published Sunday, February 7th, 2010

The Convention

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

92
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
jackass said...

Reality is that the new Senator from Ma. has changed the great OBAMA's speech from take it and shove it to all of us need to cooperate. This doofus is worse than Jimmy Carter...that's bad. Hey we're still out of jobs, the stock market is about to really tank, and we have no direction. The Democrats are worthless...no direction. Cut taxes...especially Capital Gains taxes. Clinton did this and the economy had plenty of cash for investment...the Duh factor enters in to this. Obams is a community organizer that and nothing more. We need a President not a puppet of the unions.

February 7, 2010 at 12:24 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

jackass... you need an enema.... from both ends.... you are so full of it

February 7, 2010 at 12:43 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

BINGO Clay. Great cartoon, LOL. Please, please Sarah, run in 2012.

“There are some people who live in a dream world, and there are some who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other.”

-Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)

February 7, 2010 at 1:01 a.m.
alprova said...

jackass introduced himself with: "Reality is that the new Senator from Ma. has changed the great OBAMA's speech from take it and shove it to all of us need to cooperate."

No...the reality of the situation is that the election of the centrist Senator from Massachusetts, who is currently a Republican, exposes that the Democratic contender was a weak candidate -- nothing more.

Senator Brown has already made it clear to the Republicans to not count on him to vote lock and step with them on all issues.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/31/brown-federal-funding-yes-abortion-rights/?test=latestnews

"This doofus is worse than Jimmy Carter...that's bad. Hey we're still out of jobs, the stock market is about to really tank, and we have no direction."

Ah...I see you're one of those people that thinks that a President can wave a magic wand and reverse a sixteen year slide in 12 months.

The stock market is not in any immediate peril of "tanking."

I work in investments, mainly tracking those for clients right here in Chattanooga. Every client who either held their investments as they were or who continued to invest, not only reversed their losses of 2008, but they wound up the year with some rather stunning gains.

"The Democrats are worthless...no direction."

On the contrary. Although going left at the moment, it is a far better direction for the vast majority of the country, rather than to be going right for a select few in this country.

Between now and 2012, the evidence will be absolutely undeniable and Republicans will not be able to stop it. My prayer is that the Republicans continue to keep up their efforts to stonewall true progress.

Cut taxes...especially Capital Gains taxes. Clinton did this and the economy had plenty of cash for investment...the Duh factor enters in to this."

People who are barely scraping by, who do not have a cent to invest, much less enough to pay their mortgage and to put money on the table, are going to benefit very much when they are told that they will henceforth be paying less on any gains they reap from investing.

Clearly, a cut on capital gains only, and I repeat ONLY benefits those who have disposable income to put up for investment. It does nothing for people who do not have a job, who are living from paycheck to paycheck, or who have seen their income drop as a result of the economy.

The days of wine and roses for the elite of this nation are over.

"Obams is a community organizer that and nothing more. We need a President not a puppet of the unions."

You HAVE a President...and one that history will revere for decades to come. As to him being a "puppet of the unions," other than backing off of taxing their health care benefits, there's not much substance behind that claim.

Personally, I think taxing ANYONE'S health care benefits is a lousy idea. But then, I'm still rooting for health care reform that will truly be reform.

February 7, 2010 at 1:28 a.m.
nucanuck said...

America's increasing polarization as exemplified by the Tea Partyers,is building a level of political paralysis that is making the country simply ungovernable.

The Democrats had contempt for Bush,the Republicans seem to hate Obama. Do we have to hit absolute rock bottom before we find common cause?

February 7, 2010 at 1:56 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Alprova, please don't confuse jackass with facts. It might confuse him, LOL.

Perhaps he will have more comfort in knowing that at the Tea Party speech Sarah said that "it would be wise of us to be seeking more divine intervention in this country, so that we can be safe and prosperous again".

So what's next, Sarah, a la George Bush, proclaiming that God is telling her she's doing "God's work"?

Its not the first time...calling on "God's Will", to have a gas pipeline in Alaska..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k&feature=related

Oh Boy, here we go again.

February 7, 2010 at 2:26 a.m.
alprova said...

Live!!! from Nashville, Tennessee...it's the first annual Tea Party convention.

People from all over the nation have conjoined in Music City to commit to a better way of Governing our nation, to express their frustration with our current Government, and to raise money for the cause.

Wow!! the crowd is astounding!! Why there must be...600 people here!! That's right...600 people. Each partier in attendance has paid $549 to be here for this glorious, fun filled weekend of fellowship.

Festivities kicked off Friday night and for the most part, discussions involved finding a way to tip the 2010 elections towards activist conservatives. Following dinner on Friday, WorldNetDaily.com founder Joseph Farah gave a rousing speech on one of the more important issues that are always on the mind of a Tea Partier;

"Where's the birth certificate?" Farah asked. "It's a simple question and it has not been answered."

He received a standing ovation.

Last night, Sarah Palin, the $100,000 woman, spoke at the podium for 59 minutes. I gotta hand it to her...she sure knows how to speak down to a crowd.

"How's that hope-y, change-y stuff workin' out for you?"

"Let us not get bogged down in the small squabbles. Let us get caught up in the big ideas."

When a moderator asked her questions used the phrase "President Palin," she smiled coyly, prompting most in the audience to stand up and chant "Run, Sarah, run!"

Many of those attending the convention saw her as the right person to carry their their message to Washington, personally of course.

"She is the one," said an attendee from Seattle. "And she's gonna do it!!"

Yes folks, there is no shortage of hope in Nashville tonight!! There is however, a shortage of money.

It seems that the first annual Tea Party Convention is a bit of a bust. With Mrs. Palin having taken nearly a third of the proceeds in speaking fees, the rest barely covered the expenses of renting the banquet hall and for costs of feeding the guests in attendance. Still, the organizer was quoted that he hoped to profit an amount in the "low two figures..."

Better luck next year. I hear next year's convention is being held in Las Vegas. Will these activist conservatives roll the dice and hope to raise some cash, or will they stick to their conservative roots are refuse to gamble?

February 7, 2010 at 2:29 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Whoops, almost forgot, she did say that the war was "Gods Plan". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btX...

February 7, 2010 at 2:39 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Too funny, alprova, LOL.

I can hardly wait for the people to start posting how scared we are of Palin.

February 7, 2010 at 2:43 a.m.
Clara said...

I happened to read an article in one of the sites, CBS?, MSNBC?, CNN?, whatever, last week, and it was pointed out that the fee of $549 was going to the Republican Party who are, I guess, trying to enclose this disaffected bunch of political wanderers into the fold, somehow.

Well, what do you know, I saved it. It was CNN.

"I don't think the Tea Party knows what's happening to the Tea Party," Sacramento party activist Jim Knapp said. "I don't think there's any question the GOP has their tentacles into the Tea Party."

Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin, founders of the Tea Party Patriots, say they are proud of what the movement has accomplished, but they are frustrated that other Tea Party groups are being run by Republican political consultants forking over lots of cash for recruitment.

