Member since May 31, 2011
This user has no shared collections.
View More Collections
Why don't you go browse some
and pick a few to favorite?
commented on Robert Ariail
about 20 hours ago
The sad part is the cuts aren’t in the right places because no congressmen would dare cut a useless pet project that might mean less jobs. Instead they cut benefits for survivors and veterans. I agree military cuts should happen. I also agree that once again big government gets in the way. Spending authority needs to be given to those who actually know what the military needs – the military commanders.
commented on Matt Wuerker
9 days ago
That’s certainly relevant. But what this tells me that Democrat interests simply have more politicians in their pockets. Although I think all politicians should be forthcoming on where their real interests lie. I think that would be interesting is how little effect this would have on voting. Those who vote for Democrats would expect more donors from environmental and union lobbyists and Republicans from pro-business, gun and religious groups. And I think their constituents would prefer it that way too.
While I love the idea and the comments. I find it ironic that the comic features what’s presumably a Republican congressman when it’s Democrats who would be most affected by this. They receive far more contributions from groups/PACs and corporations than Republicans. Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php
commented on Henry Payne
10 days ago
Sign-ups also mean “those who put their info in the website.” Not necessarily those who clicked buy or worse, paid. Hard to pay when the back-end is still missing that key element. But don’t worry about the poor insurance companies, it’s written into the law the tax payers will bail them out no matter the cause, albeit bad implementation, bad management or malfeasance.
commented on Santa vs. Dracula
about 1 month ago
Great art, Ed and Melissa. Fantastic detail.
commented on Steve Benson
3 months ago
Please cite your sources. You use the absolutes when I have yet to see concrete examples of any that you spout..“…wanting government to enforce their religious, moral,…” I’ve attended meetings where the leader said welcome, then explained their strictly about fiscal responsibility and returning the U.S. to the principles of the Constitution. Any social ideology needed to be left at the door.
“… who literally want the poor to starve to death…” First, learn what the word literally means. Unless you meant literally in which case I think you’d find that person would be out of a job next election. Most Tea Partiers I know see a need for public safety nets. We just disagree with how they’re run, ever expanding, and hugely bureaucratic and expensive. Did you know they advertise food stamps now with the premise “If you’re not on food stamps, you’re a fool.” Is this right?
“it’s my opinion that people embrace the TP politics out of mixed combinations of ignorance, bigotry, hatred, and anger.” And you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but as one who is none of those yet identify with the Tea Party, and who know many who identify with the tea party and are none of those, I ask for your personal experiences with Tea Partiers that support this. Perhaps it’s local, but I’ve attended meetings and rallies in Florida and Wisconsin, both hot beds of political activity, and I experienced none of those things. I would walk away if I did.
commented on Paul Szep
3 months ago
“No better job available…”. How about 3 million. Employers are desperate for hard-working skilled laborers. My brother’s boss says he’s willing to train and hire anyone who’s willing to show up consistently. http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2013/07/u-s-unemployment-three-million-jobs-are-waiting-to-be-filled/
commented on Scott Stantis
3 months ago
commented on Joe Heller
4 months ago
I’m a big enough man to admit I was wrong about the first sentence. I was inferring facts not in evidence based on something I read. That said, I still challenge you to look for hold-up in time it takes to confirm a nominee under this regime versus the last. Also, it still doesn’t change my main point that the Democrats change the rules, and then complain about it when Republicans use them. it’s horrifying that what was supposed to be a check-and-balance measure against the ruling party has been reduced to essentially nothing as the majority can just vote it away. Horrifying that it was abused and that it was done away with..And 2nd, when the time comes that the Republicans are the majority in the Senate and vote to cloture all Democrat filibusters, how quickly will the Dems will cry foul?
The filibuster system was designed to give the minority party a voice and allow them to prevent the worst of legislation. It was supposed to be used in times of desperation and would stop any other legislation from being passed until the issue was resolved. Filibuster changes in recent decades have made them far less painless and easier to both implement without political repercussions and to break. Last decade the Dems have used the filibuster far more and blocked many more appointments than the Repubs did under Obama. Nominees have passed much quicker under Obama then under Bush when the Dems were the minority. So, in conclusion, the Republicans played by the same rules – the rules the Democrats enacted – just less often. And in the future, minority parties will have even less recourse to “bad” legislation. This will, of course, mean when it’s the Republicans turn, the Democrats will no recourse but to accept it. Right?
Copyright © 2014. Universal Uclick, All rights reserved.