published Sunday, October 3rd, 2010

The Recipe

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 ...

145
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.
nucanuck said...

Time to think beyond the Tea Party.

The two year election cycle for Congress seems to have created an unending election campaign that encourages the increasingly bitter partisan divide. With elections costing more and more our politicians turn to the easy lobby money to be able to finance their next campaign.

We need to restructure a broken and corrupting system.

What if all of the House and Senate were elected for one only eight year term,staggered so half ran every four years.The President ran for one only six year term,no re-elections for anyone,no lobbying allowed.

That would clean up the system and hopefully head us back toward a government of citizens instead of career politicians.

October 3, 2010 at 12:48 a.m.
Francis said...

with this cartoon mr. bennett has officialy crossed over the line from being simply a propagandist to being a bootlicker and a butt-kisser.... the collective butt and boots of the extreme left leaders of the democrat party.

the snake in the liquid with "hostility' written on it is a crude, ignorant and anti-american attack on the 'don't tread on me flag'....equating that symbol with hostility alone speaks to his disrespect and ignorance about our history and what people are geniunely feeling now under the obama regime.

his idea of who and what constitutes the tea party flies in the face of the facts which show that the tea party is comprised of unhappy democrats, republic- ans, independents and people from many walks of life.

mr. bennett's stereotyping of tea party people is on par with the vulgar and shameful cartoons of america's early days depicting black americans as watermelon munching clowns and with nazi cartoons depicting jews as big-nosed, greedy bloodsuckers.

this cartoon is about as insightful as any observation made by paris hilton, and as worthless as a used kleenex.

October 3, 2010 at 1:36 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Francis,your partisan anger level rivals that of canary...you two ought to meet for a cup of tea.

October 3, 2010 at 1:46 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

I think that Clay has fallen into the same mental trap that may of those on the "left" are now occupying.

It can't be that your ideas are wrong (as proven repeatedly over the last century or so), so it must be something wrong with those who disagree.

They must be racist, because that would explain it now that we've elected a non-white president.

Maybe it's xenophobia?

Maybe they're just dumb.

It couldn't possibly be that informed Americans are repelled by Statist tyranny.

It couldn't possibly be that we are tired of the racially divisive policies of the contemporary "left".

It couldn't be that we are tired of the class warfare rhetoric (designed to appeal to the middle class) of those rich (NOT middle class) folks in the seats of power, designed to secure the hierarchy upon which they live lives of luxury at the taxpayer's expense.

It couldn't possibly be that a large chunk of the population actually understands the gift we've been given by the sacrifices of our ancestors.

That gift is freedom in mind, body, and spirit.

The "Tea Party" isn't trying to take freedom away. They are trying to restore it.

Here's a hint for those to dense to pick it up...

When a wealthy, powerful person says that they are going to penalize you for making too much money, just to be "fair" to those who haven't the gumption and/or abilities you possess, you can lube up and take it, or you can tell them to FOD.

Take your pick.

Even if you don't make "too much money", do you want them(.gov functionaries) to dictate what fruits you can keep of your own hard work?

The useful idiots will be held to account.

Yes, I'm looking at you.

SCOTTYM says FOD!III

October 3, 2010 at 4:38 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

Perfectly fair.

To everyone outside of the ruling class.

October 3, 2010 at 5:09 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Yeah, I see it -- ol' bitter francis with his constant knee-jerk CONS/REGRESSIVE response and cuckoointheouthouse there in that bottle labled "bitterness".

October 3, 2010 at 5:53 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

SCOTTYM says FOD

Yay.. FOD walkdown flashback. Got to keep that aircraft safe for maneuvers

October 3, 2010 at 6:33 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I wouldn't paint the tea party as extreme as Clay, but I can't take the tea party's motives seriously until they can produce a candidate that isn't a looney. So far not so good. In addition I'm suspicious of anything supported so vocally by Palin.

October 3, 2010 at 7:12 a.m.
hambone said...

Can't everyone see it coming? The only thing that the up coming election is going to produce is super GRIDLOCK!! Go ahead, kick the bums out and run some more bums in. Their first line of business will be re-election. It is just going to be an endless cycle until we have REAL election reform.

October 3, 2010 at 7:35 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

This laboratory is set up out of the Koch brothers place, isn't it? I understand the billionaires have a room just to concoct ways to get poor, uninformed bigots to do the fighting for the rich.

October 3, 2010 at 8:05 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

When I come back from a deployment, I can always count on Clay to give me a snapshot of what I've missed.

BTW - Sandy wrote "uninformed bigots to do the fighting for the rich", you hit the nail on the head. For a good read check out Tim Wise "White Privilege", its not about race but about greed.

Have a great Sunday.

October 3, 2010 at 8:27 a.m.
woody said...

Scotty, I am so far-flung from the "ruling class", I feel like I am in the highest, farthest from the action, of the nose-bleed seats of Neyland Stadium on a sold-out day. And yet, I can see that if "The Tea Party" is working for my benefit the way in which they are going about it has me more scared of them than the 'status quo'.

Now, how bad is that??

Common sense has always been a determining factor for me, and nothing I have heard out of the mouth of anyone connected with this movement has come even close to resembling common sense.

Check the various definitions of the word "anarchy" and you'll come closer to describing "The Tea Party" than any other I can think of at this moment.

It's Sunday, enjoy, Woody

October 3, 2010 at 8:44 a.m.
Clara said...

I love the way Clay has Half-Hidden Fox news as the first step in all the rest of this explosive situation.

October 3, 2010 at 8:55 a.m.
Clara said...

Definitions of jingoism on the Web:

flag waving: an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions chauvinism: fanatical patriotism wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy". ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism

Excessive patriotism or aggressive nationalism especially with regards to foreign policy; A jingoistic attitude, comment, etc en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jingoism

jingoistic - overly patriotic or nationalistic en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jingoistic

The term is generally negative and applies to extreme patriotism used especially to persuade public opinion in support of war. sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Curricula/glossary.html

A highly belligerent patriotism. Chauvinism. Originated in 19th century Britain when a popular song criticized government restraint during an international crisis: We don't want to fight, Yet by jingo, if we do, We've got the ships, we've got the men, And got the money, too! ... www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1451.html>

whatsthefuss said...

What I find most arrogant is the fact that there are people on this planet that believe they do not possess these character traits. The only people who are so terrible with so many flaws are the ones that oppose the views of a Mr. Bennett for example. And who are the chosen ones who decided to mark such people as damaged goods, why they are of course. With the weather turning to fall, again I suggest it is time for the 1st Annual Times Free Press Dysfunctional Family Picnic. Clay, then you can come out of your hole and meet the freaks!!!

October 3, 2010 at 9:28 a.m.
OllieH said...

Thanks to both Francis and SCOTTYM for their comments.

In their vitriolic attacks on this cartoon, they have served up the best evidence of its accuracy.

October 3, 2010 at 9:29 a.m.
reaganwasright said...

I'm not a member of the tea party but I think what upsets some people about this cartoon is that it leaves out some good ingredients like

Love of country Self reliance Liberty

As for the ingredients brewing the tea

Paranoia: yes, failed goverment policies make people paranoid about what might be coming next.