The Tea Party Express, a conservative bus tour that crisscrossed the country last year, was run from inside a Republican political consulting firm.

This week's convention has also been dogged by infighting, with some protesting its $549 entrance fee and its hierarchical organization.

Meckler and Martin are not going to attend. "It wasn't the kind of grass-roots organization that we are, so we declined to participate," Meckler said.

Avlon said the concerns over the proceeds have undercut the event's attempt to be a rallying point."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/03/tea.party/index.html?hpt=Sbin

February 7, 2010 at 3:45 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

The Repubs are trying to get their hands around the Tea Baggers to prevent them from drawing support away from their party. This was the reason that Sarah advocated during her speech that the Tea party should not have a leader of the movement.

Hey, gotta keep those Baggers from organizing behind a central leader. They might attempt to form a third party.

Oh Sarah, you continue to keep me in stitches.

February 7, 2010 at 4:51 a.m.
EaTn said...

I would like to encourage both Republicans and Democrats to get behind this Tea Party and give it a boost, and maybe they will run someone like Sarah Palin on their ticket in 2012. This will be the most fun race since Perot in 1992 helped beat Daddy Bush. Now that I remember, Palin and Perot do have a lot of similarities.

February 7, 2010 at 5:35 a.m.
simonlegrue said...

The reality is that while Rome burns, Hussein Obama fiddles around with free medical care for all the brothas and sistas in the hood and trailer trash. America needs more Tea Parties, not Happy Hours.

February 7, 2010 at 7:57 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Ha, ha, ha! Good one Clay!

February 7, 2010 at 8:13 a.m.
woody said...

I have read, with interest, everything posted until now. And, I must say, there have been a lot of valid points and quite a few 'smirky' moments.

However, have I been the only one to this point to recognize the fact that in Clay's depiction, you must turn 'Left' for the "Tea Party", while if you wish to visit "Reality", it's off to the 'Right.'

Strange...

Enjoying my coffee, Woody

February 7, 2010 at 8:17 a.m.
OllieH said...

simonlegrue writes, "Hussein Obama fiddles around with free medical care for all the brothas and sistas in the hood and trailer trash."

Simon- perhaps you should reserve these kind of comments for the Klan message board. I feel like going and washing out my eyes out after reading it. Your comment defies reason, but is quite revealing of the sentiments shared by a certain contingent of tea partiers.

February 7, 2010 at 8:58 a.m.
rolando said...

Welcome aboard, jackass! You really stirred the lefties' pot with THAT post. You brought them out of the woodwork like termites.

The most they have gotten out of the Dems destruction of their filibuster-proof Senate is, "...the election...exposes that the Democratic contender was a weak candidate -- nothing more." They will take that belief to their loss of the Senate majority come Nov.

Not that their loss of the 60-member majority means anything...they couldn't even agree enough among themselves to pass anything but a pay raise. Not to worry -- Sen Brown has already said what he intends to do...I expect he will do it, too, should it come to a vote -- which it won't because the Dems are too scared of losing their own jobs.

In any case, you will see the rest of us like-believers show up here a few at a time. Meanwhile, look for more of the me-tooers above to make multiple posts supporting each other. Dems do that.

February 7, 2010 at 9:07 a.m.
toonfan said...

Woody-

Interesting observation, but I think the left, right orientation of the signs is not about politics, but is more about placing the punchline after the setup (with our eyes typically moving left to right). Having followed Clay's work for years, I don't think he would ever equate 'reality' with the political 'right'.

February 7, 2010 at 9:13 a.m.
rolando said...

simonlegrue perhaps aimed that at Dear Leader's white half, OllieH...did your bigoted, jump-to-conclusion eyes think of that? Just like a Dem...denying free speech to those with opposing viewpoints.

And it takes a Democrat to form a KKK branch and support their twisted views -- that's established history...it's for the Byrds.

February 7, 2010 at 9:13 a.m.
OllieH said...

rolando, when someone states that President Obama is trying to get free medical care for the 'brothas and sistas in the hood' what am I supposed to think?

You're sticking your head in the sand, or somewhere much less appealing, if you think that simon's comment was directed at Obama's 'white half (as you put it). The fact that race comes up at all, is an indication that it's you and simon, not me, who seems to have some deep-seeded issues that need resolving.

February 7, 2010 at 9:26 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Althought 'Jackasses's' commemt had racial undertones. It is outweighted by it's overt ingnorace and lack of substance. Most of us just choose to ingnore such rants. After today he will probably delete his profile and login later as something else.

As for the Tea Party, they should be taken seriously, for conservatives. Palin for President and Limbaugh as VP. And while the argue over the use of the "r" word, real Americans might just get this country back on track.

February 7, 2010 at 9:39 a.m.
OllieH said...

Rolando-

You remind me of my teenage son. Every time his behavior or actions become an issue, he turns the argument on his mother or me. It's no longer about his failings, but ours. It's a deflective debate tactic that may be fitting a sixteen-year-old, but I would expect more out of you.

My remarks about simon's repugnant post was not, as you put it, 'denying free speech to those with opposing viewpoints'. I wasn't denying anybody, anything. I was just calling his comment what it was- racist.

February 7, 2010 at 10:02 a.m.
v1955g said...

Thanks Alprova for setting the record straight with Jackass.

And if the GOP"s 2012 candidate is Sarah Palin, I will go ahead now and congratulate President Obama on being re-elected.

February 7, 2010 at 10:52 a.m.
ProgressiveInTN said...

Awesome! Exactly right Clay! And from the screeching posts you have here from some of the craziest of the crazy, I am thinking they must realize it too.

February 7, 2010 at 11:46 a.m.
Sailorman said...

ProgressiveinTn said "And from the screeching posts you have here from some of the craziest of the crazy, I am thinking they must realize it too."

Don't be talking about hotdiggity, alprova, ollie, and the rest of the list like that. They'll get their feelings hurt!

February 7, 2010 at 11:58 a.m.
InspectorBucket said...

I will be looking for a better candidate than Obama or Palin in 2012.

In their different fashions, Palin and Obama are both political players of our modern media age, and Obama and Palin both have proven themselves to be far more interested in image, celebrity, and media presentation.

But that is the way we do things today in 2010, right?

Just go along with the whole charade, buy your Sarah! or HOPE posters and don't think twice it's alright, as long as the ends (power) justify the means (shallow politics and cults of personality).

Well, no, I say.

I reject any candidate who flatters the vanities and prejudices of the "key demographic" while speaking in a condescending tone to the opponent's faction.

Both Obama and Palin take the easy road in this regard.

I have yet to hear any reasoned, tough talk about what the United States of America must do to set its house into order and why the hardest moments are yet to come.

The first step towards setting the house in order is to demand more from ourselves as voters and as citizens.

We must listen and look and think much more critically. If not, the grand line of Presidents from "Bush" to "Obama" will be completed with "Palin." And those three presidential names will be an eloquent and sufficient epitaph for the United States of America.

If Sarah! or HOPE make you smile and feel warm and tingly, then the snake oil has begun to effect.

February 7, 2010 at 12:08 p.m.
alprova said...

