Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling

Tom the Dancing BugNo Zoom

Comments (30) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. pschearer

    pschearer GoComics PRO Member said, over 5 years ago

    What’s valuable about Original Intent is not that it was the Founding Fathers’ but that their ideas of limited government were better than the “living Constitution” baloney we get today.

    As for Thomas’ disclosure forms, it’s news to me. Details! I want details, not just innuendo.

  2. MisngNOLA

    MisngNOLA said, over 5 years ago

    Yeah, psc, that seems to be the main thing so many people miss, that the Constitution was mostly about limiting the powers of government, not limiting the freedoms of the people.

  3. Ian Rey

    Ian Rey said, over 5 years ago

    Ruben Bolling, you are awesomeness defined. Judge Scalia is the best character in your strip. Misng, I applaud your defense of personal freedom and limited government; I presume that means that the government should not limit the ability of people to marry who they want to? PSC, it’s hardly innuendo; Justice Thomas filed amended disclosure forms yesterday. If that’s news to you, that means that whatever source of information you have been using is ipso facto not news.

  4. jedraft

    jedraft said, over 5 years ago

    Which is one reason why the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments were passed in the first place - because the state governments had taken it on themselves to limit citizenship and suffrage. On the other hand, it must be a living document because times and technology change - in our own case, drastically, which is what Tom’s point is, I believe. Our own idea of freedom itself is different from that of the rich, white, educated elites who came up with the Constitution. America already had a diverse population in the eighteenth century, but only a minority of the adults could directly influence the law, or the enforcement of it.

  5. John  Glynn

    John Glynn GoComics PRO Member said, over 5 years ago

    I find Bolling’s “Anti-Chicago-ism” is starting to affect his work.

  6. aircraft-engineer

    aircraft-engineer said, over 5 years ago

    The discussion about Madison is misplaced.

    Development of improved weapons wouldn’t have affected Madison - it was technology evolving. The concept back then was that the citizenry was empowered to come together and fight together as a “militia” and not be encumbered by laws restricting that same ability to gather together for mutual defense in “times of need”. Taking the 2nd amendment to an extreme, the “right” to own any firearm as seemingly allowed by the 2nd amendment would seem to prohibit firearm restrictions at the state or local level, but what it DOES NOT restrict is that same state/ local entity from TAXING those weapons. Nothing says you can’t OWN a gun, just says that you have to pay a “fee” for that right (no fee, no ownership -just that simple) Then they make avoidance of the fee (through not possessing the “tax statement”) a crime in its own right.

    So within reason, the government could allow virtually any weapon capable of being carried (BY HAND) on a sliding scale of fee relative to its lethality. Then tax the sellers at the gun sales by making them require that a BUYER have proof of having PAID THE FEE TO BUY THE WEAPON.

    Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Tell the NRA to chew on that one for a while.

  7. Christopher Shea

    Christopher Shea said, over 5 years ago

    Yes, Justice Thomas’s corruption would probably be “news to you” if all you watch is Fox. The rest of us heard about it weeks ago.

    I know I forget to report $700,000 of my wife’s income all the time.

  8. junco49

    junco49 said, over 5 years ago

    Chris: Parts of your link caused formatting changes. Underscores need to be preceded by a backslash in order to be properly translated. They otherwise toggle italics.

    Correct link is:

    BTW I learned this just yesterday.

  9. icky mung-mung

    icky mung-mung said, over 5 years ago

    If Scalia ran the NBA every time someone accidentally banked in a shot it would not count (if original intent was not to bank the shot, yes?). Also, I couldn’t go to the store without making clear my Original Intent and sticking to it: if I make an impulse purchase I should be unceremoniously tossed out! Wow, Judge Scalia, your Original Intent has implications quite beyond your, ahem, Original Intent.

  10. SmokyStover

    SmokyStover said, over 5 years ago

    Did you know? In Bush v Gore, the 5 justices who stopped the recount in Florida declared in their ruling that they were against states rights, a position that they strongly held in all their opinions prior to and after Bush v Gore? That the Bush v Gore ruling was the most activist ruling ever made by the Supreme Court and that the so-called “originalist” Scalia played an extremely activist role? Did you also know that Sandra Day O’Connor should have recused herself because there were at least 2 instances where she stated publicly that she wanted Bush to win and would fix it so that the outcome was correct? She wanted to retire but did not want to be replaced with a nominee from a democratic president. Wake up conservative dupes! Scalia and his thugs are fooling you.

  11. NoBrandName

    NoBrandName said, over 5 years ago

    Sorry, jimjammer, I’m not seeing your point about “there has to be bounds set.” If all the people involved are willing participants, what’s the problem? If the bag of sand, for that matter, has legal status and gives its consent, what’s the problem?

  12. OtisIzaltumuch

    OtisIzaltumuch said, over 5 years ago

    The guy who hadn’t heard the news about Clarence Thomas also needs to read some history – the main impetus for the Constitution was to strengthen the new federal government, not to limit it.

  13. icky mung-mung

    icky mung-mung said, over 5 years ago

    Who gives two shakes of a tail about gay marriage? Who would deny an expansion of civil rights to millions of citizens based on what, exactly? Religion? Fear? The idea of “should we let them” has an imperial ring to it. Conservatives invoke the idea of “the sanctity of marriage” but never introduce legislation to outlaw divorce, and divorce is the nail in the cross of marriage. When gay marriage is legal conservatives will have to find another enemy to get people whipped up over. Pathetic.

  14. hugh_jainus

    hugh_jainus said, over 5 years ago

    Icky wrote: “Who gives two shakes of a tail about gay marriage?”

    Answer: I do. And thanks for asking.

    Just because you live in a state that won’t allow you to marry your boy friend doesn’t mean you have to get all bent outta shape! Move to Hawaii dude! I hear they’ve caved and allow it now. Sick.

    And like Jim says above: what if a gay dude wants to marry one gay guy from every state in the union! Fifty gay guys all married to each other at once! Would that be ok??! Or, do you still say: “who gives two shakes??!”

    Get a grip dude! Liberalism is a mental disease.

  15. icky mung-mung

    icky mung-mung said, over 5 years ago

    hugh_jainus: You recapitulate an argument that no one who is serious is making, and you make it sloppily to boot (and somewhat tellingly you only mention “guys, as if women don’t exist). The “what if 50 gays in 50 states…” extrapolation only works if your panties are in a proverbial bunch. Lastly, not knowing me you state that I want to marry my boyfriend (my wife might protest that one). Get some experience in the world, and treat others as you would be treated: gays have been genetically tested and appear to be human beings, worthy of the same respect and dignity that you are. Turn off the radio, stop lapping up manipulated propagand concerning “liberal/conservative” constructs and maybe your heart and mind will start talking to each other again.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (15).