theme-sticky-logo-alt
PREVIOUS POST
Unbelievable!
NEXT POST
No Time Left for You.

61 Comments

  • February 18, 2019 at 12:09 am
    kadaka

    Sometimes it’s good to be Neutral and Grounded.

    REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 1:58 am
      WayneM

      It’s worth noting that Neutral and Grounded can be the same but they’re not always… Shocking, isn’t it?

      REPLY
      • February 18, 2019 at 2:04 am
        Swansonic

        I’ve been grounded for most of my life….

        Something that doesn’t shock most people that know me.

      • February 18, 2019 at 10:18 am
        kadaka

        But sometimes you feel like a lightning rod, eh?

      • February 19, 2019 at 12:30 am
        Swansonic

        Sparks do tend to fly when I am around…

      • February 19, 2019 at 1:17 am
        WayneM

        Gotta stay current, right?

    • February 18, 2019 at 8:31 am
      Tagg

      Grounded yes. Neutral? Um no.

      REPLY
  • February 18, 2019 at 12:16 am
    crawdaddy_loon

    I would have said it depends on the current owners of who is in charge!

    REPLY
  • February 18, 2019 at 12:16 am

    Actually no kids…the Constitution is a constant, it doesn’t care who is in charge. How factions “see” it or use it depends on what they want from it for themselves.

    Follow the money girls, always follow the money.

    BTW, y’all are filling out nicely…good genes!

    REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 1:12 am

      Listen to your Mama…what she said is how the Framers limited government infringement disguised as paternalism to usurp individual freeedom. Her next words would have emphasized the importance of a Constructionist Supreme Court to deny that usurpation and protect that freedom, irrelevant of political interests.

      REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 1:18 am

      BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the Constitution says is immutable. How it is interpreted is, well, not so much.

      REPLY
      • February 18, 2019 at 10:56 am
        Old Codger

        Weeeeeellllllll not exactly. Immutable means, “unchanging over time or unable to be changed”. While the meaning of any part does not change, the document itself can changed – via a process called “amendment”. And, of course, there is nothing in the document specifying how it is to be interpreted. If the current power elite choose to interpret the Constitution in a manner as described “”as being of POSITIVE rights” that is not necessarily per se unconstitutional. Yes, such a relaxed interpretation does pretty much emasculate the thing but that does not violate the document’s prescriptions.

        In any situation involving authority there are only two possible responses – compliance or non-compliance. Absent extremely onerous results from compliance, most people will knuckle under and comply (Jefferson, “Declaration”, “mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves”). If conditions deteriorate such that – for a sufficient number of the populace – compliance is no longer sufferable, then rebellion is the only other course; whether it be the small rebellion of quiet non-compliance or full-on insurrection. I believe it is the excesses inevitably resulting from a non-strict constructionist approach that would bring about rebellion.

      • February 18, 2019 at 5:23 pm
        Brent Dotson

        Well, the Bill of Rights is supposed to have a restraining effect. It was supposed to prevent the Government from infringing on your rights. When the Government used it to increase their power (prohibition and the income tax, for instance) it was disastrous. The income tax especially has been used to reduce the rights of people and states.

    • February 18, 2019 at 1:59 pm
      Halley

      Rule of thumb: good in genes = good in jeans

      REPLY
  • February 18, 2019 at 12:21 am
    Toxic Deplorable B Woodman

    Smart children. Home schooling will do that. Along with being properly grounded in shooting and reloading.

    REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 12:36 am
      kadaka

      I would think Zed would avoid being static and would alternate the building up of his charges with physical training in direct contacts, although the girls might resist being inducted into using those capacities.

      REPLY
      • February 18, 2019 at 8:26 am
        Wood

        So will Naomi be the PE teacher?

    • February 18, 2019 at 7:15 am

      “But 9mm is boring…”

      REPLY
      • February 19, 2019 at 2:45 am
        pyrodice

        gotta study the fundamentals…

  • February 18, 2019 at 12:23 am
    Toxic Deplorable B Woodman

    Notice how Sam distinguishes between “Democrats” and “Americans”.

    REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 1:56 am
      WayneM

      Sounds about right from where I’m sitting…

      REPLY
  • February 18, 2019 at 1:03 am
    Calvin

    I think these young ladies are going to the like the twins from the Shining for Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer.

    REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 1:08 am
      Punta Gorda

      Zombie and Twerp? Neer-do-wells from the quagmire of Soros?

      REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 11:45 am
      kadaka

      https://twitter.com/lezjc/status/1097126648384815105

      “The Olsen twins look like one of them knows how you die and the other knows when you die.”

      Click for pics, it’s true.

      REPLY
  • February 18, 2019 at 4:50 am
    Halley

    Democrats see the Constitution as needing to be shredded and replaced. That’s Step #1 in their Great Leap Forward.

    REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 9:11 pm
      Delilah T.

      Under Mao Tse-Tung, it was the Great Leap Famine.

      Love me, love my Constitution.

      Those zombies don’t realize that the rights and terms of the US Constitution go back to King John’s signing the Magna Carta at the demand of the Barons.

      How about we just replace the peopld who claim to be Democrats, but are that in name only?

      REPLY
  • February 18, 2019 at 5:27 am
    Bill G

    The left actually likes both the Constitution and the Bible; they just don’t want to live by either of them. Leftists will happily cite either whenever a passage can be used to rebuke others while doing their own thing without acknowledging that their actions should be governed by those ideas, too.

    REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 7:09 am
      Halley

      My experience leans me toward a darker view of “progressive” intentions. The benign-sounding scourge of Political Correctness is what if not an attempt to nullify the 1st Amendment by banishing any and all UnGood speech not approved by our Leftist betters. I suspected Barack Hussein would try to subvert the 1st Amendment, free speech being, historically, the greatest threat to the Left, but he apparently wasn’t able.

      REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 8:33 am

      Even the Devil(s) can quote scripture….

      REPLY
      • February 18, 2019 at 1:00 pm
        Pamela

        Even bad guys go to church.

      • February 18, 2019 at 2:02 pm

        Bad guys often *are* the church.

        Just another method of wielding power.

        From the “about” blurb on the old dead blog:

        “Believe in God, church not so much, and America, gov not so much. But I repeat myself.”

    • February 18, 2019 at 11:00 am
      Old Codger

      DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!
      PAY the man!!!

      REPLY
  • February 18, 2019 at 8:40 am
    Cameron

    Back in his first election cycle, I was willing to give Obama a fair chance like I did any other candidate. When I heard the interview of him bemoaning that the Constitution was a “charter of negative liberties” and “doesn’t say what the federal government can’t do on your behalf” I immediately lost interest in anything he had to say.

    REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 9:16 am
      interventor

      I gave him 90 days before I would criticize him. After thirty days, I was having a hard time keeping quiet.

      REPLY
      • February 18, 2019 at 9:31 am
        eon

        He not only said, but did, so many stupid and borderline illegal things in just his first month in office that I concluded I had been correct in not voting for him.

        clear ether

        eon

    • February 18, 2019 at 6:26 pm

      I was willing to give Obama a chance…right up the the time where he slammed his predecessor at his inauguration speech while Bush was standing there. The man showed he had no class, no sense of decorum, and no sense of decency. It all went downhill from there.

      REPLY
      • February 18, 2019 at 7:15 pm
        cb

        When he called for a ‘national civilian security force’ I knew it was time to buy more ammo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-usAlqak

      • February 18, 2019 at 9:44 pm
        kadaka

        When is it not time to buy more ammo?

      • February 18, 2019 at 9:14 pm

        “…while Bush was standing there.”

        Was that before or after Little G gave Zero a big hug and smooch and Moo a piece of candy?

        Little traitorous bastard.

  • February 18, 2019 at 9:05 am
    Delilah T.

    Getting more and more interesting.

    REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 11:08 am
      Delilah T.

      Having an issue with posting in giggles. But….

      REPLY
      • February 18, 2019 at 11:09 am
        Delilah T.

        Seems to be okay. Never mind.

  • February 18, 2019 at 9:59 am
    CaptDMO

    Democracy: Where the majority on the left (side of the bell curve) votes itself free access to the treasury.

    REPLY
  • February 18, 2019 at 11:08 am
    NotYetInACamp

    The progressive and evil hordes give themselves the rights to change the meaning of words when they don’t like what they mean.
    The US Constitution which they call an old worthless document too outdated to use or follow has been attacked in that way many times.
    The US Constitution restricts government actions.
    The constitution of the Soviet Union and others before and since describe the powers government will have over the people and restrict people’s ability to restrict the government and those constitutions define the positive powers to control the people that those governments will have under that document.
    Obama, aka Sotero, etc., considered the US Constitution a useless rag that needed to be ignored as outdated, and then replaced.
    No matter the paper, we are endowed by our Creator with certain God given rights.
    Some of those rights that we have are put into words in the United States Constitution.
    The paper does not assert nor does it defend those rights that the Creator has given to us. We do.