Another in a long line of Sarah Palin moments, and why we love to see her on a stage.

http://www.politicususa.com/node/7489

February 7, 2010 at 12:17 p.m.
Sailorman said...

I will be looking for a better candidate than Obama or Palin in 2012

Good post Inspector - the only "hope" I have at the moment is that the candidate you seek shows up.

February 7, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando chimed in with: "The most they have gotten out of the Dems destruction of their filibuster-proof Senate is, "...the election...exposes that the Democratic contender was a weak candidate -- nothing more." They will take that belief to their loss of the Senate majority come Nov."

You truly overestimate the significance of one election, and you are underestimating the power that the Senator from Massachusetts wields. His election has not changed the will of the people who propelled him into office.

If he defies the political leanings of the people, or fails to deliver on his promises to the people and fails to endear himself to the people as Ted Kennedy did, he will absolutely be a one-term Senator. And he knows that too.

"Not that their loss of the 60-member majority means anything...they couldn't even agree enough among themselves to pass anything but a pay raise. Not to worry -- Sen Brown has already said what he intends to do...I expect he will do it, too, should it come to a vote -- which it won't because the Dems are too scared of losing their own jobs."

That is only true for a select few, and those few deserve to lose their jobs, and I hope they do. Pelosi and Reid should be the first to go. They are not leaders any longer. They are absolutely too spoiled and corrupt to effectively perform the duties of their jobs.

"In any case, you will see the rest of us like-believers show up here a few at a time. Meanwhile, look for more of the me-tooers above to make multiple posts supporting each other. Dems do that."

Rolando, your powers of observation are truly astounding sometimes. Every one of us can cite a list of people who tend to stick with others on the issues, and that holds true for those of you who lean to the right.

And in my opinion, those of us on the left do a far better job of sticking to the facts.

February 7, 2010 at 12:37 p.m.
miraweb said...

Ah, the country is coming together already.

We progressives agree with the Tea Party and would love to see Sarah run in 2012. And this time she can just borrow the suits from Fox!

Run, Sarah, Run!

Please, run.

February 7, 2010 at 12:40 p.m.
woody said...

Thank you Toon. It's all so much clearer now. With the possible exception of the "Tea Party" ideology.

Getting ready for "The Super Bowl", Woody

February 7, 2010 at 12:41 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

Here's what I think of the tea party...wait...can't post...too busy laughing...

February 7, 2010 at 12:42 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando offered: "And it takes a Democrat to form a KKK branch and support their twisted views -- that's established history...it's for the Byrds."

Rolando, Senator Byrd is hardly the first man in history to have been taught to hate people who differ from themselves and to come to the realization that it is wrong to do so.

The man has distanced himself from his past views and actions many times since the sixties, and yet, anytime that bigotry bubbles up from under the ground, bigots in their own right, who think they have a grip on their own prejudices, drag it out of the skeleton closet and take it for a trip around the dance floor.

In his 2005 book, Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields, he wrote, "It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one's life, career, and reputation."

February 7, 2010 at 1:15 p.m.
aces25 said...

In an alternate cartoon, I would like to see the sign changed from "Tea Party Meeting" to "Progressive Liberal Agenda".

Those who associate themselves with the Tea Party general have conservative values, but I don't see it as the force to drive Republicans in the future. Palin won't be the answer either.

InspectorBucket said it the best, "The first step towards setting the house in order is to demand more from ourselves as voters and as citizens."

February 7, 2010 at 1:20 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Sailorman 12:26

You might have inadvertently spoken some truth in your statement. Who would want the job after the way the last two Presidents have been treated? The nation is deeply divided on almost every issue and with no 'change' in sight. They will need to be a leader not a politicial. And unfortunatly anyone who has the ablity, experience and intelligence to be the next President, is smart enough not to take the job.

February 7, 2010 at 1:25 p.m.
alprova said...

EaTn wrote: "I would like to encourage both Republicans and Democrats to get behind this Tea Party and give it a boost, and maybe they will run someone like Sarah Palin on their ticket in 2012. This will be the most fun race since Perot in 1992 helped beat Daddy Bush. Now that I remember, Palin and Perot do have a lot of similarities."

Yes they do.

There is an unsubstantiated rumor floating around that Sarah wanted to incorporate the phrase, "giant sucking sound" into her speech on Saturday evening, but she was flatly denied to be allowed to do so.

It was felt by some that if she were to utter the phrase, that male Tea Partiers in attendance would have to explain certain residual evidence that may suddenly appear on their clothing to their wives.

February 7, 2010 at 1:43 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Sailorman-quite the quaint post there me maritime friend... "Don't be talking about hotdiggity, alprova, ollie, and the rest of the list like that. They'll get their feelings hurt"!

Nah, no feelings hurt here. The only hurt I have today is my sides, from laughter at the talking points of Madame Palin last night. That and her Palm-Prompter,LOL.

With respect, I am curious as to your nickname, ex-navy, merchant marine, yachtsman, etc.?

Wonder where canary is today? I was looking for a scathing commentary from him.

February 7, 2010 at 3:06 p.m.
BobMKE said...

Reality. Reality is that this Country is and will always be right of center. Reality is Obama and his Chicago Political Machine are Liberals/Socialists. Do not call them or refer to yourselves as Democrats. We do have some 1960 type Democrats that are around such as McCain, Lieberman, Guliani and Huckabee. I'm telling you this so all of you so called Deomocrats can figure out what your are. A Democrat or a Liberal/Socialist, and write in your comments as such. These McCains Etc. are the reason that the Tea Party people have come to be. They want to reclaim the Republicain Party and NOT be a separate party. This movement has already started in Mass. NJ and VA. Also the Republician party must not run on, "Vote for us because we are not them." They have to expose how the liberals have ruined this Country, why Liberalism/Socialism will never work nor has it EVER worked in the history of the world, and most important of all is that the true Republician Party must articulate everything that they will do to make this Country great again. That is Reality and you Liberals/Socialists will see Reality again in November 2010.

February 7, 2010 at 3:16 p.m.
Clara said...

I wonder what kind of "tea" they serve at the Tea Parties to make them behave like that.

I'd go for a genuine, grass roots organization...maybe, but I'd sure be busy digging into their background and motives.

February 7, 2010 at 3:19 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Rolando, in regards to your post..."it takes a Democrat to form a KKK branch and support their twisted views".

Perhaps you might know that the Dems, in 1865 when KKK was formed, were mostly of a conservative view. Conservative as in supportive of tradition, upholding the status quo, (slavery, states rights above national policy,etc.).

Surely you are not suggesting that former Confederate soldiers who started the KKK were in any way of a liberal/progressive nature, as Dems are viewed today.

Simply put, without unnecessarily going into a history of the changes of the parties from 1865 till today, the South represented a conservative mindset as opposed to the North, which represented a liberal/progressive attitude regarding slavery, secession, and states vs national rights/policies.

February 7, 2010 at 3:30 p.m.
Sailorman said...

hotdiggity - glad you enjoyed it! My sides hurt too - laughing at the silliness from both sides.

ex-Navy and would rather be living on a sailboat in the Bahamas

February 7, 2010 at 3:32 p.m.
rolando said...