Bitterness, Fear, Anger, Cynicism, Hostility too. This should happen when we see our country heading in so many wrong directions. Our debt and spending are out of control. One thing I didn't like about Bush was how he expanded executive power. Obama has further expanded it. This is something to be feared and I don't think this is unique to the tea party.

Jingoism. That's fair. The tea party does this too much. They call democrats elitists. Probably why I'm not a member. Jingoism is present in all political parties. I think I've seen at least one group call the republicans the Party of No.

Prejudice. We all have this. There are probably some people who are truly prejudiced in the tea party but if you can't see it in other parties you're just not paying attention.

Fox News isn't always right and doesn't always give a fair shake to the opposite point of view.... kind of like this cartoon. Fox isn't always wrong, either.

I know some people who are in the tea party. They are all good people. There are some crazy people in the tea party too. The tea party is far from perfect and it is a bitter brew. Sometimes medicine is bitter. It doesn't mean it's all bad for you just because you don't like the taste.

October 3, 2010 at 10:20 a.m.
Oz said...

Add a cup of arrogance to the recipe and you have liberal.

October 3, 2010 at 10:21 a.m.
acerigger said...

The four cornerstones of the American political psyche are(1)emotion substituted for thought,(2)fear,(3)ignorance,and(4)propaganda,all obviously prevalent in the tea party movement.

October 3, 2010 at 10:23 a.m.
dave said...

Another liberal that doesn't get it...like most of the Leftist Democrats...

WE DON'T LIKE TAXES!!!!!!

THE TAXES WE ARE PAYING ARE TOO HIGH....

THAT IS WHAT IS MEANT BY:

TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!

DUH

October 3, 2010 at 10:26 a.m.
alprova said...

Scotty wrote: "I think that Clay has fallen into the same mental trap that may of those on the "left" are now occupying."


Yes of course. Enumerating all that which plagues those who call themselves "tea-partiers" is a mental trap? Hilarious.


"It can't be that your ideas are wrong (as proven repeatedly over the last century or so), so it must be something wrong with those who disagree."


Who's proven that the left's ideas are wrong? The most prosperous decades in the history this country have been evidenced when Democrats ruled the roost.

How can you overlook that undeniable fact?


"They must be racist, because that would explain it now that we've elected a non-white president."


Have you ever met a tea-partier who claimed to vote for President Obama? Yeah right.


"It couldn't possibly be that informed Americans are repelled by Statist tyranny."


You're right. It's not. Tea-partiers, for the most part, are appalled that a man of color is attempting to rectify the wrongs committed by the elitist whites who, until recently, have always been in charge and have manipulated all things for the benefit of a chosen few.


"It couldn't possibly be that we are tired of the racially divisive policies of the contemporary "left"."


How dare anyone suggest that a white person in business to serve the public continue to be made to serve all of the public equally and without prejudice.

How dare anyone who utilizes a workforce be made to prove that they are not picking and choosing a worker based on the color of their skin.


"It couldn't be that we are tired of the class warfare rhetoric (designed to appeal to the middle class) of those rich (NOT middle class) folks in the seats of power, designed to secure the hierarchy upon which they live lives of luxury at the taxpayer's expense."


As if the most important factor was not which group of those elected, refuse to address the problems for not only the middle class, but the dirt poor in this nation.

One group also has worked relentlessly to build a venue to allow jobs to be shipped out of this nation, chipping away at the middle class existence, while transferring their wealth into the pockets of corporatists.


"It couldn't possibly be that a large chunk of the population actually understands the gift we've been given by the sacrifices of our ancestors."


Number one, they stole that "gift." Number two, they are dead and can do nothing for the living any longer.


"That gift is freedom in mind, body, and spirit."


You forgot to mention "fantasy."


"The "Tea Party" isn't trying to take freedom away. They are trying to restore it."


Sure they are. You're not the only one who is remotely aware of the "freedom" that would be in store for many if the tea-partiers had their way.

October 3, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Dave, sentiments acknowledged. So why can't the Tea Party field a candidate that is not an ignorant nutcase?

October 3, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.
whatever said...

Check the various definitions of the word "anarchy" and you'll come closer to describing "The Tea Party" than any other I can think of at this moment.

Please don't insult the real anarchists! They may be fruitcakes in their own way, but their mindset is not the same as the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is more like the Know-Nothing movement.

Also, self-improvement's first rule is you must first acknowledge what is bad about yourself. Card-carrying Tea Party members may wish to consider that.

October 3, 2010 at 10:57 a.m.
alprova said...

Clara wrote: "I love the way Clay has Half-Hidden Fox news as the first step in all the rest of this explosive situation."


I missed this!! You have a very keen eye.

Fox News has indeed fueled much of the anger that exists in this country. It's also starting to backfire on them too.

A cable news tracking report was issued on September 29th, showing that Fox News is losing viewers. They have lost 21% in total viewers and 26% of their younger viewers.

O'Reilly lost 12% of his viewers. Hannity, Beck, Special Report, and On The Record have all also lost double digits compared to Sept. ’09.

MSNBC, the only network to show growth, has gained 4% in the 25-54 year old age group.

Another interesting and telling statistic or two;

FOX Network's average viewer is 65 years old. CNN's average audience was 63, MSNBC was at 59, and CNBC is the youngest at 52.

October 3, 2010 at 11:02 a.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu...So why can't the Tea Party field a candidate that is not an ignorant nutcase?

The same thing can be said about the left. It all depends on your politics. I believe Obama is the god of nutcases. You don't. Alan Grayson, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are running a close second.

October 3, 2010 at 11:06 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oz, you might not agree with Obama, Reid, etc. but I'm sorry-they show no signs of the disconnect with reality that O'Donnell, and to a lesser extend Paul and Huckabee do. Have you seen her stance on scientific issues? Her ignorant, religion-soaked statements are appalling. Find a candidate who wants to lessen government, or reduce taxes, or whatever without being totally out of touch with the real world (in O'Donnell's case due to fundamentalist religion) and maybe I'll start believing this is truly a party that is after something new, not the religious right disguised in a cheap tuxedo.

October 3, 2010 at 11:15 a.m.
whatever said...

There are two forms of crazy-calling.

The first is primarily bashing somebody because you disagree with them, and is probably just your standard pointless personal attack.

The second is when it's relatively accurate, because what a person suggests is not rational, not reasonable, and just plain insane.

Most people will argue which is which. But when you can't even admit you do have some members of the second in your group, and feel obligated to support them...then you have a problem.

October 3, 2010 at 11:16 a.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu.... If the left and the so called right were connected with the real world. The Tea Party would not be getting any support. I don't attend any Tea Party events or consider myself a member but I am getting sick of both parties.

October 3, 2010 at 11:34 a.m.
whatever said...

Hah-hah. The Tea Party is getting support before of denial of the real world. There is nothing easier to use to get people behind you than to deny some bitter, uncomfortable truths that they don't want to admit are true.

I've seen that at the events I went to.

October 3, 2010 at 11:39 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

My point, Oz, is that candidates that live in fantasy worlds of Genesis Creation and Gays Causing AIDS are less fit to govern than the crowd we have now. The Tea Party deserves ridicule if what they are offering is worse, not better.

