published Saturday, July 10th, 2010

Game Over

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 ...

33
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.
SavartiTN said...

what, dewey?

July 10, 2010 at 1:35 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

Clever, Clay, clever.

July 10, 2010 at 1:39 a.m.
notgriscom said...

Very good one, Clay. While I lived near Washington I kept up with good ole Zach. A conservative myself, I was always amazed at how Mr. Wamp could say one thing to get elected and, like most politicians, do a 180 once in office. Where has Zach's voice been while the Obama administration continues to take away our rights and freedoms? The voice was curiously silent. Too much time spent on thinking how to become governor. While the ultra liberals are stupidly taking us under, politicians like Zach just play the game...content to ride out the storm and collect their pension for life. Well, this game is about over, Zach. Better plug up the old Zach Man -- or better yet, grab the old Frogger. You and another lame conservative, Mr. Tommy Griscom, another Washington has-been can take a jump together. And don't forget --- those little men will follow right behind....got it Little Johnny?

July 10, 2010 at 3:02 a.m.
woody said...

This one is a 'doozy' Clay!! The only thing left to mention, at this point is, while Zach may look good, compared to most of whom he is running against, he had better watch out he doesn't "...bite off more than he can chew...."

Look out for Bill, Woody

July 10, 2010 at 7:47 a.m.
ProgressiveInTN said...

One can only hope that crooked loser doesn't end up running the state!

July 10, 2010 at 8:35 a.m.
moonpie said...

Dewey,

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and the Republican Party was strongest above the Mason-Dixon Line. The pre Civil War South was mostly Democrat.

That being said, as time went by, the Republican Party became more conservative toward social change, while the Democrat Party became more liberal.

Zach Wamp is indeed a long way from Abraham Lincoln, and talks states rights as if he were trying to evoke the spirit of the Old South.

I don't agree with his political stances regarding a lot of National Politics, but Bill Haslam seems a lot more prepared to run a state than does Zach Wamp.

July 10, 2010 at 8:46 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

The Pac Man Zach, I remember way back in the 90's when he ran for Congress with his 5 point pledges to the people of the 3rd. Of course, he didn't fulfill one pledge. Here are some of them:
term limits (broken) won't accept any Pac money (broken) promised to live outside the beltway (way broken lives in the best lil ****house in Washington on C-Street), promised congressional pay would be no higher than 50k a year ( way broken plus he voted for increases to himself and others now currently at $174,00 with unbelievably great benefits. ) How many of you have seen that kind of increase in your current job since 1994? Pledged his kids would go to public schools. Again broken.
Also, promised to have all of Congress live at the Quantico Marine base in Virginia. Yeah, he's a man of 20/20 vision and wild stories... LOL.

July 10, 2010 at 9 a.m.
harrystatel said...

Zack and those of his ilk are more dangerous than the Pelosi- Reid-Obama crowd. At least those "Progressives" wear their colors in public.

Zach is a populist making decisions not on beliefs, but on whatever winds are blowing. Like an outhouse rat, he runs from privy to privy sniffing fumes and crying "foul" before wallowing in the waste.

He has the backbone of a jellyfish, the intestinal fortitude of protozoa, and padded pockets of a political poltroon. In other words, he's your typical congressman whether Democrat or Republican.

"Are you better off today than 16 years ago?” That's when Zack took office.

As a classic liberal in the European tradition (look that up under Ludwig von Mises) I'm weary of the Repubocrats of all stripes.

And Zach's stripes are black and white, like the skunk he is.

July 10, 2010 at 9:04 a.m.
dss said...

Here's your choice, Dewey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18p2Gg8yNUY

She's brilliant.

July 10, 2010 at 9:25 a.m.
harrystatel said...

Mr. Callahan, don't misunderstand me. I have no use for the Pelosi-Reid-Obama crowd either.

When anybody, whether it's the progressives or conservatives steal your money, claim the results of your own labors, tell you what you can or can't put in your body (food police and the idiotic war on drugs), demand your allegiance under force of law (taxes to the government, tithes for God) it's all the same.