OllieH, yr 0936Am post re: bigotry and blinders.

Once again your bigoted eyes betrayed you. How conveniently they again blacked out [can I say that??] the word/phrase following the "hood" comment -- see if you can read it this time... The phrase was, and I quote, "...and trailer trash." Who are commonly referred to as "trailer trash"? Hint: They sure aren't black.

I thought the post was rather well balanced, racially speaking. His choice of words might be improved on but I am hardly the one to do that -- I, too, call them as I see them.

So far you remain a bigot, OllieH, if not a race baiter or worse. Note: I don't think you actually are any of those, BTW. But your view -- and your "eyes" -- could maybe stand a little close examination and perhaps some soul searching. If I am permitted to use "soul".

February 7, 2010 at 3:34 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

UPDATE!! From that liberal site, Huffington Post. For liberal/progressive eyes only, LOL

Sarah's Palm-Promptor notes revealed. Of course this after mocking Obama for using a Tele-Prompter and reading her speech from prepared notes.

Oh Sarah, please stop, I can't laugh anymore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-sirucek/did-palin-use-crib-notes_b_452458.html

February 7, 2010 at 3:58 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Mr Bennett one way, reality the other? He might poke fun at global warming with two feet of snow in Al Gore's home town of Washington D.C. He might poke fun at an anti-earmark President in Harry Byrd's party, an anti-deficit President who makes Bush look like Scrooge, an anti-unemployment President whose stimulus package raised unemployment to 10%, an intelligent President who thinks 2000 pages written by lawyers can insure more people and cut costs at the same time, an anti-racist President who wants to lock D.C. students into the worst yet most expensive public schools in the country rather than voucher some of them out at half the cost. Surely there's a cartoon or two in there someplace. He might develop, or demonstrate, the ability to draw an expression other than slightly dismayed. (He drew it unusually well on Smokey when Lane Kiffin left.) To be sure, there are cartoons on the right even after a big-government 'conservative' President has left office, and a self-anointed for-profit 'national Tea Party convention' is a fair target, though this cartoon is too simplistic to hit it, expressing only Mr Bennett's preposterous opinion. If Tea Party stands for anything, it is "Taxed Enough Already." And I am. For stuff I don't think the government should do; stuff we did fine without. Reality? Businesses have to earn customers' money, so they have to serve us. Government just has to take the money, so it can do as it pleases. Free choice (Central Park fries, Wendy burgers) is instant accountability; taxation enables irresponsility. And taxes are too complicated, forcing intelligent people into unproductive lines of work. (If Mr Bennett wants his cartoons to be remembered, let him draw tax cartoons; I remember Plante's cartoon "This new guy writes great codes...totally undecipherable..." and McNelly's "Arabic to Burmese Dictionary" and one featuring the calendar of Hell, artist unknown).

February 7, 2010 at 4:02 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Palm-Promptor. Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

February 7, 2010 at 4:24 p.m.
rolando said...

alprova you are a hoot at times. You offer these:

1) "You truly overestimate the significance of one election, and you are underestimating the power that the Senator from Massachusetts wields." and

2) "Senator Byrd is hardly the first man in history to have been taught to hate people who differ from themselves and to come to the realization that it is wrong to do so."


1) You seriously underestimate the meaning of Sen Brown's election...which is a good thing for conservatives. Keep it up. The significance is that the Dem Senate's total command of the assembly and its agenda is broken. They are so frightened of losing their own seats in Nov it is hilarious to watch. Grown men suddenly becoming moderate -- but only for a few months. Dear Leader is doing the same thing in fear of losing his majority and ending up a lame duck in his own party.

2) I never said Byrd was the first or even the only; I didn't even imply it. I merely said he is a "franchising owner"...kinda. If memory serves, Strom Thurmond also held one -- as a Democrat, of course.

February 7, 2010 at 4:41 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

BoBMKE- Wow Bob, quite the tirade there my friend.

You seem to feel you have some special insight into "reality". First off, I will give this to you for consideration. I have posted it previously.

“There are some people who live in a dream world, and there are some who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other.” -Desiderius Erasmus

Before you decide which side you fall on regarding that quote perhaps you should also consider this..

"I know nothing, except the fact of my ignorance. -Diogenes

With all due respect, your tirade strikes me as nothing more than a smug self-assertion that you have some monopoly on truth or "reality", and that you presume to have some illogical concept of what a Democrat is.

You expose yourself as from the far right fringe by claiming that registered Republicans such as McCain, Guliani,and Huckabee are Democrats because a couple of them are moderate Republicans. In your world, it appears you have no room for moderates within your party. Its, toe the party line or begone.

Your philosophy is nothing less than an attempt at a "purity test" within your party. Care to recall what resulted from a "purity test" philosophy in the 1930's-1940's.

The anger in your post is palpable and almost reeks of hatred. Chill out and have a cup of Tea, LOL.

February 7, 2010 at 4:44 p.m.
sd said...

InspectorBucket wrote, "I have yet to hear any reasoned, tough talk about what the United States of America must do to set its house into order and why the hardest moments are yet to come."

Mr. Bucket, do you think the American people as a whole would respond to reasoned, tough talk? It certainly won't get any politician elected or reelected; that's why they abstain from it.

The public has possessed a fickle temperament and a short memory since before the days of Rome. Can we really move past bread and circuses?

February 7, 2010 at 5:31 p.m.
rolando said...

hotdiggity said, "Surely you are not suggesting that former Confederate soldiers who started the KKK were in any way of a liberal/progressive nature, as Dems are viewed today."

I think we both know that the KKK of 1865 wasn't even remotely associated with or to the organization that later kidnapped the name and ran with it, hotdiggity.

The two orgs had vastly different agendae.

Gee, it almost sounds like you would turn all KKK members, past and present -- but especially the originals -- into Republicans, the Party of Lincoln. Now THAT is funny.

You don't get it -- we are fed up with RINOs, wimps, taxers, triple trillion dollar budget geeks and teleprompter twits, Chicago Daley-boyz, Wright demagogues and Ayers terrorists, Racist Czars and Homeland Security Sissies who call returning Iraq War Vets a danger to America, kowtow-ers and kissers of xxx, and especially America-Trashers.

Someone up there, AndrewLohr I believe, said it best -- to paraphrase, "The Democrat Party of the Sixties has become today's Liberal/Socialist Party." The current crop of Dems is hardly "progressive" -- they never were -- that's just the new buzzword for "Democrat".

Perhaps the Repub primaries of 2012 will feature McCain or Dingleberry -- the Dems will switch-vote to insure that. If so, Sarah - if she runs - will go Independent Something. The Dems won't want her and the media will try their "ignore" tactic and sell even fewer papers/broadcasts. Won't work. McCain and all RINOs are dead meat.

One good thing they DID accomplish is to fire up the American firearm industry as it hasn't been fired up in our nation's history.