October 3, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.
samplegirl said...

Clay Bennett crossing over the line or exposing the truth? The main ingrediant left out is the Koch Corporations money. Without it the Tea party would of burned out or exploded by now. Corporate wholesale buying groups now have the ability to purchase politicians with legally laundered money so that their efforts will be forever the secret ingrediant. It will be interesting to see how this influences the face of their "grassroots" organizing. The idea of the fringe running this country like a bunch of Mad Scientists is going to move voters to the Left. Rational people don't go along with the radical ideals of the teabaggers. They need a new recipe the majority of Americans are tired of scraping the bowl.

October 3, 2010 at 12:16 p.m.
concernedjoe said...

Looks like the recipe for a liberal to me. They always accuse those who dare to disagree with them of being exactly what they themselves are.

October 3, 2010 at 12:21 p.m.
acerigger said...

Dear "taxed enough already",MY taxes went down last year,and if the GOP obstructionists would get out of the way,they'll go down even more next year.

October 3, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.
whatever said...

Looks like the recipe for a liberal to me. They always accuse those who dare to disagree with them of being exactly what they themselves are.

Oddly, "conservatives" always accuse those who criticize and disagree with them of this very thing.

It's interesting how predictable the dance is.

October 3, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
whatever said...

Oh, and Fox news isn't the first step, Hostility is.

Fox is just heating the fear-fueled anger up.

October 3, 2010 at 12:41 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Change the labels "FOX NEWS" to "Leftish News" and "TEA PARTY" to "Attacks on the Tea Party." The cartoon depends on the labels, not on the artwork.

Ikeithlu, when a gay with AIDS has sex and transmits the AIDS virus to someone who did not have it before, what do you call it? (Or anyone else who has AIDS, of course, and with needles not just sex.) Do you know how Uganda reduced its AIDS rate? Do you respect Christians who plant churches by starting with ministry to AIDS sufferers? (I think Presbyterian Church in America people have done this in New York and Addis Ababa, or worked along these lines.)

Evolution is the theory that it's OK to eat evolutionists.

October 3, 2010 at 12:44 p.m.
whatever said...

Might as well ask when a Gay with the flu and sneezes on somebody who doesn't have it...

October 3, 2010 at 1:09 p.m.
alprova said...

Andrew, how many times a week do you find yourself driving down the interstate, only to discover that you have taken the wrong off-ramp?

October 3, 2010 at 2 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Andrew, HIV jumped from other primates to humans. That it is sexually transmitted is known. That the gay population in large cities in the US were the original population it spread to was coincidence. HIV/AIDS is spreading faster in heterosexual populations; those in which the Catholic Church is influential don't choose to use condoms in a lot of cases. Uganda would rather execute their gay men than confront the real cause of spreading HIV: promiscuity and unsafe sexual practices.

If one's knowledge of science is limited enough that one doesn't accept evolution, an old earth and universe, one has no business making decisions for others in this country. It shows that the person is not interested in learning, and is willing to make public statements about topics that they know nothing about (politically motivated, usually). ANYONE can educate themselves on these topics if one didn't get it in school. Someone who still thinks that Genesis is a scientific description probably can't make good decisions on nuclear power, bio-technology, health or science education.

October 3, 2010 at 2:15 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

eeeeek says, "Got to keep that aircraft safe for maneuvers"

I wasn't talking about foreign object damage.

sandyonsignal wrote, "I understand the billionaires have a room just to concoct ways to get poor, uninformed bigots to do the fighting for the rich."

It's funny that you are so riled up by the Koch brothers but are totally ignoring G. Soros, who spends a lot more of his own money supporting far left causes.


woody wrote,

"Common sense has always been a determining factor for me, and nothing I have heard out of the mouth of anyone connected with this movement has come even close to resembling common sense."

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm

Read it and see who is sticking to "common sense" and who is rushing headlong into tyranny.

We've gotten rid of the monarchs, but there are still others who would assume the same powers.

October 3, 2010 at 2:21 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

acerigger wrote, "The four cornerstones of the American political psyche are(1)emotion substituted for thought,(2)fear,(3)ignorance,and(4)propaganda,all obviously prevalent in the tea party movement."

Substituting emotion for thought is a "liberal" hallmark, thus the stupidity. Fear? Yes fear of a tyrannical federal entity which will only degrade our standards of living and our freedom. I'd say the fear is healthy. Ignorance? is that why teapartiers do so much better on questions about history and U.S. politics than the average leftist? Propaganda? Like when a majority of the media repeat DNC talking points, word for word, without even attempting to be non-biased, and paint vast swaths of the population as some "other" to be feared. Yeah, they're doing a great job.


al the moron wrote,

"Who's proven that the left's ideas are wrong?"

The USSR, Cambodia, Cuba, China, Venezuela... Socialism/Communism never works. It is a failed model based upon envy of others and the idea that by subsuming human nature one can produce a utopia. It has never worked, and it never will, no matter how much useful idiots such as yourself seem to believe it will.

Don't think that's what the left have up their sleeve? Here are some photos from that little rally put on yesterday by media morons and furnished with warm bodies by the unions and various other anti-liberty groups. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/10/15-photos-from-onenation-rally-youll.html

BTW, notice the trash left behind. Note that after the Tea Party rally the public spaces were left pristine. I'd say that's a convincing example of who is trashing the country and who isn't.

"Blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, class warfare, blah, blah, Number one, they stole that "gift.""

Yes they stole freedom for all of us. Good lord, could you be any more dense? You throw all these far left talking points out as if you have your own show on MSNBC. Can't you think for yourself?

October 3, 2010 at 2:23 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Ik wrote,

"So why can't the Tea Party field a candidate that is not an ignorant nutcase?"

First, your perception is skewed by a biased media that repeats the ignorant ramblings of non-leftists, while burying the idiotic ramblings of leftist true believers. Second, there are plenty of ignorant nutcases all around us. Many of them already occupy seats in the Capitol building. I'll take an ignorant nutcase who believes in freedom and a Constitutionally limited government anyday over an ignorant nutcase who believes we should all be enslaved under the yoke of socialist tyranny. Those really are the choices.

We have a SecTreasury who can't correctly file his own taxes. We have a POTUS who wasn't quite clear on how many states are in the U.S. We have a Speaker of the House who is appalled by the idea that the bills she pushes through should be written within the framework of the Constitution. We have A Congressman who believes that if we put too many troops on the island of Guam, it will flip over and sink.

The government is full of idiots. They are not unique to the tea party.


Samplegirl,

"/Union/ groups now have the ability to purchase politicians with legally laundered money so that their efforts will be forever the secret ingredient. The idea of the fringe running this country like a bunch of Mad Scientists is going to move voters to the /right/. Rational people don't go along with the radical ideals of the /sociallists/."

Fixed it for you.


acerigger,

"Dear "taxed enough already",MY taxes went down last year,and if the GOP obstructionists would get out of the way,they'll go down even more next year."

Lots of peoples taxes have gone down since the democrats took over the House and the Senate in Jan. of 2007. Losing you job is a great way to reduce your tax burden.

