Jeff Danziger by Jeff Danziger

Jeff Danziger

Comments (23) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    “Compassionate mockery” is the ultimate conservative answer to poverty.

  2. sierra60

    sierra60 said, over 1 year ago

    this strip says it as it is!

  3. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Obviously, if those people had any initiative, they would go out and inherit a billion dollar business.

  4. disgustedamerican

    disgustedamerican said, over 1 year ago

    homeless people exist.
    Does their existence cramp any poster’s living style?
    IMO the “haters of conservatives” have no respect for “rights” for anyone above their own income level.
    America has always been the Land of Opportunity and people want to live here so much they come illegally over our borders. The “Opportunity” is for historical poor immigrants working and succeeding and at least their children have more education and a better lifestyle than they would have had if the parents stayed in the land where they were born!
    The richest Americans have no more duty to help the poor than any of us who have enough to provide homes and necessities with a little left over. That is why we have organizations working with the poor that we can all donate to.
    Government programs certainly have not been the answer, they are part of the problem of keeping people poor.
    And politics and support of conservative organizations are important and no one should be limited in choosing which ones to help and which ones to refuse to help elect the wrong candidates. (Democrats and Liberals that got us into this miserable economy

  5. a1bestfriend

    a1bestfriend said, over 1 year ago

    Typical liberal deception. The court did NOT change the limit, $2,600.00, that any person can give to a candidate, or the amount a person can give to a political party $32,400. What they decided was that the maximum limit of contributions violated the 1st amendment by limiting the number of candidates a person can donate to.

    According to the previous law it was like saying you can only comment on 5 websites. The SCOTUS said you can comment on all the websites you want, you’re still limited to x number of characters per site.

  6. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago


    Typical conservative deflection. Basically, they allow the plutocrats to be able to spread it around to as many as they want (as if the rest of us can afford to spend that much). Previous rulings allowed them to plow money into PACS that are free to sway elections, without fear of revealing who is contributing to the propaganda they churn out. So this ruling allows then to legally influence elections to a certain degree, and continue to surreptitiously influence them to a greater degree.
    How is that a good thing? Look at the disgusting behavior in Las Vegas, with politicians falling all over themselves to curry the favor of one billionaire, and tell me those politicians aren’t going to do what he wants. Why make it easy to corrupt, dammit?

  7. Jeff1159

    Jeff1159 said, over 1 year ago

    excuse me I have to sneaze….. a…..a……..a………….bananarepublic.

  8. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Money is free speech,
    the Kochs scream constantly,
    the poor whisper occasionally.

  9. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, over 1 year ago

    The way to end corruption: bribery is no longer a crime.

  10. mdblanche

    mdblanche GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”

    Anatole France

  11. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 1 year ago

    Many who are concerned about the implications of this ruling (and the previous “Citizens United” ruling) don’t understand what the Court really said. For a long time, I didn’t either. The court didn’t give corporations a new civil right to free speech. That would have been too easy to remedy with a constitutional amendment. The Court was really protecting our right as citizens to hear the speech. That is, our right to hear all the misinformation money can buy. See? It’s all good.

    The people trying to repeal “corporate person-hood” should re-read the decision. It’s not going to be that easy… if a constitutional amendment can be called “easy” anyway.

  12. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 1 year ago


    … or at least a couple of million. Many in the 1% celebrate like they’ve hit a home run after being born on second base, stealing third and making it home on somebody else’s long fly ball out.

  13. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 1 year ago


    Buying elections did not make the U.S. greater and it wasn’t Democrats and “Liberals” who got us into “this miserable economy”.

  14. Gresch

    Gresch said, over 1 year ago

    Can you buy a vote with your EBT card?

  15. emptc12

    emptc12 said, over 1 year ago

    I often wish I had a “Twilight Zone” power that would insert some people for just one week into the role of a homeless person. Having been involved for several years in Catholic Charities work, I am saddened by the extreme disdain many people have for the poor and disadvantaged, as if they deserve to be punished.
    I am also amazed at the increasing worship we have for rich people which, I suspect is purposely crafted and fed by their PR consultants. It’s as if well-off people know that really bad times are coming and are grabbing as much as they while they can. Does anyone still take the lesson from the parable of Dives and Lazarus?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (8).