February 7, 2010 at 5:32 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando replied with: "1) You seriously underestimate the meaning of Sen Brown's election...which is a good thing for conservatives. Keep it up. The significance is that the Dem Senate's total command of the assembly and its agenda is broken."

Clearly that is not the case. Given that the Blue Dogs have been impeding the progress of the health care legislation, any "majority" held by the Democrats was an illusion.

"They [Democrats] are so frightened of losing their own seats in Nov it is hilarious to watch. Grown men suddenly becoming moderate -- but only for a few months. Dear Leader is doing the same thing in fear of losing his majority and ending up a lame duck in his own party."

I say potato...you say potaato. The proof as to whether either of us is right will come in November.

"2) I never said Byrd was the first or even the only; I didn't even imply it. I merely said he is a "franchising owner"...kinda. If memory serves, Strom Thurmond also held one -- as a Democrat, of course."

Rolando, we could sit here and bring up examples of politicians with deep roots in racial hatred, on both sides of the aisle, and both in current states of being dead and alive. But what would it prove? Nothing.

Hatred and bigotry is a learned trait. Robert Byrd, nor anyone else who was taught to hate can take back words or actions that were once uttered or committed.

But anyone and everyone can come to realize their errors, can apologize for them, and can attempt to go forward and atone for those errors.

Isn't that the premise behind religion? Why are those who express conservative values at every opportunity, the least likely to understand such a simple concept?

I can't state for certain that the man is any less a bigot than he was 40 years ago, but you have to at least go back that far to find any evidence that he was.

February 7, 2010 at 5:58 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando amazingly wrote: "I think we both know that the KKK of 1865 wasn't even remotely associated with or to the organization that later kidnapped the name and ran with it..."

I think you're out on a limb all by yourself on this one.

I would be VERY interested in viewing any material that you could refer to, that would support your assertions that there were any differing motivations between earlier versions of the group and the latter, or even modern groups.

The threads are so common among them, that you could knit a sweater so large, that would cover the state of Tennessee.

February 7, 2010 at 6:16 p.m.
BobMKE said...

Hey Hotdiggity,

What are you? Liberal/Socialist??? If that is your core believe, then then stick up for it. History will prove you wrong. I am proud to say that I am, a Reagan Conservative. Tax cuts have always worked throughout history. The Democratic Party has moved to the far left. Do not paint the Democratic Party with a broad brush. JFK must be rolling over in his grave because he also believed in tax cuts. His brother Teddy "Hic Up" Kennedy was nothing like his brother, and thank God for that. A Democrat to me is, JFK, Johnson, Stevenson, Truman, McCain, Huckabee, NOOOOOOOOOOOT Obama, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Humphrey, Mondale, Dean, Franken, Kerry, Reid, Frank, Pelosi, Rangel, Hillery, Edwards, Dodd, Waters, and Boxer. Hotdiggity, if these people are your heros and think they are Democrats then you are on the far left of this Country, keeping in mind that the Country is right of center. You can HOPE and Dream all you want that it is not so, but it is. Reality is coming this November.

February 7, 2010 at 6:18 p.m.
rolando said...

Actually, alprova, hatred and bigotry -- zenophobia -- is not learned. It is a natural progression of evolution or survival, etc...as is the feeling of superiority/power one has over another, be it strength, education, gender, sexual persuasion, or the lack thereof.

But that is neither here nor there. Nov will tell.

Apologizing for a past action is easy; anyone can do it. Sincerity is something else again. The same could be said for Ayers and his bomber-wife as is said for Byrd.

You lost me with your comment re: religion and conservative values. Please enlighten me if I miss your intent.

Atonement is not necessary in Christianity -- sincerity, regret, the admission of past errors, and the attempt to avoid recurrence are... Most sins are beyond atonement; you can't "make up" for them. They are either committed or they are not. All you can do is ask forgiveness; God forgives us in spite of them; all we need do is ask. It is called Grace. The difference between regret for a sin and apologizing for KKK membership is profound; God knows if you are sincere...the people don't and never will. "As the twig is bent...."

Hm-m-m. Our sermon today was on discipleship...never thought _I_ would be called to speak. Hm-m-m. A bit disturbing, that.

Good evening, in any case...

February 7, 2010 at 6:53 p.m.
rolando said...

Forgot this one, alprova. You said, "Given that the Blue Dogs have been impeding the progress of the health care legislation, any "majority" held by the Democrats was an illusion."

That is patently untrue. So soon you forget the Senate's vote on ObamaCare...it was 60-40 along party lines, stopping all Repub attempts to block it. It wasn't until the bill was returned to the House for reconciliation that the Massachusetts election threw the doo-doo into the fan. That seat was supposedly a total Dem shoe-in -- they could have run Daffy Duck and won...or so they thought.

Pandemonium struck the House and Senate alike...to say nothing of Dear Leader seeing his socialist dreams turning into faded pixie dust.

Luckily wiser heads prevailed over those in Congress who would throw barricades and delaying tactics in the path of Sen Brown's seating. Wise because they saw their own demise written on the wall should they pursue that path. Queen Pelosi even tried to get "her" House to OK the Senate bill as written but to no avail. Again, seats are being threatened...and hers is not that far away. That is the ONLY thing Senators and Reps alike fear...a vengeful electorate.

Once again, Nov will tell.

February 7, 2010 at 7:08 p.m.
nucanuck said...

BobMKE,

You say you are a Reagan conservative. Would you amplify that a bit,tell us what that means to you?

February 7, 2010 at 8:16 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando, when you're right, you're right. The vote was 60-40.

However, the President has made it clear that he's not giving up on health care reform and that there will be a televised debate on the issue, as soon as this coming week.

I wonder how such an event will play out, given that Republicans and Democrats alike will have to go on record live and in color in front of the nation.

February 7, 2010 at 8:21 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Rolando and BobMKE are correct, November will tell. Tennessee will be playing a tought Mississpi team that has most of it's starters retuning on defense.

February 7, 2010 at 8:24 p.m.
samplegirl said...

To good not to share with my friends in D.U. No doubt greatest page cartoon. Thanks Clay!!!

February 7, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Rolando..5:32 Re: "Gee, it almost sounds like you would turn all KKK members, past and present -- but especially the originals -- into Republicans, the Party of Lincoln."

If you read my post you would see that I never used the terms Democrat OR Republican. The terms I used were liberal/progressive and conservative. And no, I do not, nor did I infer whatsoever what you quoted above. That would be to simplistic. I thought I made it obvious what the mindset, in general, was during that period.

Simple question..would you consider the mindset of the Southern aristocracy during that period as conservative or liberal/progressive?

"The current crop of Dems is hardly "progressive" -- they never were-- that's just the new buzzword for "Democrat". I have no idea what you mean by that since you do not qualify it in any manner. Its just a talking point statement that does not explain your presumption.

"Someone up there, AndrewLohr I believe, said it best -- to paraphrase, "The Democrat Party of the Sixties has become today's Liberal/Socialist Party."