Unemployment number as of Jan. 2007 = 9%

October 3, 2010 at 2:26 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I would rather deal with what we have than to let the foaming religious nuts take power using a trojan horse labeled "smaller government, fewer taxes". It's clear what Huckabee and O'Donnell want. When the Tea Party has a coherent platform and candidates that don't wave bibles and talk about "gay" being a scourge, maybe I'll be interested. Until then, well, no.

October 3, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu said....My point, Oz, is that candidates that live in fantasy worlds of Genesis Creation and Gays Causing AIDS are less fit to govern than the crowd we have now. The Tea Party deserves ridicule if what they are offering is worse, not better.

POTUS claims to be a Christian. As a Christian, he accepts the fantasy world of Genesis Creation (your words). Is Obama qualifed to govern in your opinion?

October 3, 2010 at 2:39 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Tax Enough Already: I would like to be a 'Tea Partier' but what should be my motivation? We can all agree that taxes have decreased since the mid-60's (Statistics of Income Bulletin),we can all agree that we are a safer society (Bureau of Crime Statistic), we are healthier and live longer (NJM) and we still dominate in the military might (ask anyone). So I as again, what is MY motivation.

BTW - I cited references for my arguments, request you do the same.

October 3, 2010 at 3:20 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Obama does not accept the fantasy of Creation and an 8000 year old earth, Oz. Are you assuming that ALL Christians do? Most Christians I know don't treat the bible as a science or history book. Obama, like most Christians, accepts an earth that is billions of years old and evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life. On matters that are scientific, he asks scientists, not clergy.

Sorry, but anyone that knows so little about the physical world that they think Eden and Adam and Eve and talking snakes all actually existed should not be in office. Period.

October 3, 2010 at 3:24 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

This is the only place I know of where I can go 0 for 7 and feel I did a GREAT JOB!!! FREAKS!!!!

October 3, 2010 at 3:37 p.m.
whatever said...

I'm pretty sure talking snakes exist.

I see them on television all the time. Also typing snakes on the internet.

October 3, 2010 at 3:37 p.m.
samplegirl said...

Hey Clay, I think Fox News should be way out front in this cartoon. Afterall they are the ones supporting the recipe for diaster. Large sums of their money paying for governor contributions.

October 3, 2010 at 4:05 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Ik wrote,

"Sorry, but anyone that knows so little about the physical world that they think Eden and Adam and Eve and talking snakes all actually existed should not be in office. Period."

That's pretty intolerant of you.

I believe than anyone who knows so little about history that they would think Marxist ideas are worthy of anything but derision and scorn should not be in office.

We have quite a lot of those within our current federal government.

I'm intolerant too, when it comes to enslavement by the state. It is intolerable.

October 3, 2010 at 4:08 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

samplegirl,

Maybe you need to turn the TV off and dig around a bit. http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/index.php?sort_by=dem

The media has been in bed with various political organizations for years. It happens on both sides of the aisle. Instead of letting the leftist media do your thinking for you, why don't you do some digging and come back with the numbers on who got more money from the media in 2008, Odumdum or McCain't.

October 3, 2010 at 4:26 p.m.
moonpie said...

What strikes me about this cartoon and many comments on both sides is our mutual willingness to see only the bad in others. With the rarest of exceptions, I know of no one without their good points.

I honestly believe this country would be better off if we could more freely acknowledge the good parts of people we oppose. I agree with what I see as the spirit of reagan's post, even if I disagree with his/her points of view on Fox news and what I suppose are our 'wrong' directions.

October 3, 2010 at 4:45 p.m.
whatever said...

With the rarest of exceptions, I know of no one without their good points.

Don't forget the converse, that there are few who are without their bad points.

I honestloy believe this country would be better off if we could more freely acknowledge the good parts of people we oppose.

Less antagonism would certainly be good, but I think you can see here exactly how hateful some people are. And there's a certain point where I get tired of dealing with a person who will relentlessly demand I respect them and see their point of view, but will never ever give any equal consideration to me, or even show any sign of acknowledging their own failings and misconduct.

So...the division spreads. One cannot meet in the center if the other side never takes a step onto the bridge.

October 3, 2010 at 4:50 p.m.
woody said...

Scotty, it seemed to have taken you a while to make your 'comeback' but I'm glad you did. I'm also glad you saw fit to cut and paste my comment pertaining to common sense, even though there is no change in my stance.

And, Whatever..you are exactly right..there is no one without their "good points." However, as far as "The Tea Party" is concerned I'm afraid the best I can do is add the old adage, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

And only being right with that sort of frequency is not what we need (nor any more of) in Washington or any other 'seat' of importance.

That's it for me, Woody

October 3, 2010 at 5:27 p.m.
Clara said...

Clay,

Is there any way your technical people can put a number on these blogs/posts and start with the earliest first as, thankfully, happens here.

This old lady has a much easier time when she can refer to a number, rather than a whole date. I've seen it on other blogs.

October 3, 2010 at 5:27 p.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu... A Christian that does not believe in the creation is not a Christian. They believe in junk religion. Like Al Gore and his junk science.

October 3, 2010 at 5:29 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Scotty, I cannot pass judgment on the knowledge of our current politicians in the areas of economics. I also cannot condone everything this administration is doing, nor could I the last. Once again (and I seem to be trying to make this point multiple times) the tea party offers nothing if they field only candidates that are dumber than those who are already in office. And yes, you could say that my tolerance of those who think the earth is 8000 years old is low, because the earth is not 8000 years old. I have just as much tolerance of a candidate that insists the moon is made of green cheese and crystals cure disease.

Those who think the Tea Party is the greatest thing since sliced bread need to convince others that the party has merit and a sound platform. The candidates they have so far only serve to reinforce the rumors that this is a group that is concerned only with social issues (sort of the 21st century version of the Moral Majority) and is not at all ready to change the paradigm of two party dominance that has been in place. Although (and I said this) I think Clay's cartoon exaggerates the accusations against the Tea Party, all I see of this party is a lot of hat and no cattle. In addition, I resent the notion that patriot = conservative.

October 3, 2010 at 5:31 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oz, most of the Christians I know accept modern science and know that Genesis is not meant to be taken as fact. The creation story has no evidence to back it up. There was no real garden or Eden, no Adam and Eve, no worldwide flood. A Christian does not need to believe these stories were literally and factually true; a weak faith that would be indeed, as there is nothing in the geological record to support a worldwide flood, and nothing in archeology to suggest that there was a garden. The only requirement to being a Christian is accepting Jesus as your savior.

October 3, 2010 at 5:37 p.m.
whatever said...

And, Whatever..you are exactly right..there is no one without their "good points."

Technically that was moonpie, though I do agree with it, but my statement was the corollary, that there is nobody without their bad points.

Which wouldn't trouble me too much, if the Tea Party could at least do some self-examination and maybe not go whole-hog for people who may wear the right hats, but are otherwise...well, troubling.

And really, if you reject people who are Christian, but do not insist on the literal interpretation of the creation myth then yeah, that might be troubling itself. Sometimes an insistence on the literal correctness of human works is a bit of a bad idea.

October 3, 2010 at 6:08 p.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu...How does one believe Jesus is the Son of God without believing God is the Creator?

If God was not the Creator of the world, he would not have the authority to forgive anyone. He would have to send it up to the court of appeals.