    So be in charge.

    REPLY
  • February 18, 2019 at 12:16 pm
    kadaka

    Thankfully the Progressives know they’re too smart to sweat the small stuff.

    Cops were extremely suspicious when Jussie took them out to the area where he said he was attacked and pointed to an obscure camera saying how happy he was that the attack was on video. Turns out the camera was pointing in the wrong direction. Cops thought it was weird he knew the location of that camera.

    Planning to catch roadrunners, that’s their calling in life.

    REPLY
    • February 18, 2019 at 1:08 pm
      Delilah T.

      Poor fellow is now facing charges of filing a false report. Naughty, naughty…..

      REPLY
      • February 18, 2019 at 1:45 pm
        kadaka

        I read they were sending it to a grand jury. The investigators know there was collusion, people lied, the manager was involved, there are financial ties, they were trying to sway public opinion for political gain. We’ve seen how a grand jury can work. Wait for the subpoenas to be sent to the currently-unindicted co-conspirators (mostly after the fact) in the media who disseminated the hoax for financial gain (increased ratings and ad revenue).

      • February 18, 2019 at 2:07 pm

        Ms. D…he’s not facing shit at this point, and probably won’t.

        I’d say something about double standards, but that would imply they have some standards.

      • February 18, 2019 at 2:10 pm

        OTOH, Rev. Al (!) says if it’s a farce he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That’s good (though it’s more about him trying to save face himself than actually giving a shit about the hate crime it is). And of course it still assumes standards.

      • February 18, 2019 at 3:01 pm
        kadaka

        Double standards are like double-edged swords, Proggies don’t care how and with what they make you bleed as long as they hold the weapons.

      • February 18, 2019 at 9:14 pm
        Delilah T.

        Oh, yes, he is. The two “perps” were let go by the police. He is definitely facing charges for falsely reporting a crime. Chicago may not be holier than holy, but the cops don’t like people who do things like this.

      • February 18, 2019 at 11:39 pm

        Unfortunately it’s not up to the cops.

        And I’ll bet you a Coke (not that putrid P-cola (O-cola) that oozes from that unholyland) that he will not be criminally charged. And I only bet on sure things.

      • February 18, 2019 at 6:08 pm
        kadaka

        There may be federal charges, FBI investigating threatening letter sent to him just before with white powder that turned out to be Tylenol (or aspirin), that apparently was also set up by him, with the whispering saying he did the assault because the letter got little mention.

  • February 18, 2019 at 12:56 pm
    Spin Drift

    They grow up so fast. My special snowflake complains to her Gma that I played mind games on her as a child. Her Gma said “be happy that your father did so you learned and now no one else can.” Don’t give them answers but questions to ponder.

    Spin
    Educating minds is a frightful business
    WWG1WGA

    REPLY
  • February 18, 2019 at 1:10 pm
    Pamela

    Democrats consider Americans to be universal donors. They choose who receives and in what order. What would happen if side by side comparisons were put up of the then newly minted congress critters and their now down the hole selves. Change should always be for the better so you think?

    REPLY
  • February 19, 2019 at 10:14 pm
    Lyle

    Naw; I don’t see as there’s any such thing as a “negative right”. There are rights, and there are legal protections for them. Nothing negative there at all. The disrespect for and violation of rights are negatives.

    I hope you would not say that a law against robbery is a “negative” or even a “negative right”, for example.

    “Thou shalt not steal”, I suppose, is in response to a negative (the negative being on-going theft), and I suppose that originally it would have been “Thou shalt respect the property of others” or some such, but in no case is a true right a negative thing except in the mind of a criminal.

    So what mind do we have?

    Let’s get our nomenclature straightened out. The protection of a right is not a “negative” thing, but a positive one. Let’s not use the language of the left. Let them drown in it, choke on it, all by themselves if they insist.

    REPLY

LEAVE A REPLY

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

15 49.0138 8.38624 1 0 4000 1 https://www.daybydaycartoon.com 300 0

buy windows 11 pro test ediyorum