That would be BobMKE. Perhaps you will have a better time deciphering his post. I normally refrain from labels but after reading his post I was hard pressed to keep the term Fascism from entering my mind. His presumptions and vitriolic denouncements of anyone who would appear not to fit his world view was staggering. Tsk, tsk, such anger.

"You don't get it -- we are fed up with RINOs, wimps, taxers, triple trillion dollar budget geeks and teleprompter twits,...

You do not attempt to qualify who "we" is in your statement. You also go on to suggest McCain as not being part of "we". You seem to suggest, as others from the far right have lately, that moderation or any attempt at bipartisanship will be met with denouncement. It appears you would be willing to renounce any attempt by your leaders of the time honored tradition of compromise to resolve our problems.

Sad, this speaks of nothing less than a purity test for instigated by "we", whoever that happens to be.

February 7, 2010 at 11:28 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Rolando 6:53 p.m. "Actually, alprova, hatred and bigotry -- zenophobia -- is not learned. It is a natural progression of evolution or survival, etc

As to your saying that zenophobia, (actually spelled xenophobia), is not learned, is at best, simplistic. It is generally accepted that most phobias are the result of heredity, genetics, and brain chemistry combined with life-experiences. Thus it is a combination of genetics AND learned events that triggers the xenophobia.

In addition, it is an affliction that generally affects a very small percentage of individuals and is not hard wired into the genes of all humans like the instinct for self survival. The instinct of self preservation, inherent in all humans, does not mean a person needs to be xenophobic for "evolution or survival" since it only affects a small proportion of people.

I think you would agree that most people do not naturally fear people not of their ethnicity, race, class, etc. People may be wary, unsure, or distrustful of others not like themselves, (this is instinctive and natural), without being xenophobic.

In the clinical definition a phobia is considered irrational, unnatural, and/or unreasonable. It is also considered a mental illness.

February 8, 2010 at 2:51 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

BobMKE...February 7, 2010 at 6:18 p.m.

Well Bob if I was asked to describe myself politically I consider myself a Progressive and a moderate. Have you ever even bothered to look up the definition of either? And no, I do not consider nor support Socialism as rigidly defined.

Many, but not all my political beliefs, can be taken from the Progressive Platform of 1912. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607

These beliefs, included within that platform, state...

-Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes.

Comment: Implicit in this is the understanding that the government should be required to protect the citizens from special interests of any kind which would be harmful to the citizenry.

-To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

Comment: The above statement is why I have posted my severe objection to the recent SCOTUS decision to allow unions/corporations unregulated donations to politicians and illustrated further in the following from the platform,

-We pledge our party to legislation that will compel strict limitation of all campaign contributions and expenditures, and detailed publicity of both before as well as after primaries and elections.

Comment: You should also pay close attention to the section entitled, SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL JUSTICE. Perhaps you will notice the things supported there which have become law and which have benefited even yourself.

I have just listed a few of the political points I support within the platform as it is rather lengthy. I also support some liberal philosophies such as the premise that government has an obligation to address social inequalities and promote fairness to all instead of a select few.

As to your reference to JFK cutting taxes, are you aware that Obama just recently cut taxes? Are you aware that Reagan raised taxes,(largest tax increase since WWII), increased entitlements, bailed out Social Security, etc. His tax cut in 1986 imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history. His huge tax cuts resulted in huge deficits which Bush Senior had to address by raising taxes.

There are many myths surrounding Reagan. There are many historical sources to verify the above. Here is one that condenses it to include most of his fiscal policies. Fair warning..as a self described Reagan Conservative, you may find it painful or feel disillusioned but "reality" sometimes does that. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html

Cheers

February 8, 2010 at 5:14 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

hotdiggity,

You are a Statist, no more, no less. That "progressive" platform you are fond of, and others of the same ilk, is the same Statism that lead to most of the atrocities of the 20th Century.

(Here's a hint, if anywhere in your platform you advocate limits on political speech, you ARE a statist.)

That Fascism you are seeing is pure projection.

February 8, 2010 at 7:27 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Caution:Few on this board are equiped sufficiently,by knowledge or intellect,to match wits with hotdiggity. Debate with him/her could be damaging to one's self esteem.

February 8, 2010 at 11:26 a.m.
whoknows said...

Inspector, your post on February 7, 2010 at 12:08 p.m.: Cheers! That's one of the most intelligent posts I've read on here.
And like Sailorman, I too, hope that a better candidate can surface in the 2012 elections, as I will not vote for either Obama or Palin.

February 8, 2010 at 11:47 a.m.
rolando said...

Actually, nucanuck, showing up hotdiggity for what he is -- one who takes another's argument, makes it his own, and claims a "win" -- is about on par with some of your comments.

For instance, hotdiggity -- needlessly coming to alprova's rescue -- in referencing Xenophobia or fear of anything strange or foreign, replied to my post, "As to your saying that zenophobia, (actually spelled xenophobia), is not learned, is at best, simplistic."

Actually, it was not simplistic. Fear IS an instinct and not learned. Period. Infants show fear [and anger] before any other instinct...except perhaps grasping. It can be seen in the child hiding behind his mother's skirts when a stranger enters. This is hardly a learned process, regardless of hotdiggity's claim of what "is generally accepted" about "phobias".

Further, hotdiggity claimed that "...most phobias are the result of heredity, genetics, and brain chemistry combined with life-experiences."

We are speaking of only one phobia here -- Xenophobia. Since that is a demonstrated instinctive fear and not learned, the only thing left to form that fear is, in his words, "heredity, genetics, and brain chemistry" or, as stated in my original posting, "...it is a natural progression of evolution...".

My words...my "win". Q.E.D.

February 8, 2010 at 1:42 p.m.
anonymight said...

This reminds me of Lt. Frank Drebin standing in front of an exploding fireworks factory saying "nothing to see here."

February 8, 2010 at 1:45 p.m.
rolando said...

As stated on another thread, alprova, the GOP would be foolish to enter into any public discussion on ObamaCare. Conservative support of the bill is now needed, much to Dear Leader's chagrin.

That entire bill was crafted behind closed doors, all conservatives/GOP barred from entry, and in Chicago-politics style secret backroom deals.

The Congress thought it was a done deal until Brown came along and, suddenly, it wasn't such a sure thing after all.

So now they want totally open discussion of ObamaCare? Not bloody likely, as the lady said.

If the Dems now want to openly discuss health care reform, throw out Dear Leader's socialistic, government-controlled ObamaCare and start over.

This time listen to the conservative's input...reform may actually happen.

February 8, 2010 at 1:54 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

SCOTTYM-February 8, 2010 at 7:27 a.m

Ummm, Scotty Where in my post have I advocated not allowing "free speech"? In fact if you read the progressive platform it is chock full of advocacy for the average person to be heard. Freedom of speech is one of my core beliefs.

Ho Hum Scotty. You step in and label a person a Statist and insinuate I do not support free speech. You have read and debated several of my posts and your insinuation of my not supporting free speech is wrong in the extreme, and frankly pretty lame.

Accusations of a person being a Statist seems to be the derogatory flavor of the month for persons of your ilk. Please spare me your labels. I have stated my political beliefs and have never stated nor inferred a support for Statism. Really Scotty, where do you come up with these hallucinations?