Science has it's place but not with creation.

October 3, 2010 at 7:20 p.m.
whatever said...

It's obvious where your confusion lies.

October 3, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Easy, Oz. Don't simplify God to the point where you have a fairy tale understandable to 5 year olds. The world is far older and more complex.

Just because I am an atheist doesn't mean that I don't understand Christianity. The Christians that I know are every bit as good and as genuine as any I've seen. Their take is that Christ died to take away their sins, not their minds. The physical evidence of old earth, geological change over time, the drift of continents, the rise and fall of species, 6 (or more) global extinction events, and the evolution of humans from common ancestors with all other living things are all supported by the physical evidence. WELL supported. By ALL the evidence. That doesn't make belief in God or Jesus any less real (in my mind it makes it more real) Science supports it.

Science cannot answer why. Why did humans evolve to the point where they can contemplate the meaning of their existence? If there is a miracle, to me that is it. But it is not a physical miracle; more an existential one.

Anyone who takes the time to learn about the evidence for evolution, old earth, geological change, quickly realizes that there is no way to see the bible as literal. There is also no need. It provides the moral guidance and meaning without having to violate the laws of nature and physics and to ignore the vast evidence for a story unlike what is recorded.

October 3, 2010 at 8:37 p.m.
Oz said...

I guess, I am a simple man with childlike faith.

October 3, 2010 at 9:38 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

lkeithlu | On: October 3, 2010 at 8:37 p.m.

This, I can respect. Science and religion are separate, but not mutually exclusive ideas. One does not preclude the other.

That said, one would have very hard time convincing me that the universe is <13 odd billion years old, as I can see back in time a large portion of that amount from my own backyard. :)

October 3, 2010 at 9:42 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Ik,

As a side note on tolerance of disparate ideas based upon science, versus belief, what do you think of this new Global Baloney video?

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/01/do-something-to-cut-carbon-emi#comments

It seems the AGW crowd has dropped the facade of of being the "nice guys" and are returning to their roots.

Get with the program, or we'll blow you up. No pressure.

October 3, 2010 at 10:12 p.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "al the moron wrote,"


I'm disappointed to see that you have decided to lower yourself by resorting to referring to me as a moron. I've never disrespected you like that...ever.


I previously wrote: "Who's proven that the left's ideas are wrong?"

Your response: "The USSR, Cambodia, Cuba, China, Venezuela...Socialism/Communism never works."


Do you know why your argument is always critically flawed? No one is calling for any sense of "Socialism/Communism" to the degree that it has ever existed in all those countries you make comparisons to.

You, like all others who blindly deplore the word "Socialism," refuse to separate the moral and decent financial aspects of Socialism from the conjured examples of tyrannical forms of Government that are indeed far different from ours, and that would never come to pass here. The two are not inclusive nor dependent upon each other, and can exist quite independent from each other, I assure you.

I found it totally hilarious when the Government announced that there would be no cost of living adjustments to Social Security recipients this year. I'll bet you believe in your heart that not one tea-partier saw red over that one.

Down with Socialism!! but how dare you refuse to make a Social Security COLA!!


Don't think that's what the left have up their sleeve? Here are some photos from that little rally put on yesterday by media morons and furnished with warm bodies by the unions and various other anti-liberty groups. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/10...

BTW, notice the trash left behind. Note that after the Tea Party rally the public spaces were left pristine. I'd say that's a convincing example of who is trashing the country and who isn't.


Who among the regulars has made one reference in support of any of the groups that gathered in Washington this past weekend? No one. I don't even have a clue what they were there for, or what the message was that they were attempting to convey.

As near as I can tell, after a quick look-around, these groups are the polar opposites of the tea-partiers. They are not embraced by the mainstream Democrats at all. They are splinter groups and not very well known groups at that.

You can't attach them to my hip, that's for sure.


"Blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, class warfare, blah, blah, Number one, they stole that "gift."

Yes they stole freedom for all of us. Good lord, could you be any more dense? You throw all these far left talking points out as if you have your own show on MSNBC. Can't you think for yourself?"


You're argument has become totally irrational and without any offering of a convincing counterpoint whatsoever Scott.

Calling me names and twisting my words is not going to win you any points. It does prove however that you've just plum run out of argumentative material.

October 4, 2010 at 1:59 a.m.
acerigger said...

You can tell when the wingers get close to panic,their yapping gets very shrill.The "little rally in D.C."gave 'em quite a jolt evidently.

October 4, 2010 at 5:11 a.m.
acerigger said...

Oh,and since we're on the subject, despite all the screaming YOU LIE, SOCIALIST, HITLER, RACIST WHO HATES WHITE PEOPLE and so on, President Obama enjoys a good popularity rating. (45-48) Their screeching IS NOT WORKING. The GOP has LOST it's moderate base. GONE. All that is left is the screeching lowest common denominator of leftover Bush voters and Beck and Palin fans. They are fired up, and have been since inauguration day. But they aren't enough to win, frankly, and the GOP strategists have to know this, because people in their tent are getting a little scared.

If Republicans fail to pick up a majority in either house of Congress they will be COMPLETELY demoralized, and it will be totally awesome, and I'm bringing beer. And it is happening, races are tightening that Republicans NEED to win if they are to claim a House majority. The math is against them too. If Dems pick up 4 or 5 seats (DE-AL, IL-10, and HI-01 look like they can be picked up, and we are likely to win at least 1 or 2 other House seats we didn't expect.) the GOP needs to pick up 39 House seats + the 4 or so the Dems win. I don't see that happening.

By being led by the nose by Limbaugh and Beck, and on occasion Cheney and his daughter or Boehner, Cantor and McConell or DeMint, because of Palin and most of all the memories of George W. Bush, the GOP has LOST the young vote and have REPELLED voters who are NOT their crazed, fanatic base.

October 4, 2010 at 5:47 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I am still learning about the climate, Scotty, and not ready to pass judgment of my own there. Besides, I don't remember the Tea Party candidates saying anything about it. Have they? My impression is that politicians who want to get elected don't even bring up the topic.

October 4, 2010 at 6:45 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Nothing wrong with "child-like" faith. Childish, though is another matter, Oz. Don't be afraid to open your eyes to the world. Read Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller (a devout Christian) and Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins (an atheist, but this book does not promote atheism) Both represent the science very well.

October 4, 2010 at 6:48 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

The point with the rally of Soros funded friends of Socialism Saturday, and with the AGW "denier" snuff-video is that the most extreme, hateful elements in our society are to "left", not the "right" as so many of you here would like to think.

October 4, 2010 at 7:30 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I beg to differ, Scotty. They are both just as bad, and both play on the fears of the citizens. Their tactics may differ, but isn't it sad that it takes a comedian like Jon Stewart to break through it. I would love to attend his rally on Oct 30.

October 4, 2010 at 8:09 a.m.
alprova said...

acerigger wrote: "The "little rally in D.C."gave 'em quite a jolt evidently."


I was mystified as to why Scott accused me of "throw[ing] all these far left talking points out as if [I] have [my] own show on MSNBC." I had no idea that a "Liberal" rally had been scheduled this weekend, nor that Ed Schultz was one of organizers of the event. That's how much I watch his show.

