Prickly City by Scott Stantis

Prickly City

Comments (15) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Darsan54

    Darsan54 said, over 1 year 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 1 year 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, over 1 year 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, over 1 year 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, over 1 year 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. katey11

    katey11 said, over 1 year 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.

  7. Darsan54

    Darsan54 said, over 1 year 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.

  8. JimA759

    JimA759 said, over 1 year 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)..

  9. Darsan54

    Darsan54 said, over 1 year 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.

  10. bpullin

    bpullin said, over 1 year 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.

  11. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 1 year 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.

  12. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 1 year ago

    @Darsan54

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

  13. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 1 year ago

    If you want real term limits, and the best people then you need to treat them like someone with $20,000 a year and no privileges. They lose financially but gain in hard work. I mean only one secretary per and they have to do the research and read what they type up. So no more thousands of pages that they may know a a rundown of. And only the dedicated ones would stay.

  14. John Robillard

    John Robillard GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @swr

    Europe is a big place with many countries. At least in Sweden everyone is registered just by reason of their existence. Before each election I get a letter in the mail saying which elections I get to vote in, where the polling place is and how to vote early. We vote on weekends so missing work is rarely a problem. Never had to dip my finger in purple ink.

  15. KPOM

    KPOM said, over 1 year 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.

  16. Refresh Comments.