John Deering by John Deering

?fh=4f84ea6d6d7db90753e28eb7f12437ef

Comments (35) Jump to Comments Form

  1. Cpt. Jay

    Cpt. Jay said, 14 days ago

    Uh on, shades of 2012!

  2. scottfreitas

    scottfreitasGenius_badge said, 14 days ago

    And there were no jobs, and the Demoncrat Congress saw this, and murmured, “This is bad, very bad, let us vote to pay people to NOT work for another twenty weeks, instead..”

  3. Redeemd

    Redeemd said, 14 days ago

    Good thing he’s “saved” jobs cause he sure hasn’t “created” any.

  4. Ken Warren

    Ken Warren said, 14 days ago

    It’s simple – people are unemployed because the Repubicans let the banks and Wall Street run wild until they destroyed the economy. When that happened the Republican answer was go give money to the banks, when that still didn’t fix the problem the Republicans did – well they did nothing because they didn’t have a plan, and still don’t have a plan.

    At least there is an effort to help the unemployed, and to try to create more jobs, and you can say it is going to slow, but what is the Republicans plan?

    Oh that’s right, the Republicans plan is to attack anything and everything Obama is doing.

  5. HOWGOZIT

    HOWGOZIT said, 14 days ago

    Cook County politics not working in DC ala Obama, Emmanuel, Biggs, Axelrod or even Burris.

  6. ahab

    ahabGenius_badge said, 14 days ago

    Make Jobs,not war. Wow someone who actually is governing the country.

  7. deadheadzan

    deadheadzanGenius_badge said, 14 days ago

    Let’s get some green jobs created. Wind mill and solar panel factories and wind farms and solar panel farms. Gather the heat of the sun and the power of the wind. We have the technology to do it now.

  8. dtroutma

    dtroutma said, 14 days ago

    Green is money. The oil companies are now on it, big time!

  9. NeoconMan

    NeoconMan said, 14 days ago

    ANandy said, “That, which is subsidized, increases; unemployment; welfare; entitlements; irresponsible behavior;

    I add: CEO bonuses, exploitation of the public, lobbying, manipulation of markets….

  10. a.c.d

    a.c.d said, 11 days ago

    actually, deadhead is correct. The fact that they are made by the Germans and the Chinese (as is the prefered nomenclature) is evidence of futher lack of attention paid to the American economy. Financial tools are not a way to fund a country. The US should work at building factories that build this stuff. And use government money to fund projects on how to best build factories in a green way and develop green ideas. They can then sell the technology or EXPORT it and maybe export something other than debt (which again is not an issue since countries happily buy american deby to settle their own fiscal inbalances and maintain price regularity).
    Anandy, subsidies are NOT a problem. Its how they are used. Just look at the Asian crisis. Private capital flowed into these countries during the 90s and because of massive loans, ineffecient, unprofitable ideas got money, which when the money dried up failed and caused the futher collapse. Money is benign, where it comes from is not the issue, how it is used IS the important aspect.

  11. striper77

    striper77 said, 11 days ago

    Obama looks like that king the Spartans was fighting against on the movie 300.

    The beliefs are pretty much the same as well.
    He would have no problems getting Clinton and most of the elected democrats in that Seth pool he had going on.

  12. Corosive Frog

    Corosive Frog said, 11 days ago

    I said it before and I say it again; I don’T like any politician being compared to any reilgious figure. Some things should remain sacred.

  13. scottfreitas

    scottfreitasGenius_badge said, 11 days ago

    Finally something I can agree with Frog on.

    America was intended to be under the rule of LAW, not the rule of MEN.

    Making celebrities out of politicians is a bad idea, and both the idiot box and the Demoncrat Party are to blame.

    People who appear on teevee a lot become celebrities in the public’s mind by default. I see no cure for this, other than a sincere Biblical world view (I’m immune to celebrity worship, myself).

    The Demoncrat Party–and specifically FDR–was the first to really play up the politician-as-celebrity angle (JFK later perfected it to an artform). It’s no wonder Hollyweird naturally gravitates towards the Demoncrat Party, they’re both composed of the same species of animal…

    For both of them ,appearances are everything. Style over substance etc

  14. a.c.d

    a.c.d said, 10 days ago

    ^I have one thing to say; Reagan.

  15. scottfreitas

    scottfreitasGenius_badge said, 10 days ago

    Reagan was Substance WITH Style; an extremely rare combination in politics.

    Reagan took substantive measure which led directly to the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Osama flaps his gums about nuclear disarmament, and Iran and North Korea both bust a gut laughing at his Ignobel Piece Prize while watching atoms collide…

  16. 4uk4ata

    4uk4ata said, 9 days ago

    The US has reaped some sour fruit of Reagan’s “substantive measures” though.

    He was a good politician (as a politician, I disagree with much of his platform), but he was lucky to be in the right time with the right people on his and the other side. May he rest in peace.

    Weird cartoon, though.