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” Elbert Hubbard -American editor, publisher and writer, 1856-1915

February 8, 2010 at 2:14 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Poor rolando doesn't know when he has lost a debate point.

February 8, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Well, here it comes. Obama has called out the Repubs to come before the cameras to state their objections/suggestions for health care instead of sniping and pontificating in the background.

Their precondition is to scrap the current plan and start over, which is nothing less than an attempt to avoid public, televised scrutiny of their "solutions".

Rolando says "This time listen to the conservative's input.." Uhh, you are being offered the platform, public debate, to achieve this. You are the one denouncing that the "bill was crafted behind closed doors, all conservatives/GOP barred from entry,..".

Really, Rolando, do you not see the hypocrisy of your statements?

February 8, 2010 at 3:42 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Rolando-February 8, 2010 at 1:42 p.m

OK Rolando, if you choose to believe that xenophobia is a natural, instinctive, and innate condition of humans, far be it from me to dissuade you, LOL.

Instinctive evolutionary fear, (wariness, distrust of others, etc.), is NOT xenophobia. It is abnormal and unnatural, which means it is not the natural state or innateness of evolved man.

A phobia is a phobia. Here you go, a few definitions of phobia....

-An intense, abnormal, or illogical fear of a specified thing: xenophobia.

-an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations

-an extreme and disabling fear accompanied by an intense need to avoid the object or situation

Here is an article that may help. http://health.msn.com/health-topics/mental-health/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100110668

Lol, I never claimed nor inferred that I "win" when making a point. Apparently though, from your post.."My words...my "win", you feel a need to "win". Far be it from me to dissuade you of that also.

Cheers

February 8, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.
Sailorman said...

From what I've seen of the current plan, it does need to be scrapped. Nothing in it that I saw (and it's dam**hard to read) does anything to correct the kind of foolishness that contributes to the booming costs. Saying 500mm will be cut from Medicare reimbursements is not a plan.

HD "Their precondition is to scrap the current plan and start over, which is nothing less than an attempt to avoid public, televised scrutiny of their "solutions".

I'm not seeing how you can come to that conclusion. Whatever the repubs say will, I hope, be subject to that scrutiny. The same as all the dems maneuvering should have been and wasn't.

All that being said, knowing what I know about how insurance in general and Medicare/Medicaid operate from the medical practice perspective, I'm not hopeful that whatever the result is will be beneficial. It may add some folks to the roles but it will still be a financial boondoggle.

February 8, 2010 at 4:20 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Seems to be a bit of thread drift -sorry

February 8, 2010 at 4:25 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Sailor-my point is that there is a lot of biased printed or stated misinformation from both sides. Politicians are more careful to state their views while on camera, and the public tends to hold them more accountable.

Plus a public debate, with both sides airing their opinions, tends to give the public a baseline to support or reject the issue without the bias of the different news organizations.

It seems hard to understand why someone would reject the opportunity to see an important issue such as this completely out in the open. Let the cameras roll.

February 8, 2010 at 5:12 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Oh I agree completely - do let the cameras roll. As was promised :)

Ought to be interesting, maybe even entertaining, but I anticipate depressing.

February 8, 2010 at 5:43 p.m.
EaTn said...

Back to the Tea Party:

Megan McCain, daughter of Senator McCain, has some less than positive comments on the Tea Party:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/republicans-vs-republicans-meghan-mccain-rails-out-at-the-tea-party.html

February 8, 2010 at 7:18 p.m.
BobMKE said...

To Nucanuck & Hotdiggity

I started to write out my thoughts regarding President Reagan when the below article caught my attention. I could not have said it better. Click on and learn. After reading the comments then go to You Tube and click on Reagan's speech at the 1964 Republician Convention (He does not use a telepromter)and there Hotdiggity will hear what Reagan thinks of a Progressive. Then also on You Tube, click on the Reagan Obama debate. Priceless. I prayed last year that Condolezza Rice would have run for President. There is no one better qualified then her. I will pray she runs in 2012.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/06/james-p-pinkerton-ronald-reagan-carter-obama/

February 8, 2010 at 7:44 p.m.
rolando said...

You sure twist and turn when your..ah-h...tail is in a knot, hotdiggity -- you and nucanuck, both. LOL back attcha.

The discussion is about XENOphobia [yeah, I hit the right key this time], not just any old "phobia" [look how the homophiles label disagreeing heteros, for example].

Got that? XENOphobia. Keep it to the original word as I first used it, if you please. Look it up on the online Merriam-Webster not just user-input Wikipedia. Look it up on a medical site and eventually you will find it listed as an instinctive fear reaction.

You sure are strong on making up your own definitions of things. LOL You and nucanuck have that in common, too. You seem to pull those defs out of your...ah-h...THE air. [Yeah, I like using "...ah-h..." -- because it says so much without listening to some ubersensitive leftie crying, "I am offended. Wa-a-ah."]

February 8, 2010 at 8 p.m.
rolando said...

BTW hotdiggity, if you re-read that post of mine with the "I win" comment you will note it was not addressed to you at all but was in rebuttal to nucanuck's comment wherein HE used the phrase. You may have been mentioned a time or two, but it was ABOUT you not TO you. But, as usual for you, you jumped right in there without understanding what you have read. Nucanuck does that too. Hm-m-m...different logins, one person perhaps??

Better be careful, you aren't the first dual-persona poster to forget which one he is supposed to be. LOL Simple minds, etc.

February 8, 2010 at 8:10 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Rolando-February 8, 2010 at 8:10 p.m

"Better be careful, you aren't the first dual-persona poster to forget which one he is supposed to be."

Yawn..Your paranoia just knows no bounds does it?

Here you go, I state that my nickname, hotdiggity, is the only name I use within this forum.

Paranoia-baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

February 8, 2010 at 9:21 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

hotdippity,

I wrote,

"(Here's a hint, if anywhere in your platform you advocate LIMITS on political speech, you ARE a statist.)"

You replied,

"Ummm, Scotty Where in my post have I advocated not allowing "free speech"?

That is a nice effort, but please note the difference between my statement about you advocating "LIMITS" on political speech as opposed to your reply about "NOT ALLOWING" free speech. There is a difference, and your juvenile "debating skills" do not change the fact that you did indeed advocate "LIMITS" on political speech.

You wrote,

"-We pledge our party to legislation that will compel strict limitation of all campaign contributions and expenditures, and detailed publicity of both before as well as after primaries and elections." on February 8, 2010 at 5:14 a.m.

Did I hallucinate that? If so, I need to start hallucinating more zeros on the end of the numbers in my bank accounts, because it sure seems real to me.

If you do not think that is a limit on political speech you are not only a Statist, you are delusional.

February 8, 2010 at 9:22 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Rolando February 8, 2010 at 8 p.m

"The discussion is about XENOphobia...not just any old "phobia".

Oh my gosh, LOL. The term phobia denotes a condition.

Phobias defined....

