Pat Oliphant by Pat Oliphant

Pat Oliphant

Comments (21) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. db

    db said, 11 months ago

    Yeah, led by El Presidente Obama.

  2. Enoki

    Enoki said, 11 months ago

    Right beside the Democrat train wreck train tracks too!

  3. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    Bananarepublicans are the bane of the country.

  4. Ruff

    Ruff GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    Oh my, what beautiful artwork…

  5. chayasnana

    chayasnana said, 11 months ago


    wasradar, I wish you would read your comments over before posting them. You don’t make any sense at all. First you say that Obama is only 1/3 of the government, them you blame the whole mess on him. And the last sentence is completely incoherent.

  6. spyderred

    spyderred GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    Right on. For anyone not getting the allusion, look at

  7. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago


    Some contrast in tone would have been nice, I’m thinking (and Oliphant’s certainly capable of using contrast to great effect, when he chooses).

  8. emptc12

    emptc12 said, 11 months ago

    I hate to butcher one of my favorite songs, but this might serve as a theme for the present situation —
    “It’s All in the Game”
    Many a tear has to fall
    But it’s all in the game,
    All in the wonderful shame
    That we know as Guv.
    John has tough words with Barack
    And our future’s looking very dark.
    But these things they must rise above.
    Once in a while there’s a verbal brawl
    But it’s all in the game.
    Soon they’re on TV side by side
    With a Rose Garden word bouquet,
    Phony smiles on stiffened lips,
    And brush each other’s fingertips
    And this mess will fly away.
    (until another day!)
    Irrelevant note: I sometimes consider “It’s All in the Game” as the Cliff’s Notes version of “Liebestod” in Wagner’s TRISTAN UND ISOLDE. It says everything that needs to be said in a much shorter time, and as an added bonus nobody dies in the end.

  9. emptc12

    emptc12 said, 11 months ago


    Thanks, but I thought that had unfortunate connotations.
    I respect your opinions in everything you write, although I don’t always agree with them. You have earnest heat that reminds me of Thomas Paine. We are probably alike in many ways. Like you, I wish I had more time to reconsider and edit.
    So please take my following comment with the good spirit it was intended. I find it increasingly difficult to make my motives clear and do not want to offend anyone. So many times I am shocked that people take things the wrong way. I really believe knowledge is the sunshine of the mind and we should communicate our ideas for continual review with others.

  10. decimuscaelius

    decimuscaelius said, 11 months ago


  11. TheTrustedMechanic

    TheTrustedMechanic GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago


    You do realize that the reTHUGlicans are holding this country hostage because they don’t like a CONSTITUTIONALLY ENACTED law, right? Clad you should bring up the 3 branches of government. One branch said to another branch, I want this, please draft the legislation for me to sign. So the Legislative branch drafted the PPACA after FOURTEEN months of deliberation. The Executive then signed the PPACA making it law. But the republiCONs still aren’t happy that the law was passed exactly as the founding fathers allowed for. So they whined and cried and had the Judicial branch rule it Constitutional and the republicans still can’t get it through their thick skulls, this law is constitutional, was passed according to law and is the law.
    Legislative branch – drafted and passed the legislation
    Executive branch – signed the legislation into law.
    Judicial branch – reviewed the law and ruled it constitutional.
    All three branches weighed in all three branches agreed. It’s the law, what can’t the reDUMBlicans understand about that?