During a crash course this morning, I discovered that the rally over this past weekend involved Schultz, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, SEIU, and the UAW. One Nation Working Together, another group in attendance, is a group that I had not heard of prior to today, but am now very intrigued and pleased to have discovered them.

http://action.onenationworkingtogether.org/content/main

They're fighting for the American Dream. They also have no problem at all in including anyone and everyone, "regardless of race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or expression, or ability." What a breath of fresh air that is, and at the same time, these people are a Republican and a Tea-Partier's worst nightmare.

An upcoming event that I am very much aware of and have followed with great interest, is the scheduled Oct. 30th Washington Mall Rally that is being organized by Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert. Indications are that this event has the potential to be the largest gathering of folks on the mall in quite sometime.

Scott, if you happen to read this, I don't mimic talking heads. I had no clue that Ed Schultz shared many of my views. I've watched mere minutes of his broadcasts over the past couple of years. The same is also a fact in regard to all the other MSNBC personalities. Let the Lord strike me dead if what I just typed is in any manner untrue.

Do you think that I stand alone in those opinions? I've validated mine for years, based on my own criteria. It's all in the archives my friend.

To put about as plain as I can, I am for whatever it takes to reverse the last 19 years of the kind of Republican spawned ruination that almost brought this nation to it's financial knees.

If that involves working to bring back labor unions to counter the current attempt to revert employment standards to what they were an eon ago, so be it.

If it involves having the Government up the hind ends of Wall Street and their minions with a microscope, day and night, so be it.

If it involves Government intervention, up to and including instituting some good old fashioned financial Socialism/Communism, to force some semblance of equalization, fairness, and a reversal of hoarding of money by the financially elite, then so be that too.

Call me a "Commmunist" or a "Socialist" if it makes you feel better. The connotations used in the 1940's are rather lame in 2010. It doesn't have the psychological impact on people like it once did, that is unless they are stuck in a time warp like you appear to be.

October 4, 2010 at 9:44 a.m.
whatever said...

Besides, I don't remember the Tea Party candidates saying anything about it. Have they?

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/gop-senate-deniers/

Notice how they all sound similar? It's a shibboleth, much like on evolution.

October 4, 2010 at 11:23 a.m.
alprova said...

A Reader's Digest Version Of Tea-Party History

In 6,000 BC, the land containing the United States was created by God.

The land containing the United States was designated for a special purpose by God – a future safe haven for Christianity.

America-hating liberals say there were lots of Indians here before the settlers arrived, trying to make us feel bad about killing them and taking their lands. But there really weren’t that many. And even if there were, haven't we already paid enough homage to them? We named subdivisions, little league and professional sports teams after them, and we let them build casinos. What more do these ungrateful people want?

George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. George Washington in battle. The American flag flying high, set against a cloudless blue sky. Take a moment to reflect on these images. Feel warm and fuzzy. This concludes our lesson on the Revolutionary Era.

The War of Yankee Aggression, also known as the Civil War, was waged against the helpless Southern States who only wanted limited government, states rights, and a nice sip of sweet tea. Those so-called slaves were treated better than most white men. Slavery ended with the Civil War, and so did racism.

There was World War I, and America won it. We won World War II, too, but liberals keep whining about the fact that so many Japanese-Americans were interned in camps.

They were sometimes overheard speaking a language that did not appear to be English. There were no more Pearl Harbor attacks after the internments either. Think about that.

Okay..okay, maybe there was a little racism that hung around after slavery ended, but this Martin Luther King guy came along and totally ended it for good. His "I Have a Dream," speech is significant because Glenn Beck was so influenced by the speech, that he staged a rally on the same spot 47 years later, mere feet from where MLK delivered it.

MLK was accidentally shot to death. But since racism had ended, James Earl Ray was just target practicing and was a really lousy shot, and liberals conspired with the police to perpetuate the myth that racism was still alive.

When Ronald Reagan was elected, all poverty and violence in the United States ended. Reagan said "tear down this wall" and the Berlin wall came down. Millions of sick children were healed by touching the hem of Reagan's slacks, and the crumbs from Reagan's table miraculously fed millions more.

George H.W. Bush was elected. Those were an amazing peaceful and prosperous four years.

Clinton usurped power, got a hummer, and showed the public what is wrong with liberalism. It always, inherently, leads to extra-marital affairs.

Barack Hussein Obama is elected president, proving yet again that racism in America has ended. This Kenyan born Socialist has ground The Constitution into a fine powder and snorted it up his nose.

In response, the Tea Party movement is born to restore America’s purity.

The End.

October 4, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
whatever said...

You forgot the Second Golden Age of Bush.

October 4, 2010 at 12:34 p.m.
acerigger said...

Al, I had heard parts of a lot of these stories,but never in a timeline like this.Thanx, this will clear up a lot of things for a lot of folks.

October 4, 2010 at 3:06 p.m.
alprova said...

whatever wrote: "You forgot the Second Golden Age of Bush."


I know, but you're only allowed 3,000 characters, so the editors at Reader's Digest did their best and edited out the least important characters.

October 4, 2010 at 3:32 p.m.
Francis said...

you people are expending so much energy disecting the tea party movement.

it's simply a reaction on a grand scale to obama & pelosi and company trying to shove this country to the far left in a short time.

the often repeated label that this country is "center -right country" is very much true. or you wouldn't be seeing this reaction.

the people who took a chance on obama, and didn't take his history serious- ly, are angry because he's not what he portrayed himself to be during the campaign. they were duped.

there's a strong feeling in this country that everything is worse. you can't deny it. it's in the air. race relations, jobs, future prospects, how we're viewed in the world....people bought the "hope & change" nonsense. they're embarrassed that they chanted "yes we can"..without even contemp- lating what it means.

many feel that obama&pelosi and company are attempting to push them around. forcing this and forcing that. threatening, fining, scolding...making the private sector seem insignificant compared to the government. americans don't want to feel as if this country was crap until obama came around. that's the way he comes across...they don't want to feel as if everything t hey've known is no good and it all needs to be fixed.

October 4, 2010 at 3:46 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

Coworkers were playing prairie dog after I read alprova's 3:32 p.m. comment.

Their heads popped out of their cubicles wondering why I burst out in laughter.

October 4, 2010 at 3:51 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

If libs did not have the Tea Party to mischaracterize all they would have left to face is their own jealous psychoses.

October 4, 2010 at 4:32 p.m.

Francis,

+1 on everything you write. Keep it going.

Ask at least three liberals for their meaning of "Hope and Change" and "Yes We Can" and you'll get at least three answers.

It must sting a bit to have been duped so badly.

October 4, 2010 at 4:43 p.m.
whatever said...

Ask at least three liberals for their meaning of "Hope and Change" and "Yes We Can" and you'll get at least three answers.

Yay for not being trapped in a lockstep mindset with no room for individual thought and differences of opinion.

Ask three conservatives for their opinion, and they'll turn on the one who doesn't toe the party line.

October 4, 2010 at 5:17 p.m.
whatever said...

If libs did not have the Tea Party to mischaracterize all they would have left to face is their own jealous psychoses.

If the Tea Party didn't make themselves out to be victims of all those terrible left-wing liberals, they might have to face the ugly truth in the mirror.

