Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling

Tom the Dancing Bug

Comments (21) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. mrbribery

    mrbribery said, almost 4 years ago


  2. Randy_B

    Randy_B GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Yeah, that’s the code. He’s a scary, scary black man.

  3. Bailey

    Bailey said, almost 4 years ago

    Color is a vewwwwy scawwwwwy thing for some… ain’t it?

  4. the GhostPony

    the GhostPony GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago


    Love it.

  5. meetinthemiddle

    meetinthemiddle said, almost 4 years ago

    I think the “traditional” America Grover Norquist is referring to is ~1914

  6. Cosa Nostril

    Cosa Nostril said, almost 4 years ago

    This strip really nails why the Rovies are so afraid. To see them spinning around would be charming if it did not involve so many other people.

  7. Kingoswald

    Kingoswald GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    They’re waiting to see what Faux News tells them they should think about it.

  8. Wabbit

    Wabbit GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    This cartoon should be a keeper! the 2% owning over 50% of all wealth is what nightmares were made of back then.
    That is what happened in dictatorships.

    My dad’s boss lived next door at one time. In a middle class regular 3 bedroom ranch-style house, just like we did.His kid went to the same neighborhood as everyone else.
    The rich were out in hollywood, where they wore mink
    coats, had diamonds and swimming pools and limosines
    Or were in NYC and lived in skyscrapers.
    these days, if you buy a new home, it probably has 3-4 spacious bedrooms, and they wouldn’t be interested in what once were pretty good middle class houses.
    Really, we are now who we were afraid of being taken over by. Except in my imaginations they would be limiting the number of kids you can have, like in China.
    Which actually makes more sense.

    And there were sensible people running our country and a political party would not refuse to work for America for 4 whole years, but prefer to play political games, of obstruction, but would use good sense agendas, over political one-up-manship.

  9. Jo Jo

    Jo Jo said, almost 4 years ago

    Nice work on all the likenesses.

  10. jtpozenel

    jtpozenel said, almost 4 years ago

    Why must you always twist things like you do Mr. Bolling?
    Stop confusing people with facts!

  11. jnik23260

    jnik23260 said, almost 4 years ago

    Yeah, those shoe – shining and domestic maid jobs were destroyed by Obama. And try getting a Pullman Porter job these days!

  12. Randy_B

    Randy_B GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    What does Obama have to do with this?
    If you look at the CDC reports, the number of births to unmarried mothers (including black) was biggest in 2008 but has sequentially declined in 2009 and again in 2010, the latest year with final numbers.

  13. igotsix

    igotsix said, almost 4 years ago

    CEO’s in the 50’s did not make “less than a tenth of that”. Their reported taxable income was on average a fifth of that today, but they also had lavish expense accounts and corporate deductions, which were not taxable. I really doubt the average worker lived down the block from the CEO of the corporation. Ward Cleaver had a secretary, and is a member of the country club, so he isn’t your average worker. Even then his “boss” isn’t the CEO.

  14. igotsix

    igotsix said, almost 4 years ago

    You want to go back to the 50’s? Have all the working women quit their jobs, go home, get married if need be, and start having babies (and stop aborting them). That will bolster Social Security, reduce unemployment, and fix a lot of social ills.

    Many families would be financially better off with one income. After you consider day care, transportation, wardrobe, more convenience foods and eating out, and the higher tax bracket, many women don’t actually bring in anything extra to the family finances.

  15. cactusren

    cactusren said, almost 4 years ago

    igotsix—why should it be all women who quit their jobs? Sure, a household can sometimes be more efficient with one person dedicated to housework/childcare/cooking, but why should they all be women? I have a friend who lives with his brother and dad; my friend has a full time job, his brother is a student, and their dad does the housework. Not a traditional setup, but it works well for them. My point is that even if you want to encourage more people to quit their jobs in order to run their houses, there’s absolutely no reason those people should all be women—each household has to make that decision internally. You’re also assuming that every household has two adults in it—one man and one woman. What about single parents, or multigenerational households, or gasp gay couples? In short, it can sometimes make economic sense for someone to run a household rather than hold a paying job. But to state that all women should quit their jobs is blatantly misogynistic.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (6).