Comments (27) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Buzzy-One said, 2 months ago

   Kick ‘em again, harder, harder. Good cheer huh !

2. 

   boldyuma said, 2 months ago

   Yeah…It’s Bush’s fault..again and again….
   Same tired waxman nostrillitas…horse
   hockey….

3. 

   cabrobst said, 2 months ago

   I’d like to do it literally!

4. 

   dkram said, 2 months ago

   zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

5. 

   fbjsr said, 2 months ago

   aren’t comics supposed to be funny? This is just a repeat of what I see on the news everynight.

6. 

   fogey said, 2 months ago

   Pass it to Dick Chaney! Oh, he’s got his own copy to kick around.

7. 

   Nobody said, 2 months ago

   Get your kicks while you can because come election in 2010, you and your greedy vermin are OUT!

8. 

   Ian Valenzuela said, 2 months ago

   Yeah, when someone tries to burn down your house, you should blame the fireman for not putting it out quick enough, and also for not rebuilding it. Blaming the person who set the fire is just backward thinking.

   Anyway, what I learned from the conservatives and the corporate media during the last administration is that you don’t have to take responsibility for anything that happens in your first term until at least September 12.

9. 

   Radical-Knight said, 2 months ago

   Another career politician and example that there should be congressional term limits. The voters are tired of continual lies and broken promises by failed lawyers seeking congressional and administration office.

10. 

    JmcaRice said, 2 months ago

    why don’t people start voting for the 3rd parties ? this would solve so many problems. Both Dem’s and Rep’s take most voters for granted.

11. 

    GNWachs said, 2 months ago

    Ian, using your analogy the economic problems began with the bank failures and they began with Clinton and sub-prime lending. So in reality Obama is cleaning up after Clinton. But I bet that doesn’t sit too well with you.

12. 

    Ronshua said, 2 months ago

    JmcaRice –The first answer is * The “CHAD” lie only LEFT or RIGHT. * Or is that lay ?

13. 

    mroberts88 said, 2 months ago

    Ian, Clinton got us into this mess. Isnt it time to start blaming someone other than Bush, under Obama, the jobless rate rose.

14. 

    Shaliach said, 2 months ago

    JmcaRice asked: “Why don’t people start voting for the 3rd parties?”

    I’m afraid the oligarchy has us right where they want us. Millions of apathetic, disaffected voters simply choose to stay home on Election Day thus allowing the Demopublicans to take turns raiding the treasury, and eroding our liberties.

    And even if we could find a populist candidate who could win the popular vote, they would still have the daunting challenge of winning the Electoral College.

    Not even the very popular Teddy Roosevelt could successfully wage a third-party challenge in 1912.

    The oligarchs are that entrenched.

15. 

    dkram said, 2 months ago

    Get rid of the Electoral College.
    It was intended to make electing the President possible during the early history of our country.
    The Electoral College is now out date and should be discontinued.

16. 

    mroberts88 said, 2 months ago

    I agree dkram, the Electoral College is very much out of date, it should be one person one vote, not by states.

17. 

    Kees said, 2 months ago

    I agree fully with Dkram and mroberts.
    I have always been flabbergasted about your voting system.
    when we see an election on dutch tv, we hear/see numbers of people that went to vote and at the end you see that all votes go, through a weird and dark mechanism either go to the Dem’s or to the Rep’s.(red or blue puppets, varying in number per state)
    At the end you start huge debates and end up in recounts for 1 or 2 states. If you simply keep the votes as is, you have a real % of who wants who as president.

18. 

    mroberts88 said, 2 months ago

    Its amazing, how unpopular, and how outdated, the Electoral College is, and to see it still used.

    Is anyone else tiring of marktrailerpark? Is he trying to be a stereotype?

19. 

    Shaliach said, 2 months ago

    Kees said: “I have always been flabbergasted about your voting system.”

    The Founding Fathers essentially feared the ignorance of the voters.

    Jefferson warned: If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

    It was expected that a free and independent press would educate and inform the people, but Jefferson lamented that too many newspapers didn’t seem to know the difference between the truth and a lie.

    A more difficult problem was that a regional candidate from a more populous state could effectively ignore the rest of the country and conceivably win the popular vote and the presidency.

    Smaller states protested that flaw which led to the creation of the Electoral College.

    That is how Al Gore beat George W. Bush by half a million votes…and lost the election.

20. 

    Ronshua said, 2 months ago

    I’d take that chance gladly .

21. 

    Radical-Knight said, 2 months ago

    Hi, Mike!

    The main reason to eliminate the electoral college is the redistricting for party dominance so an elector can swing all votes to a party rather than an individual; also the “winner take all” clause.

22. 

    GNWachs said, 2 months ago

    Not to go into the many reasons why an electoral college has accomplished its purpose but for the one and only practical one. You would need the smaller states to agree to any constitutional amendment. May I suggest first you get the congress to pass term limits. You want people to vote against their self interest.

23. 

    rricchhterr said, 2 months ago

    looks like he’s trying to buy time…….

24. 

    Radical-Knight said, 2 months ago

    The electorial college can only votes Blue or Red thanks to how it works.

25. 

    Shaliach said, 2 months ago

    GNWachs said: “May I suggest first you get the congress to pass term limits.”

    The Founding Fathers decided that a person only meet the requirements of age, citizenship and residency to serve in the United States Congress.

    This was debated at the Constitutional Convention and within the Federalist papers.

    Their reasoning was based on the restrictive and exclusive nature of British parliamentary rules.

    To deny a person the right to vote for the candidate of their choice was to deny their sovereignty as a free citizen.

    If I like my representative, the thinking goes, then I should be able to vote for that person again and again.

    James Madison argued at the Federal Convention:

    …limitations can by degrees subvert the Constitution.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers:

    The qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen, as has been remarked upon other occasions, are defined and fixed in the Constitution, and are unalterable by the legislature.

    Madison concluded:

    A Republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy if we limit those capable of being elected.

    Oligarchy? Sounds like the definition of modern democracies.

26. 

    mroberts88 said, 2 months ago

    GNW, with the Electoral College, the majority doesnt neccesarily elect the president, it goes by state. It seems to me, that it should be who the majority want.

27. 

    mroberts88 said, 2 months ago

    Satipera, I agree, individuals votes dont really matter.