October 4, 2010 at 5:26 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'd like to know from bookie and Bigridge (and Francis is he can be coherent) what the Tea Party platform is and why they think that there hasn't been a good candidate fielded. Criticism of both standing parties is appropriate (they certainly have had their faults) but I'd want to know why I should support this party. The crackpots they trot out as candidates are not impressive-in fact, they are inferior to those of the GOP and DEMs right now. If this party is the cat's meow, why the crappy record? Why the emphasis on social issues when the goal is to correct the economic ones? What exactly do they plan to do?

October 4, 2010 at 5:29 p.m.
whatever said...

Michael Bloomberg had an opinion on it, might be worth reading.

October 4, 2010 at 5:36 p.m.
alprova said...

eeeeeek wrote: "Coworkers were playing prairie dog after I read alprova's 3:32 p.m. comment.

Their heads popped out of their cubicles wondering why I burst out in laughter."


I'm glad I could add to the enjoyment of your day.

October 4, 2010 at 6:59 p.m.
alprova said...

BigRidgePatriot wrote: "If libs did not have the Tea Party to mischaracterize all they would have left to face is their own jealous psychoses."


To be certain, not every characterization applies to all those who call themselves tea-partiers. However, they do apply to far to many of those who have latched onto the movement.

Sorry.

October 4, 2010 at 7:01 p.m.
alprova said...

francis wrote: "there's a strong feeling in this country that everything is worse. you can't deny it. it's in the air. race relations, jobs, future prospects..."


And THAT right there is the problem. You posted the proper word too. Because the naysayers in this country, such as the tea-partiers and the Republicans, continue to bash any evidence of recovery and stand in the way of progress, the "FEELING" being expressed is complete bunk, but that's what some people want to hear and they stupidly fall for it.

They want Obama to fail. They want people to continue to suffer. They want people to be thrown out of their homes. They want to convince employers that they should not hire workers. They want to stand in the way of anything at all that will edge this country closer to recovering. And why is that? Because they can't call the shots.

The good thing is that the strategy is backfiring. Blaming Democrats is not going to work this time like it did in 1993. There are too many people paying attention this time around, and who remember that crap from the past.

October 4, 2010 at 7:26 p.m.
rolando said...

Tell us how you REALLY feel, Mr Bennett. Still running your own bigoted concoction as an attack shill, I see.

And still running scared...of one woman and a grass-roots Party. And rightly so.

How very Prog-Lib of you.

October 4, 2010 at 7:34 p.m.
whatever said...

You know you'd be just as upset if you were being completely ignored.

October 4, 2010 at 7:44 p.m.
Duford said...

lkeithlu,

The Tea Party is a highly decentralized movement, with Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich serving the Neo-Con, Republican Establishment, and the Christian Right faction, and the more-libertarian leaning on the side of Ron Paul.

Honestly, both are aligned pretty much in the mantra of taxed enough already, but when it comes to social issues (gay marriage, abortion, War on Drugs), economic issues (ramping down of SS vs. the total obliteration of it), and military issues (non-interventionism versus foreign adventurism/imperialism), you'll find the divide is quit wide between the two.

However, the BIG divide between both sides is how each defines the role of our government in national defense, and how it should be implemented. I doubt that 80% of the Tea Party is ready to withdraw troops from pretty much around the world.

As a libertarian -- and a cynic -- the Tea Party will probably not come under one cohesive banner of principles. We freedom-oriented types -- meaning total economic and personal freedom, only limited to the rightful principles of non-aggression -- would leave the "tea party" for something else.

Frankly, I think I have a better chance at secession to employ most of my radical ideas.

October 4, 2010 at 7:57 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Thanks, Duford. At last an answer. It looks as if the Tea Party will only serve to split the vote of one or both of the major parties.

October 4, 2010 at 8:07 p.m.
alprova said...

