B.C. by Mastroianni and Hart

B.C.

Comments (39) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Ron Dunn

    Ron Dunn said, about 4 years ago

    That is a great idea have romney and obama stand on shock pads, if one tries to lie about something give em a shock.

  2. simpsonfan2

    simpsonfan2 said, about 4 years ago

    It wouldn’t work on a person who believes their own lies.

  3. MPeters

    MPeters said, about 4 years ago

    He’s got them both worried.

  4. Alexikakos

    Alexikakos said, about 4 years ago

    CAVEMEN HAVE BROADCAST POWER!!!

  5. legaleagle48

    legaleagle48 said, about 4 years ago

    And people wonder why this strip always attracts the political comments. It’s hard NOT to make political comments when the strip itself makes them!

  6. Nabuquduriuzhur

    Nabuquduriuzhur said, about 4 years ago

    re: simpsonfan2
    .
    True. There are classes to teach one to pass the test, too. Which is why the recent scandals at the FBI and other agencies with terrorists were in spite of lie detector tests. Beats me why they even bother. With a 50% accuracy, it’s better to just flip a coin. Or better yet, to actually investigate someone’s background before they get Secret or above clearances.

  7. beviek

    beviek GoComics PRO Member said, about 4 years ago

    Haha, great ‘toon! Personally, I like to play liars bingo when I’m watching a debate.

  8. Davepostmp

    Davepostmp said, about 4 years ago

    @legaleagle48

    Whatever the comic, they are going to comment on the peculiarities of our daily lives. And what is a more tempting, and peculiar, target than our political system?

  9. euston

    euston said, about 4 years ago

    Looks like it’s going to be a pretty quiet debate…

  10. euston

    euston said, about 4 years ago

    ‘Quiet’ on the strip I meant… Obviously not in the comments…

  11. cdward

    cdward said, about 4 years ago

    @simpsonfan2

    True, but they could have a battery of fact-checkers on hand. After each statement, there could be a pause while the fact-checkers confer and give a thumbs up or down. Might take longer, but after a few rounds of that, they’d be a lot more careful with their “facts.”

  12. piloti

    piloti said, about 4 years ago

    @Nabuquduriuzhur:
    Granted, while the efficacy of the polygraph is open to debate, and will be forever, the background checks for security clearances vary from the superficial for a “confidential”, to very rigorous indeed for anything above “secret”. But, all the checks in the world won’t prevent someone from violating the oath they take when obtaining the clearance.

  13. AshburnStadium

    AshburnStadium said, about 4 years ago

    @piloti

    The polygraph is very unreliable. Pennsylvania even has a law that prohibits employers from requiring a polygraph test of job seekers.

  14. AshburnStadium

    AshburnStadium said, about 4 years ago

    @cdward

    I agree with the fact-checkers. That should be a part of EVERY debate from here on in. With Google and the rest of the internet, fact-checking shouldn’t take very long, and could be done between segments of a debate.

  15. celecca

    celecca GoComics PRO Member said, about 4 years ago

    that’ll do, that’ll do.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (24).