  12. emptc12

    emptc12 said, 11 months ago


    I appreciate your latest flow of consciousness, and know what you mean about typing fingers going off on their own. I am very bad for that. Please realize that you pose overall an interesting question and my comment will be mostly for my own benefit, to discover what I think (at least for now). I will probably fail to have you agree with me. I am in no way trying to make fun of you or your ideals. (Already I am sounding pompous.) As my grandfather liked to say in his idiomatic broken English, I tell you true.
    I’m trying to imagine who your ideal person for president would be, out of those now in public view. Every person I see has some lack or flaw that disqualifies him according to your list. I don’t think a human yet exists that would meet all your specifications, especially if it’s a lawyer or a big businessman (my admitted prejudice). Would a divorced person be ineligible? How about sexual matters – how would compliance to “ideals” be verified? Is there any person ever elected president who was so perfect? Maybe the Ten Commandments are a big stumbling block here – are they absolute, or subject to modification according to circumstance?
    Even the so-called Founding Fathers had personal flaws that might make them un-electable today, mostly to do with their class distinctions and wealth, I suppose – they were aristocrats, after all. I think you inevitably infer a Saint or the Savior Himself to be the best choice (but I don’t think they’d want the job!). Such unrealistic expectations are rhetorically impressive but don’t serve a useful purpose, in fact are damaging for adults functioning in a real world. As an analogy, if people waited thus to find the perfect mate, hardly anyone would marry. So why do we over-think this presidential selection thing? I think it appeals to our tribal instincts.
    And in general, I respectfully suggest you beg the question very often with Obama. You exhaustively list all the things you personally think he is not and think the matter is settled. Has he no good points at all? Even if many people agree with you, many other people would strongly disagree in certain regards, or at least quibble with many of your interpretations and judgments. .
    You must grant that an imperfect being will get the job. I think that candidates, instead of listing inflated, questionable qualifications, trying to convince people how perfect they are, should instead candidly admit their personal flaws and tell with whom they will work – from whatever party — to make up for their deficiencies. Even kings have advisers and secretaries – even the Pope has earthly guidance.
    That has become the false mystique about the American presidency, I think – that he or she can be all things to all people: It’s impossible, especially in this era when people have artificially high expectations. Consumerism has tainted everything. Tricky psychological advertising techniques have slopped over into politics, and are irresistibly misused. I think our founders would be appalled and humiliated to see things as they are. We have by small increments veered gradually far off track. (Even analogies such as that are very dated, and are they suitable, anymore?) The job of President might be too big for one person, and maybe it’s time to re-define it to the present reality.
    Personally, I don’t think at this point we would accept an ordinary person in the role of president. Everything about a person is investigated, displayed publicly, and subject to imperfect interpretation. I think people secretly yearn for a Monarchy, or many monarchs according to regional interests so they can stop having to think and make decisions so often. We might be seeing that right now, as a matter of fact. Our squabbles, it seems to me, are slick political calculations and posturing that purport to show democracy in action. Should it be THIS messy, with no yield to compromise?
    Often I despair. Maybe the U.S. is too big, and should be divided up officially as it seems to be heading now, anyway. I realize now I secretly have the elegant hope that one person or group of people would benignly stop that from happening.
    Thanks for your time.

  13. TheTrustedMechanic

    TheTrustedMechanic GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago


    “Also, wasn’t barry AGAINST raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator? Yea, that was him. He said it was UNPATRIOTIC who ole W did and now his highness has redoubled W’s debt (not to mention Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Adams et al)”
    I guess I have to spank you with the truth and facts too, since you guys refuse to admit the truth.
    Inauguration of W debt was $5.728 trillion
    Inauguration of Obama debt was $10.627 trillion or an increase by bush of $4.899 trillion.
    As of 9/30/12 debt stood at $16.823 trillion or a increase of $4.913 trillion.
    President Obama has not doubled bushy’s debt. If you count the budgets each president was responsible for Bush increased the debt by $6.104 trillion. When you factor in the cost all of baby bush’s forays, policies, wars and legacies you can add at least another $2.5-3 trillion. So though his own administration and the costs he left to the following administration(s) george W bush is responsible for more of the nation’s debt than ALL other presidents combined.
    But regardless of the nuances, the raw data proves you wrong.

  14. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    ypoons: nice to know you don’t want Ted Cruz getting anywhere near the White House, even for lunch, with that list you came up with. BTW, might look at Ted’s dad and his little group that wants a theocracy in America. I think the Constitution in Article Six, and in the First Amendment, has a slight problem with that view!

  15. TheTrustedMechanic

    TheTrustedMechanic GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago


    You are SO right. Sadly I find it irresistible to try sometimes. Does no good as my second comment illustrates, no matter how many times you present facts and figures, no matter how many times you repeat the truth, some people would rather wallow in their ignorance than elevate themselves to enlightenment because it would require them to challenge their party provided talking points. It’s easier for them to let their party tell them what to think, or to use their vernacular, it’s easier to let mommy party give them handouts than it is to actually work for their beliefs and ideas.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (6).