Recent Comments

1. 8 months ago on Chris Britt

   Hey Chris, great cartoon. Can you do one about crooked DAs, radical leftwing judges and double standards…lots of funny material there. You can thank me later.

2. almost 5 years ago on Mike Luckovich

   Doug, I seriously dispute each of your six points. But then, I read your bio: Native, lifelong Southern Californian. Solar powered house (since 2007) Electric cars (2016 Volt; 2011 Nissan LEAF) Avid bird watcher (bird nerd)…and understood. Stupid is as stupid does.

3. over 9 years ago on Nick Anderson

   News Item: Border crossings at twenty-year low…Ask anyone from the border states…I don’t think so…liers figure, figures lie

4. almost 10 years ago on Tom Toles

   …and your’s on coal.

5. about 10 years ago on Nick Anderson

   Yo…we’re a Republic, which means we elect a representative, supposedly, the smartest among us…to appraise the situation and vote accordingly…the electorate will usually send “our kind”, but the representative has no constraints on their vote. Once in D.C. there is a gentleman who usually sees that the vote follows party lines. His tittle is party “Whip”. Comply or die. BTW, that’s why Independents caucus. They may look good on the stump, but must align with either major party or will become about as useless as a tit on a boar hog.

6. about 10 years ago on Tom Toles

   Correct me if I’m wrong…But don’t the Democrats control majority vote of Senate?Majority rules.Who’s blocking what then?

7. over 10 years ago on Dana Summers

   At the press WH briefing, the question was asked “While in Texas will Obama visit the border”, and the answer, “No side trips are planned”. And the reason for the Texas trip…to attend three Democrat fund raisers. The crisis would be a “side trip”!!! That’s our prez!!! What are we paying this guy for?

8. over 10 years ago on Mike Luckovich

   NeoconMan…If you had checked “All About Global Warming” you would have realized that Adrian Vance has broken down the numbers proving that an increase in CO2 could not cause any catastrophe the alarmist predict. Which, would strengthen your argument…but you didn’t. In fact, a quick check of the periodic table and a multiplication formula any 6 year old or some high school graduates can solve will verify his paper. The AGW people are barking up the wrong tree. AGW, never, GW, very questionable. But doing some research may be too much to ask of the people posting here…but one can hope. BTW, I’ve been a Republican since 1962, the first year I could vote. But then who cares.

9. over 10 years ago on Mike Luckovich

   Thank you for clarifying that. I was somewhat confused. Recently I spoke with an old classmate of mine at Texas A&M. A scientist at NASA since 1962, and still with NASA and active in his field of gas reactions in space, writer of a zillion papers, who tells me that James Handsen has become an embarrassment to NASA because of his fringe AGW belief. If I remember correctly, Handsen was often quoted, until recently, as being the go to guy because of his association with NASA, that the AGW folks point to as their poster child. So maybe, just maybe, science is not settled on this issue?

   I recommend reading a short paper written by Adrian Vance on the properties of CO2, it goes into a little more depth than you might find in the New York Times. “All About Global Warming” @ Amazon.com well worth the 30 minutes and 2.99 change they charge for the Kindle edition. It’s my understanding that none of the original computer models have proven true on the original input… In my field, we say, sh*t in, sh*t out. I do love a good argument though.

10. over 10 years ago on Mike Luckovich

    And why is AGW called a hypothesis?