-It is a strong, irrational fear of something that poses little or no actual danger. -An unreasonable sort of fear that can cause avoidance and panic. -A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

Get it?? A phobia is a phobia is a phobia. There are literally hundreds of phobias including xenophobia. They ALL are defined as irrational, unreasonable, and abnormal. ABNORMAL, get it? As in a fear not normal within people.

From MedicineNet.com-Abnormal: Not normal. Deviating from the usual structure, position, condition, or behavior.

But, once again, far be it for me to question your belief that xenophobia is a natural, instinctive, and innate condition of humans rather than a abnormal fear.

Cheers

February 8, 2010 at 10:16 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

SCOTTYM- I see you have resorted to sophomoric behavior by misspelling my nickname. Tsk tsk.

Until just recently by a 5-4, conservative dominated SCOTUS vote, campaign donations were limited. I think it was a horrible decision, overturning decades of restrictions to prevent undue influence on elected officials.

I will oppose this reckless decision as will millions of others, including 4 of the SC Justices, as long as I live. Anyone with the most basic sense of history will see what has happens when politicians decisions are up for grab to the highest bidder. I will continue to reject the notion that unlimited cash to politicians is good for the American people.

If you choose to think this represents a denial of free speech, so be it. I consider it a sell out of the American individual voice.

Oh, by the way, your quote.."your juvenile "debating skills". Nice touch coming from YOU. Hopefully I will one day acquire your scathing, insightful, saber wit, in my debating skills, LOL.

Chill out, you seem like an angry man.

Cheers

February 9, 2010 at 3:52 a.m.
Clara said...

[edit] Terms for prejudice or discrimination See also: List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms A number of terms with the suffix -phobia are primarily understood as negative attitudes towards certain categories of people or other things, used in an analogy with the medical usage of the term. Usually these kinds of "phobias" are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the "phobia". Often this attitude is based on prejudices and is a particular case of general xenophobia.

Class discrimination is not always considered a phobia in the clinical sense because it is believed to be only a symptom of other psychological issues, or the result of ignorance, or of political or social beliefs. In other words, unlike clinical phobias, which are usually qualified with disabling fear, class discrimination usually has roots in social relations. Below are some examples:

Chemophobia - prejudice against artificial substances in favour of "natural" substances. Ephebiphobia - fear or dislike of youth or adolescents. Homophobia - fear or dislike of homosexuals or homosexuality. Xenophobia - fear or dislike of strangers or the unknown, sometimes used to describe nationalistic political beliefs and movements. It is also used in fictional work to describe the fear or dislike of space aliens.

February 9, 2010 at 7:31 a.m.
Clara said...

Xenophobia "It is more broadly defined in the Dictionary of Psychology "a fear of strangers". [2] As defined by the OED, it can mean a fear of or aversion to, not only persons from other countries, but other cultures, subcultures and subsets of belief systems; in short, anyone who meets any list of criteria about their origin, religion, personal beliefs, habits, language, orientations, or any other criteria. While some will state that the "target" group is a set of persons not accepted by the society, in reality only the phobic person need hold the belief that the target group is not (or should not be) accepted by society. While the phobic person is aware of the aversion (even hatred) of the target group, they may not identify it or accept it as a fear.

As with all phobias, a xenophobic person has to genuinely think or believe at some level that the target is in fact a foreigner. This arguably separates xenophobia from racism and ordinary prejudice in that someone of a different race does not necessarily have to be of a different nationality. In various contexts, the terms "xenophobia" and "racism" seem to be used interchangeably, though they can have wholly different meanings (xenophobia can be based on various aspects, racism being based solely on race and ancestry).

Xenophobia has two main objects:

The first is a population group present within a society that is not considered part of that society. Often they are recent immigrants, but xenophobia may be directed against a group which has been present for centuries, or became part of this society through conquest and territorial expansion. This form of xenophobia can elicit or facilitate hostile and violent reactions, such as mass expulsion of immigrants, pogroms or in other cases, genocide.

The second form of xenophobia is primarily cultural, and the objects of the phobia are cultural elements which are considered alien. All cultures are subject to external influences, but cultural xenophobia is often narrowly directed, for instance, at foreign loan words in a national language. It rarely leads to aggression against individual persons, but can result in political campaigns for cultural or linguistic purification."

February 9, 2010 at 7:44 a.m.
Clara said...

I didn't get to the computer until this morning as I was at the VA.

I note that the split between political parties, ideologies, beliefs, tendencies, and whatever else, has widened.

Now I must question my paranoid belief that there is some malignant, over-reacting entity that follows the ancient rule..."Divide and Conquer".

Sigh! Blame it on lack of sleep and frustration.

Perhaps it is the Spaghetti monster? C:-)

February 9, 2010 at 7:57 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Clara-February 9, 2010 at 7:44 a.m.

Nice research. I have came across several articles with basically the same tone. One article explaining the overlap of xenophobia and racism was particularly interesting.

I wish I could find the specific article because it provided what I considered the most telling aspect of xenophobia. It basically stated that xenophobia was fear of strangers, cultures, etc., that was out of proportion to the actual danger presented..

Enjoy your posts.

February 9, 2010 at 1:28 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

I think that this split between political parties, ideologies, etc., as stated by Clara is something that can't be helped. It is, apparently, a genetic trait according to the Block Study. In case you don't know, Jack and Jeanne Block followed 95 3 year olds for thirty years to see how personality was formed in a child. Years later, they decided to see if personality dictated political affiliation. To their suprise, it did.

A quote from Pschology Today: "Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics."

Maybe xenophobia is hardwired in some people. And, thus, they can't help being paranoid. Paradigm shifts are difficult for some people to get used to.

The article can be found here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200612/the-ideological-animal

I'm not saying that one is better than the other but it could explain the radical differences of opinions on these posts.

February 9, 2010 at 2:47 p.m.
Sailorman said...

I read the whole article - interesting. No doubt conducted by liberal psychologists seeking to justify their existence, but interesting.

A quote often incorrectly attributed to Churchill (though he did repeat it) seems appropriate here:

"Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

February 9, 2010 at 5 p.m.
Clara said...

Savarti,

Thanks for the article. I've always known the politicians used fear as a weapon. I'm almost sorry this cartoon commentary isn't still viable, and is being ignored by many.

hotdiggity,

After you open the URL, you'll have to do a little digging, but the site offers lots of possibilities.

Thanks for the support!

February 9, 2010 at 6:07 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Sailor, I'm familiar with the quote. Rather ironic that his country has that nasty socialistic Universal Health Care?

I have always admired Churchill, but I know that he was a Conservative for most of his career, so his quote does not surprise me.

Here is a site that shows a map of all those industrialized countries with that nasty Universal Health Care. Hey our color code is the same as Africa. Sweet, LOL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa...

Churchill quotes are some of my favorite.

February 10, 2010 at 9:05 a.m.
Sailorman said...

hd - I have no problem with the concept of "universal health care". I have tons of problems with the implementation proposed and yes, it would be "nasty". As always, the devil is in the details.

But this is a topic for another time - or cartoon.

February 10, 2010 at 9:40 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.