Theft is theft whether it's done in the name of the government or the name of God.

I tote guns, enjoy pre-1980 country music, and prefer hicks over Congress anytime. I don't need Congress or anyone else to run my life whether it's Obama, Pelosi, or Wamp.

July 10, 2010 at 9:33 a.m.
bret said...

The latest poll shows that Haslam is comfortably ahead of Wamp and Wamp's camp spins it as "great news."

"Come back here, Haslam, it's only a flesh wound!"

July 10, 2010 at 9:53 a.m.
harrystatel said...

You do need to stop Dewey. The Patriot Act was a power grab and Bush seized another opportunity to take away freedoms (supported by Democrats and Republicans),the Medicare Prescription Act and No Child Left Behind are wasteful, just as TARP, Obamacare, and the military-corporate system that engages America in useless wars and imperialism.

Sorry Dewey. I'm not a conservative Republican or progressive Democrat. I think for myself and follow no one's party line.

It does seem as though there's a hook in your lip. Please continue to suck at the government teat while on your knees rather than stand on your own and produce something of value.

July 10, 2010 at 10:01 a.m.
moonpie said...

With all Dewey respect (sorry - bad joke),

Do what, Dewey, point out facts that you don't happen to like hearing?

You said if it was up to the Republicans, we'd still have slavery.

When I point out a simple fact to refute that claim, you seem to get upset. You then say, it's 2010.

This line of discourse makes me think you originally were trying to say: if MODERN day Republicans (or 1950s Republicans) had been in charge in the 1860s, then we'd still have slavery. If that were true, then those people would likely have been aligned with Southern Democrats.

Northerners would still have voted for a party candidate that opposed that point of view. I think we'd be in the same boat.

Reading this post and from your previous remarks on other issues, I think the main gist of what you say is that you believe Republicans are backwards and small-minded.

However, I don't think you're going to win any of them over by insulting them. I think you'll just entrench them more against you.

If you are a Republican, I'd say you're unifying your base of support.

If you're a Democrat, I'd say you're behaving as closed-mindedly as those you claim to oppose.

I'll let you have the last word on this.....

July 10, 2010 at 10:27 a.m.
harrystatel said...

Dewey, Spend some of that vast sum of money you have in your billfold (is it your earned money or welfare?) and buy a book on spelling and punctuation.

Or is spelling a white conspiracy to keep the ignorant and parasites in slavery?

The world awaits your opinion (just kidding)!

July 10, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.
rolando said...

Good Lord. Someone here actually voted in SUPPORT of this demagogue's postings. Now THAT is frightening!

July 10, 2010 at 2:51 p.m.
alprova said...

Twern't me.

July 10, 2010 at 7:12 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I dunno; dewey seems like our side's "canary", alprova. Rolando is just a little less incoherent.

July 10, 2010 at 7:53 p.m.
rolando said...

Bet lkeith was one of the two. She no doubt sees him as a real scientific deep-thinker...her kind of "scientist.

July 10, 2010 at 8:23 p.m.
rolando said...

Actually, al, I never thought you were one of them...couldn't tell you why though.

eeeek is certainly the other one...or maybe librul. They need positive feedback to survive.

July 10, 2010 at 8:27 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

rolando, you might want to stay away from the science topic; you make yourself look pretty foolish every time you say anything at all related to the subject.

July 10, 2010 at 9:37 p.m.
HiDef said...

Ditto on your 7:53 post lkeithlu. I was thinking the same exact thing!

July 10, 2010 at 10:29 p.m.
notgriscom said...

Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poore Dewey.Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poore Dewey.Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poore Dewey.Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poore Dewey.Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poore Dewey.Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poore Dewey.Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poore Dewey.Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poor Dewey. Poore Dewey.

July 11, 2010 at 3:16 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Hey Dewey,

Just wanted you to know that I am the one getting all of your "nasty" post removed. Cursing is not allowed on here.

July 12, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Rolando,

He actually votes for himself of course.

July 12, 2010 at 2:46 p.m.
alprova said...

Nurse...no one can vote for themselves, but I support your effort to have certain posts removed. They really are over the top and for other reasons as well.

