Michael Ramirez by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Recommended

Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    O he so funny, there is no way he could have know it was going on right under his nose, in more bureaucracies than just the IRS. I mean it is not like his Saul Alinsky style of the Community Organizer in Chief calls for such tactics by his minions.

  2. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, 11 months ago

    I don’t think the class of 2013 is going to earn enough money to pay taxes.

  3. cwsprague

    cwsprague said, 11 months ago

    @Genome Project

    I KNEW IT!!!! IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!!!!

  4. jack75287

    jack75287 said, 11 months ago

    @David

    Rahm Emmanual, Holder, Cass Sunstein regulatory Czar, Todd Stern of the Kyoto treaty, John Holdren who advocates force abortion, China anyone, Mark Lloyd of the FCC. Here are a few of his comments on the first amendment:

    “It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.

    “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references”

    to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination

    of other communications policies. “[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect

    global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

    Come on boy you make it to easy.

  5. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, 11 months ago

    I challenge you to lay off the meme’s. They don’t add to your argument, and only detract from it.

    It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

    Mark Lloyd

    The second quote is from a book named Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America. The quote in context is basically how the author (Mark Lloyd) believes how through the judicial system corporations have used the 1st Amendment to erode at the Democracy we have. But it’s based on his slanted view that (as quoted above) the 1st Amendment must be limited in the furthering of “appropriateness.”

    So we’re back to the argument of how do we come to the appropriate balance between individual freedoms and liberties, and social benefit. The problem we see with this current administration, is they appear to be wielding their powers as a cudgel against those who wish to speak out against him, and his warped sense of “speaking out against him” is against the best interests of society.

    Again, we are seeing shadows of what’s going on, but those shadows don’t bode well.

  6. D PB

    D PB said, 11 months ago

    LOL, Google is your friend, if you truly want to confirm what is presented.
    But I doubt you do, it would force you to confront your slanted POV.

  7. snarky39

    snarky39 said, 11 months ago

    @Wraithkin

    There is no “balance between individual freedoms and liberties, and social benefit”. The foundations of this nation rest on the precept that the freedom and liberty of the individual is paramount.

  8. neuturn

    neuturn said, 11 months ago

    It is amusing that he actually would have used a phrase similar to this and have it come to fruition. Can anyone say for certainty that those at the top were not told to overlook these practices (look into the Tea Party) in order to protect the 2 party system and was later given the opportunity to widen the spectrum under the new administration? It would not be new for the 2 party system to try and keep control of things. Also, corruption knows no boundaries. So it would not matter who appointed who, as some would suggest. To keep your job you might want to do as you are told. (Lest ye be audited too)

  9. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 11 months ago

    Which would you rather go through: an Internal Revenue audit, or a trip to Guantanamo? If you’re going to fear the government, be reasonable about it. The PATRIOT act and NDAA are far more heinous than anything Internal Revenue has done or can do.

  10. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, 11 months ago

    @snarky39

    I would agree with you in principle, but in practice is where we diverge. When one freedom (speech) infringes on another (life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness), which one is right?

    That’s the basis of decisions where shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st Amendment. Why? Because you are endangering other people by causing a stampede and someone may die (right of life). There’s also a reason perjuring yourself on the stand is considered a crime, because your lie (still under 1st amendment, right?) is violating someone else’s right to liberty.

    So it’s always a tenuous balance between freedoms/liberties and protecting society. And that’s why we, as the citizens of this country, are responsible for keeping an eye on the government (which is the Press’ job). And when they toe or cross the line and infringe on our liberties, we call them on it. Just like we’re doing now.

    And that’s what makes the IRS Issue and the AP phone record seizure so chilling: We have organizations that are trying to be the watchdogs of government, and they are being subjected to unusual investigation or persecution because they are trying to do their jobs.

  11. Fuzzy Thinker (I)

    Fuzzy Thinker (I) GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    @Genome Project

    “… the head of the IRS when this started was a Bush appointee…” you seem to be implying that the right hand knew what the left hand was doing. When we get a list of those going to jail- lets ask them who they voted for in the last two elections.
    I expect them to say ’Heil, Obama".

  12. bobwinners

    bobwinners GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    Targeting the wrong group, Mike. The newly graduated are quite intelligent and open minded these days. And the get the news from all over the place. You just can’t stack the deck any more.

  13. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, 11 months ago

    @DrCanuck

    They weren’t being audited. They were being required to fill out forms and meet requirements that were unreasonable and unrealistic. “Detail every mention of your organization’s reference in the media.” In the internet age, that’s impossible to do. But that’s a requirement here.

    I don’t disagree that they are likely acting as political committees, but singling out a group for deeper review because of their name (anything with Tea Party, or 9/12 in it), or their mission charter (To enhance awareness and understanding of the US Constitution) smacks of inappropriate targeting and an attempt to bully the opposition into silence. While it may not have been at Obama’s direction, it certainly smacks of Chicago-style politics.

  14. jack75287

    jack75287 said, 11 months ago

    Well here you go Dyce. http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/

    But at the look at some of the responses I am a little late.

  15. trm

    trm said, 11 months ago

    @DrCanuck

    You’re right. There were the multiple occasions back in the 90’s when Clintoon used IRS audits to harass his political enemies.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (7).