  17. citynights

    citynightsGenius_badge said, 9 days ago

    scottfreitasGenius_badge said, 5 days ago

    And there were no jobs, and the Demoncrat Congress saw this, and murmured, “This is bad, very bad, let us vote to pay people to NOT work for another twenty weeks, instead..”

    good one scott, except the poor unemployed get 2 letters the first awarding them the extension and the second nullifying it, stating they have not made enough income during the time period to qualify, so congress looks good ….

  18. Bluejayz

    Bluejayz said, 9 days ago

    ANandy said, “That, which is subsidized, increases; unemployment; welfare; entitlements; irresponsible behavior;

    I work at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, helping to clean up the nuclear waste from the cold war. My job and 200 others here are directly attributable to Obama’s stimulus $$$. This area’s economy is expanding and houses sell within weeks. Without the Recovery Act stimulus, I would be unemployed now, but instead, I just bought a house and am still paying taxes.

    ANandy, it seems that all you nay-sayers can do is make broad negative generalizations. Where are your answers to our country’s problems?

  19. Roger

    Roger said, 9 days ago

    All worship the Lord Obamessiah, mmm, mmm, mmmmm!

  20. HOWGOZIT

    HOWGOZIT said, 8 days ago

    Europe wanted a weaker USA, now they have it.

  21. Ken Warren

    Ken Warren said, 8 days ago

    AND THEY HAVE CHENEY/BUSH TO THANK FOR IT!

  22. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, 8 days ago

    hi bueller, not my favorite toon of yours … what’s your commentary here exactly?

  23. bueller

    bueller said, 7 days ago

    Hey, bcs, it’s been awhile -
    I wanted to have some fun with the “jobs created” subject.
    The administration seemed to be ( was …is ) trying to quantify something that didn’t seem to be honestly quantifiable. I have a bigger problem with the ” jobs saved” part of the equation.

    Kind of like the Genesis version of how the world was “created”. Depending on who you debate that with, it
    can’t be proved or disproved either.

    Good to catch up with you, even if it was over on the wrong
    site.

  24. cdward

    cdward said, 5 days ago

    bueller, which version of creation in Genesis? Chapter 1 or Chapter 2? Just like with jobs creation, there’s no one story…

  25. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, 5 days ago

    A literal interpretation of the Genesis account can and has been disproven tens of thousands of times by tens of thousands of people. The only people who dispute that are those who understand neither reason nor evidence.
    Metaphor, on the other hand, I can accept.

  26. parkersinthehouse

    parkersinthehouse said, 4 days ago

    but not faith?

    i’ve often thought – it really doesn’t matter if it’s metaphor or truth – the essence is the same

    it’s the argument that sends people off on gnat’s eyebrows

  27. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, 4 days ago

    Parker: Metaphor IS truth. Just a higher level of truth than literal truth. And the difference makes all the difference; it matters.

    I can accept faith easily. It is belief that I reject.

  28. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 4 days ago

    Not sure that metaphor is a higher level of truth; it is a higher level of abstraction, which is not the same thing. Literal truth is at least easily disprovable, except to those whose faith overwhelms their God-given brains. Hence: two stories of creation, which if taken literally cannot be reconciled.

  29. parkersinthehouse

    parkersinthehouse said, 4 days ago

    you two semantic tricksters keep humoring each other

  30. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, 4 days ago

    C’mon, parker; catch up.

    I spoke in haste, motive. What I meant was that MYTH is the higher level of truth (and myth is one form of metaphor; there are others.) I do not use the word myth as “falsehood” as it has come to mean but as revealing the truths of human experience. The Yahwist and Elohist versions of creation cannot be reconciled as literal fact but certainly can be is seen as two versions of the same metaphor.

  31. NoFearPup

    NoFearPupGenius_badge said, 4 days ago

    Actually, Dr.Canuck…you and your ilk should catch up to 2000 years of Christian debate. You feel like you’ve made some “points” declaring two different versions of Creation, yet they are two perspectives with different emphases and do not cancel each other out. I still can’t understand all the non-Christians who are so busy telling us Christians what we are supposed to know…Yet if the tables were turned; that would be a violation of Church and State. Since you are not God or Jesus and have not demonstrated a knowledge of the material comparable to the knowledge that other Believers from the Reformation and even current day conservative-Biblical scholars have; forgive me if I disregard your existential paranoia.

  32. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, 3 days ago

    I should “catch up,” huh? I have several years of formal study of the 2000 years of Christian debate and am well versed in it from my seminary days. I understand conservative Christians, liberal Christians, non-Christians, and atheists. By your own admission, you “can’t understand non-Christians,” which to you means anyone who is not conservative christian. You are right; you don’t understand. And until you broaden your perspectives such that you CAN understand other points of view, please continue to disregard my comments and stop attacking me with your baseless and ignorant accusations.

  33. NoFearPup

    NoFearPupGenius_badge said, 3 days ago

    You have me confused with somebody else…Your type is very “know”-able.

  34. parkersinthehouse

    parkersinthehouse said, 3 days ago

    thank you no fear - guess i was a little timid

    but next time canuck

    next time church will be over

  35. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, 3 days ago

    Oh no; not the chruch!

    I mean church.