Prickly City by Scott Stantis

Prickly City

Comments (9) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years 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, over 3 years 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. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, over 3 years ago


    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.

  4. 42Irish

    42Irish said, over 3 years ago

    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?

  5. katey11

    katey11 said, over 3 years 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.

  6. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years 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.

  7. JimA759

    JimA759 said, over 3 years ago


    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)..

  8. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    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.

  9. KPOM

    KPOM said, over 3 years ago

    @akwolffan, had Reagan been elected to a third term we’d have had a president succumbing to Alzheimer’s.

    Term limits are a good idea at all levels of government. The biggest reason is that no one should accumulate that much power, whether over a country, state, city, or school board. No one wants to challenge an entrenched incumbent because the people on the “in” have too much at risk. Ideally pols would be limited to 2 terms in any office.

  10. Refresh Comments.