Recent Comments

1. about 11 years ago on Lost Side of Suburbia

   Rufus needs to grab the knife if Biff doesn’t pick it back up immediately. No time to strike like the present! Hit Flimm while he’s busy pulling himself together and there’s a good chance his mind is focused on that rather than them.

2. about 14 years ago on Non Sequitur

   Thank you for those words, aircraft engineer.

   @fishstix: What about those who, after years of acquiring a college education, getting a good job and working productively for years, got fired because the greedy bosses decided to ship the jobs overseas to maximise their profits, leaving their former employees with no jobs and no ‘golden parachutes’? All the thousands and thousands of those people who cannot find a job in this country right now because they’ve all been outsourced? Don’t they deserve some sort of help and support?

3. about 14 years ago on Cathy Classics

   Burgundy said, 2 days ago”

   “it must be nice to have so much time on one’s hands…..”??? are you kidding me????? says she who spends company time goofing off on the internet…….shame on you!

   How do you have any idea where Burgundy2 is posting from? Why does it matter? People at work do get breaks during the day, and lunch times when their time is their own. If a company allows employees to go on-line when they’re not working, why is that your business? And why do you keep picking on Burgundy2?

4. about 14 years ago on Jim Morin

   @petergrt: Why is it “judicial acitivism” when the courts want to protect the rights of ALL Americans to equal treatment, but not “judicial activism” when they say every nut in the country has a right to have any kind of ‘gun’ they want to buy?

   An Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 until it finally passed both the House and the Senate in 1972, and that one has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states to become part of the Constitution. It has been re-introduced in every session of Congress since 1982, because there was a limitation on how long it could take to ratify the amendment. The wording is quite simple:

   The complete text of the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment:

   Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

   What do you read in those words that is threatening to you, or makes you think it’s a “liberal” plot of some kind? I don’t see anything wrong with women and men being guaranteed equal rights under the law, and I don’t see anything in that wording that says that it would change anything except ensure that men and women are treated fairly and equitably. It doesn’t change any other laws, and won’t, unless they’re in violation of the amendment.

   What I don’t know is why Republicans seem to have decided equality for all citizens is a bad thing, since the Republican Party in the 1940s was the first party to include an Equal Rights amendment in the Republican Party platform.

   Those who were in favor of the ERA did NOT use the courts to rewrite the Constitution or circumvent it, they got other laws passed that basicly guaranteed most things the ERA would have covered - equal pay for equal work, for example. Myself, I think it would serve all you woman-haters right if all the women in this country went on strike against men like you until the ERA was passed and ratified. It would get done in a blaze of speed like nothing ever seen in Congress before.

5. about 14 years ago on Jim Morin

   Republicans were quite proud of being the party that wrote and got passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution, until this election when they needed somebody to holler about besides the Democrats. They’d probably like to blame “anchor babies” as they call them on the Dems, but the Democrats aren’t the ones who wrote and passed the law that says anyone born in the USA is a citizen. So now, the Repuglicans want do away with the 14th Amendment that they have always been so proud of. Question is, if being born in this country doesn’t automatically make you a citizen, how will you determine who is a citizen?

   And by the way, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th is legal in a case of the child of legal immigrants from China, way back in the 19th Century, but there has never been a case contesting the 14th Amendment in reference to a child of illegal immigrants. Maybe it’s time somebody filed one?

6. over 14 years ago on Gasoline Alley

   ORteka:

   Why so judgmental?

   Many people on food stamps have been actively looking for work for months or more. Some people on food stamps are dependent families of the United States military, even. If the Army isn’t paying a man or woman enough to feed his/her family, how can you accuse people who have been laid off of being lazy because they get food stamp money?

   Even if you get unemployment benefits, they’re only about half your regular pay, and that won’t go far if you have bills and children. You cannot buy liquour with food stamp cards. The system won’t let you in most states. I was a grocery checkout person 12 years ago, and the computerized system would only pay for certain things.

   Any store that tries to get around the system to sell items that are not covered will lose its ability to accept the cards, and will pay a hefty fine, plus lose all the money that it acquired by cheating the system.

7. over 14 years ago on Signe Wilkinson

   I LOVE this comic today, btw!

8. over 14 years ago on Signe Wilkinson

   agent.007:

   Did you forget that the bank bailout was the idea of W’s government a couple of months before Obama even got elected? Don’t blame Obama for Bush’s failings, please. I’m sure he’ll have enough of his own, eventually.

9. over 14 years ago on Glenn McCoy

   wbr said, 2 days ago

   it seems from all reports that R C child abuse are boys.

   That’s not so. In fact, many thousands of Catholic abuse victims are girls, or were, especially in Ireland. They were being “cared for” in Catholic orphanages, and were abused by priests and/or nuns. Sometimes, they were girls in boarding schools.

   In all the cases, crimes were committed against the most vulnerable and trusting of our society by those who were supposed to be protecting them. Shouldn’t matter whether they were boys or girls, they were CHILDREN, and they were abused, and those who did it should not have been protected the way they were.

10. over 14 years ago on B.C.

    Ok, sounds like a lot of folks here are having “one of those days”! LOL!