July 12, 2010 at 6:48 p.m.
rolando said...

Who's the idiot posting the ads for shoes? I suggest removal of those, too. No ads allowed.

BTW, lkeith, you should certainly avoid calling kettles black -- you don't admit being wrong even when proven wrong...especially when it concerns your [faulty] opinion of what constitutes "science".

So how's the green cheese?

July 12, 2010 at 7:16 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sorry, rolando, in this case I am right. You are so clueless you don't realize it. However, except for canary, everyone else does. This definitely reduces your credibility. Unfortunately, you may be right on other topics, but who could trust you when you don't own up to mistakes in others?

July 12, 2010 at 7:32 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "BTW, lkeith, you should certainly avoid calling kettles black -- you don't admit being wrong even when proven wrong...especially when it concerns your [faulty] opinion of what constitutes "science"


Rolando...please.

When you stop responding on a topic, that does not constitute your having achieved any goal of offering any proof that would end a debate. It just means you were spanked, you realized it, and that you had nothing left to attempt to offer. Ya' lost.

The last thread where you refused to answer a pointed question, only to make a complete fool of yourself by offering the most outlandish theory ever proposed on this planet, did not prove anything other that you love to Tango.

Your expressed explanations that the definition of time having changed in our past really flies in the face of common sense. It's the same crap tried to explain why people lived to be hundreds of years old, as related in the Bible.

Hold your beliefs if you must. It's your right to do so. What you cannot claim however, is that you are "right" and that you have "proven" anything...other than you fail miserably at every turn, in how to defend your beliefs. They are not rooted at all in anything that even borders on realism.

Science involves the collection of evidence that involves that which you can see, smell, taste, touch, and hear.

The adoption of faith almost always never includes any of the five senses, unless you include what people hear and believe that is often stated by a man behind a pulpit. You can read the Bible with your eyes, but given that the source of the writings have always involved controversy as to the origin of that which is written in the Bible, it's useless as evidence.

Some people accept the Bible as the end-all debate, word of God, do so on the platform of totally blind faith.

Scientists PROVE their cases with again, evidence that includes the use of the five senses.

Biblical believers throw out passages from the Bible and merely pray you will believe them.

July 12, 2010 at 9:50 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Realize that accepting what science has found, including an ancient earth, continents that move and change, mass extinction events and evolution of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees does not mean that one has to give up their faith in God, Yahweh, Allah, whatever you may call her/him. What you must do, however, is give up the notion of religious text used as accurate history. To deny all of the above is to deny reality. All evidence supports it (evidence is measurable, observable, physical phenomena documented by countless people)

There is no evidence to support the existence of angels, demons, ghosts, pixies, magic, or flying spaghetti monsters. None. Zip, (although that last one might be fun. Ramen) There is no evidence to support a flat earth, talking snakes, a world-wide flood, or an ark full of animals. In fact, all evidence collected shows that none of it was possible. Unless, of course, a deity set it up to look the way it does to fool us (Often called "Last Thursdayism", in that the world was actually created last Thursday looking as if it was ancient and all of us were created with the memory that precedes this date) Such a deity would have a tremendous sense of humor.

July 13, 2010 at 10:13 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Actually Rolando, If you sign in as someone else then you can vote for yourself. But I suspect you are right about some of the ones voting for him. Anyone who does shows they are as much of an idiot.

July 13, 2010 at 11:12 a.m.
alprova said...

Nurse wrote: "Actually Rolando, If you sign in as someone else then you can vote for yourself. But I suspect you are right about some of the ones voting for him. Anyone who does shows they are as much of an idiot."


I agree with what you state, but who is it that is supposedly signing in as someone else and doing it?

July 13, 2010 at 3:20 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

well I was thinking of someone with multiple sign in names.

sorry I was not very clear.

July 13, 2010 at 4:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

nurse, I'd imagine that few people have more than one sign in, unless they were playing sock-puppet, which is usually not too honest. However, I can imagine that someone might have different names from different IP addresses, perhaps one at home and one at work.

July 13, 2010 at 4:51 p.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.