Prickly City by Scott Stantis

Prickly City

Recommended

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    AAAAAAAH, term limits – there’s a con game!!

    And yes, we actually elect our government, so we sorta get what we earned. But, instead finding ways to make the elections easier, more honest and open, the prescribed method now is to change the voting laws to make the practice more restrictive and suppress turnout.

    It’s sad for both sides.

  2. simpsonfan2

    simpsonfan2 said, 9 months ago

    We have term limits in Los Angeles, and at the California state level too. So do a lot of places. We tried to do it with Congress, but can’t. It would have to be on a national level to make all states equal.

    So far only the President is subject to the term limits.

  3. akwolffan

    akwolffan said, 9 months ago

    @simpsonfan2

    And the prez is limited only because of FDR. The GOP was really, really, REALLY torqued out that he got elected four times. (They still are…) And, actually, he really shouldn’t have run that last time, he was too sick. But not sick enough to beat the Reps like a big bass drum.

    And then the first prez after him who could have been elected three times was… Ronnie Raygun. Oops. Looks like a self-inficlted wound. Ouch. That stings.

  4. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, 9 months ago

    @Darsan54

    Actually, term limits are a good idea. That way, politicians could actually do what is good for the country rather than just looking to buy the next election. That is why the idea would not go anywhere in congress.

  5. 42Irish

    42Irish said, 9 months ago

    @akwolffan

    Sorry wolfie that was a DEMOCRAT controlled congress that initiated that amendment. Though several DEMOCRAT congressmen have over the years submitted bills to repeal the 22nd amendment. History books are such an inconvenience, aren’t they wolfie?

  6. swr

    swr said, 9 months ago

    @Darsan54

    we have them for the president and many states have them for governers why not for members, I suggest 18 years of total government work, inclusive of state and federal level and staff of same. time to know the ropes but not be totally bought off by big interests.
    and our elections are already the easiest in the world, most countries even in Europe required photo id, and measues to prevent double voting. think purple fingers.
    and actually I would go back to some foundational requriments from both the US and Switzerland, the other long term republic in the world.
    you most prove you own property and have paid more in taxes then you get back and prove you possess appropriate firearms and equipment to serve in the local militia including proof of proficance.

  7. swr

    swr said, 9 months ago

    @akwolffan

    reread your history, his last two were not blowouts but quite close, he only won the last time because he ran against the 1940’s version of John McCain. and even then just barely.

  8. swr

    swr said, 9 months ago

    in addition to term limit I would add Glenn Reynolds suggestion of a post government service tax. if you go into lobbying, join a law firm advising on government regulation, or a major financial firm your employer would be subject to a tax of 50-80% of your salary over you last government paycheck.

  9. katey11

    katey11 said, 9 months ago

    We have term limits for House & Senate in Missouri. Just when someone figures out what the issues are – they’re out. Of course, lobbyists are glad to help them figure out how to vote.

  10. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    @Tax Man

    I live in Michigan where it has failed miserably. There isn’t time for legislators to gain experience and then they rely HEAVILY on lobbyists and party officials. They also aren’t there long enough to really effect policy so we are turning it over to unelected interests. This myth about being “pure” is unworkable. What we really need is voting reform to expand rather than suppress the rights of the people.

  11. JimA759

    JimA759 said, 9 months ago

    @42Irish

    I’m pretty sure that it was a Republican House and Senate in 1947 when the amendment passed Congress and went to the states for ratification. The 1946 election was a 57 member swing in the House (going from something like 242-191 Dem to 185-248 REP)..

  12. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    @swr

    So you want to go back to the landed gentry voting only policies? The firearms is an absolutely unworkable and (sorry) ridiculous requirement. We live in very different times.
    Instead we should have mandatory voting like Australia where are legally required to. Also ID are not an unreasonable requirement, but as they are presently being demanded, the lack of preparation and limited access is suppressing votes not increasing. The ID process should be given enough time to enact properly and supplied by the public sector. And elections should be publicly financed with no private sector money allowed, then you wouldn’t get officials bought and paid for.

  13. bpullin

    bpullin said, 9 months ago

    The argument against IDs is bogus. People in this country are required to show photo ID for : buying tobacco; buying alcohol; writing a check; getting a library card; boarding an airplane. I am sure that those who claim they would be disenfranchised buy smokes and alcohol on a regular basis and already have some form of photo ID.

  14. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 9 months ago

    @bpullin

    The ID’s the Cons want are new ones. The people they are after have ID’s already. They know the are generally poor, and vote Democrat.

  15. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 9 months ago

    @Darsan54

    The white landed gentry are The People our founders were talking about.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).