Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   HUMPHRIES said, over 4 years ago

   And some people are surprised.
2. 

   believecommonsense said, over 4 years ago

   and if there was a bridge across the chasm, the Reps would cut it loose once he stepped on it … just gotta laugh listening to some of them now claim FDR’s presidencies were a failure Reps, sit down, be quiet and turn over your last five years of income tax filings to a nonpartisan auditor ….
3. 

   HUMPHRIES said, over 4 years ago

   bcs, but FDR presidency was a failure to the Republicans … they weren’t able to establish an aristocracy
4. 

   claudermilk said, over 4 years ago

   Funny, seems like Obama tried to meet in the middle. The other side refused. No compromise works that way, and “it’s my way or the highway” doesn’t cut it, especially when that side lost the election. Time for some people to catch a clue before the ship sinks. To continue that analogy, it seems like some people aren’t content with simply rearranging the deck chairs, they feel they have to throw them overboard, and poke bigger holes in the hull.
5. 

   Anthony 2816 said, over 4 years ago

   The next step for the Republicans should be for them to apologize to the nations.
6. 

   HUMPHRIES said, over 4 years ago

   ANandy, do you ever think or do you just mumble as you stumble along. This is noted due to lack of any contructive criticism coming out of you.
7. 

   Dana said, over 4 years ago

   I hate politics though I love political cartoons and this one is FUNNY !!!
8. 

   believecommonsense said, over 4 years ago

   AnAndy, moving us toward energy efficiency and away from dependence on foreign oil is not kowtowing to a special interest; construction/repair of our crumbing infrastructure is not kowtowing to a special interest; building modernized science labs in schools is not kowtowing to a special interest (for goodness sake we know we’re way behind other industrialized countries in math and science) kowtowing to special interests would be enacting additional tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful beyond what Bush already gifted them; kowtowing to special interests would be allowing business to contribute even less tax revenue to the country that has allowed them to accumulate unimaginable wealth through legal and ethical means and even more wealth through means not so legal and ethical guess what? the working people of this country are NOT special interests
9. 

   HUMPHRIES said, over 4 years ago

   Once again, nonsense and insult … the answer for everything.
10. 

    believecommonsense said, over 4 years ago

    AnAndy, we most definitely do not have as much oil reserves as any nation on earth! and reducing the NEED for energy via more fuel-efficient vehicles moves us toward energy independence and thus greater security … oh, why bother responding … i leave you with a quote: “You’re entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own FACTS.” have a nice one …
11. 

    motivemagus said, over 4 years ago

    ANandy - When petroleum was first discovered in Pennsylvania, it oozed out of the ground. Now we are having to go offshore and dig deep wells to get what is left, and pump stuff into the remaining wells on the land to force out every last drop of oil. It’s getting so much more expensive that there are companies getting ready to exploit the “shale sands” of Canada, which means basically squeezing oil out of rock. No one was interested before because it isn’t worth it until oil goes past $50 a barrel. We’re back just below that for the moment, but that won’t last. Our oil reserves are by no means the match of other countries, if only because we’ve been draining them longer; furthermore, our use of them is far outstripping any possible drilling we could do. If we did drill in ANWR, it would last us six months at our current rate. Big deal. If we can get rid of that oil dependency, we can take back our economy and cripple the Arabs who funded bin Laden. Isn’t that worth doing?
12. 

    claudermilk said, over 4 years ago

    mm: You typed my thoughts. Anyone who’s actually done an iota of research knows that.

    Now, guys: stop feeding the troll. ;)
13. 

    Simon_Jester said, over 4 years ago

    Old legodad:

    First, that is an OPINION piece, from a hard right website, and one that I never heard of until now. Any time an editorialist starts throwing the word ‘Liberal’ around like a curse-word and speaking his OPINIONS as a fact, I know I’m not being dealt a fair hand…and that’s exactly what happened here. “The Liberals want the Fairness Doctrine back because they see talk radio as threat to their power base.” ( paraphrasing )

    Says WHO besides the author of that piece? Render unto me a frinkin’ break here.

    But I’ll go with it anyway. There’s one, huge, fatal flaw in his argument. If the Fairness Doctrine comes back, it will by it’s very nature, cut both ways. Not only will it affect RIGHT-WING talk radio, but also the ‘Mainstream Liberal Media’ conservatives are always complaining about.

    Why would you have a problem with that? Unless deep down, you know what us ‘durty traiturr libs’ know…that there IS no Liberal bias in the Mainstream Media

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/28/cable-news-stimulus/

    And last but not least…wrong cartoon. My reply about the Fairness Doctrine was to David Horsey’s last ‘toon, not Carlson’s.
14. 

    danielsangeo said, over 4 years ago

    OldLego’s article also rests on an enormous falsehood for its foundation:

    The Fairness Doctrine does NOT muzzle dissent. It MANDATES it. Right now, the right-wing is muzzling dissenters by claiming that left-wing talk radio can’t work.

    There’s station after station that has dumped liberal talk radio…most which had extremely high ratings and the formats they switched to moved the station to the bottom of the barrel. Even though they got their licenses to use the PUBLIC airwaves for the “common good” (what is the “common good” about Michael Savage’s bigoted remarks, I’ll never know, but I digress), and they’re not doing it.

    I think they’re scared of the Fairness Doctrine, to be honest. Scared that, if the liberals had a level playing field in talk radio, the conservatives will lose. So, they MUST muzzle dissenting viewpoints. They MUST ensure that the liberal stations have weak signals that go out when a strong gust of wind blows.

    The Fairness Doctrine disallows that. For both sides.

    The article writer wonders why the “main stream media” is so liberal without the Fairness Doctrine. There might be a reason for that…
15. 

    Simon_Jester said, over 4 years ago

    Yes danielsangeo.

    And one more thing.

    There is a reason why they call them the PUBLIC airwaves….coz that’s who owns them.
16. Load the rest of the comments (7).