Speaking of slavery, Glenn Beck waded in on the subject this past Friday, on the air.

~~~~~~~~~~ "The President is exactly right when he said 'slaves sitting around the campfire didn’t know when slavery was going to end, but they knew that it would. And it took a long time to end slavery.' yes it did. But it also took a long time to start slavery.

And it started small, and it started with seemingly innocent ideas. And then a little court order here, and a court order there and a little regulation here and a little more regulation there. And before we knew it, America had slavery.

It didn’t come over in a ship to begin with, as an evil slave trade. The government began to regulate things because the people needed answers and needed solutions. It started in a court room then it went to the legislatures. That's how slavery began. And it took a long time to enslave an entire race of people, and convince another race of people that they were somehow or another, less than them." ~~~~~~~~~~

And there you have it. The evil Government was responsible for slavery, according to the prophet Glenn Beck.

October 4, 2010 at 8:19 p.m.
Duford said...

Your welcome.

That's what the Neo-cons keep saying -- Limbaugh and Hannity in particular -- that we have to start trusting Republicans to uphold the tenants of the Constitution. And, God help us, what horrible things we'd suffer if a 3rd party formed.

But would you trust a cheating, no good spouse after 20+ years to somehow magically wake up and get the picture?

October 4, 2010 at 8:19 p.m.
Duford said...

You're*.

Al, did you send in your quarterly slavery tribute last month? ;-)

October 4, 2010 at 8:22 p.m.
whatever said...

And there you have it. The evil Government was responsible for slavery, according to the prophet Glenn Beck.

I thought the Catholic Church was involved somewhere.

October 4, 2010 at 8:25 p.m.
alprova said...

WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.

O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.

Read the rest at;

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20101004/US.Senate.O_Donnell.China/

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

October 4, 2010 at 9:16 p.m.
Oz said...

lkeithu don't be afraid to open your eyes. Don't be foolish. Read the Bible. Specifically the New Testament. You might start with Mark 10:15 to be exact. “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it”.

October 4, 2010 at 9:18 p.m.
whatever said...

Every child I have talked with asked a ton of questions, wouldn't accept a BS story and generally examined everything with their own eyes, not fancy explanations.

October 4, 2010 at 9:24 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have read most of the Bible, Oz.

October 4, 2010 at 9:28 p.m.
anniebelle said...

There was a survey published recently that shows Athiests know more about religions, specifically the bible, than people who claim they have "religion" and go to bible study their entire life. Go figure.

October 5, 2010 at 4:59 a.m.
eeeeeek said...
October 5, 2010 at 7:44 a.m.
LibDem said...

Duford: I appreciate your posts. You are articulate and rational. I disagree (I think) but really old people can be disagreeable.

Simplistically (my favorite form of thought), I see Libertarians as people who want an a la carte sort of government. A government that provides the service they want when they want it but otherwise is discreetly invisible. Unfortunately, you'll want enough police to secure your person, your home and your business. But then your employees, customers and suppliers will want security as well. And, darn it, they'll want paved streets to get to your business or they might go elsewhere. Soon you find yourself in a community and your security and success depend on the security and success of that community.

Marie Antoinette, an early Libertarian, once said: "Louis, call 911. The hungry people are at the gate."

As for the Tea Party, they walk and talk like Republicans. They can pretend to be something new and different and, therefore, not responsible for our current condition. I've been a dues paying Democrat probably twice as long as you've been alive (which would make me half as smart). The Party has made many mistakes during that time and I can't duck responsibility. Like it or not, we are all responsible for our plight.

October 5, 2010 at 12:31 p.m.
rolando said...

When I want a response from you whatever I will let you know.

You can respond now...just this once.

Go ahead, get your peer approval goldstars for the day.

October 5, 2010 at 1:23 p.m.
whatever said...

Ah, somebody likes to feel he's in charge.

Ain't he cute, the way he tries to boss others around?

October 5, 2010 at 2:01 p.m.
rolando said...

"Ah, somebody likes to feel he's in charge."

Yeah, it's good to be the king.

"Ain't he cute, the way he tries to boss others around?"

Goes with the job. Giving orders is better than taking them...

October 5, 2010 at 2:04 p.m.
whatever said...

King?

I'm pretty sure that's against the Constitution.

But I think the peasants find you revolting.

October 5, 2010 at 2:14 p.m.
Oz said...

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

October 5, 2010 at 8:39 p.m.
whatever said...
October 5, 2010 at 8:49 p.m.
BobMKE said...

WOW, I came back from my cottage in northern Wisconsin (Gods Country) and saw this cartoon and the posts. A lot of you are so right that Clay has crossed the line. He used the tubes, vials and containers Etc. to make his point about people who feel that they are taxed enough already.

The Democratic Party is like an onion. You start peeling the onion and it is layer after layer: Liberals, Socialists, Social Democrats, Status, Progressives, Communists, Marxists, and Maoist.

The Republican Party will welcome citizens who feel that they are T.E.A. They will welcome the Libertarians but will not welcome the Rinos of their party. So all of the lefties in both parties are toast.

Obama thought he had a mandate to take the Democratic Party and our Country to the far left. He was sooooooooooooo wrong.

October 5, 2010 at 9:48 p.m.
whatever said...

Oh, wait you mean the Democratic party is one where all sorts of folks belong, but the Republicans require monotonous lockstep thinking, a uniformity of thought and opinion, they even cast out those who don't measure up?

And that's something you praise??

Not me.

Also if you think Obama has taken things to the far left...you're quite mistaken.

October 5, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

LibDem wrote,

"Marie Antoinette, an early Libertarian, once said: "Louis, call 911. The hungry people are at the gate.""

Marie Antoinette was a statist,(more specifically, a monarchist) the polar opposite to a libertarian. She got exactly what she deserved. We could use some more of that sort of "power to the people". I'm sure a guillotine would not be too difficult to rig up.

October 5, 2010 at 10:20 p.m.
BobMKE said...

Whatever,

Are you are praising the above layers of the Democratic party? Those "folks," as you call them, are trying to tear down this great Country and you are defending them. What layer of the onion are you? I don't call Liberals, Socialists, Social Democrats, Statists, Progressives, Communists, Marxists, and Maoist, "all sorts of folks." If the Republican Party has "lockstep thinking," you are right. We lockstep together for the love of our Country. We want our government to be small and get of our lives. We are not the party of "no." We are the party of "no big government." We are patriots and proud of it.

October 5, 2010 at 11:58 p.m.
whatever said...

Hmm, I think you have -ist-itis. Better see the doctor, if you add anymore you're going to go crazy with the labels.

But really, you're proving Clay's cartoon even more correct by the post.

Sad you don't even realize it. You're not a patriot. You just claim to be because it excuses you for being narrow-minded and exclusionary. You can write off everybody who finds your behavior troubling as a traitor.

Because no real patriot would say you're sullying the flag by wrapping yourself in it like a towel. Would they?

October 6, 2010 at 12:10 a.m.
acerigger said...

"When fascism comes to America,it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross"-Sinclair Lewis

October 6, 2010 at 3:03 a.m.
Duford said...

Hi LibDem,

Perhaps the confusion with libertarianism has been the false labeling that we care not for other's concerns, or that we preferentially choose parts of the government that suite our needs. I don't know how or why the label began -- before my time, I suppose.

Philosophically and morally, unlike most people, I equate the government's actions as the exact same as how you and I would deal with each other. This is a fundamental framing of the government, not as an entity on a pedestal, devoid from the same criticisms you and I would receive, but merely an entity I treat with the same set of standards.

Plus I understand -- as I implore you and everyone else reading this -- that governments by default (so far at least) have a monopoly power on force. Thus the importance of almost complete restrictions of its abilities, only to the most vital and moral of actions (arguably roads, law enforcement, etc. -- though there are libertarians who'd argue that the private sector could fulfill those as well).

So, it's not that I don't have compassion or a desire to help, I simply think the government acting as a proxy to forcefully confiscate the personal property of another to provide welfare for another, is tantamount to a mobster forcefully taking tribute from an innocent victim to feed another's family.

...So how can an act by the government be virtuous when it starts immorally?

October 6, 2010 at 5:37 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oz, belief is not something you can change. I haven't believed in a god since I stopped believing in Santa. It just took me 40 years to get the courage to admit it to others. All the church time, bible study, etc. was interesting, and I am sure Jesus existed, I just don't accept anything supernatural. (Which is sorta required to buy into all the worship and prayer stuff.)It's not from lack of exposure I assure you; I've been to church and worked in a church environment my entire life, and come from a family of believers and clergy. Funny; it's the clergy that seem to have no trouble understanding my lack of belief. Why is that, I wonder?

October 6, 2010 at 7:39 a.m.
whatever said...

So, it's not that I don't have compassion or a desire to help, I simply think the government acting as a proxy to forcefully confiscate the personal property of another to provide welfare for another, is tantamount to a mobster forcefully taking tribute from an innocent victim to feed another's family.

Except, of course, the "mobster" is also providing a service to you. That is a requirement of any good government, that it serve its citizens. And few people would argue that the ultimate consent of the governed is intrinsic to any just government. By staying within the bounds of a government's authority of your own free will, you have chosen to give your consent.

That's why your foundation of immorality fails to persuade, because it's quicksand, not bedrock.

You don't want to put Government on a pedestal, you want to put yourself in one, and the government in a pit.

October 6, 2010 at 8:13 a.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu... I accept your belief and I did not mean to go down this road with you again.

Your statement about knowing Christian's that don't believe in creation really surprised me. In my opinion, it is impossible to believe in God and not believe he was the Creator.

If it was the Big Bang Theory...Who would have appointed him God?

October 6, 2010 at 8:34 a.m.
whatever said...

Your problem is confusing "creation" with necessarily requiring a belief in the creation myth as found in the bible.

October 6, 2010 at 8:44 a.m.
Duford said...

What,

I think you make a good point; I have a family, I want to see my son grow up, I want success. Admittedly, withdrawing consent wholly as the Founder's did is something I'm not at the moment willing to do. That, if considered a character fault, is such.

However, it still doesn't change the argument. Analyze carefully the boundaries of truly morally-bound government -- I stated it above, plus have stated many of times in prior posts (hint, the non-aggression principle). Just because I consent on some level, doesn't mean I fully agree with its activities.

Assuming you're a US citizen and you disagree with our country's act of imperialism and you haven't moved to Switzerland, does that make your cries for withdraw or redrafting of a foreign policy less genuine? I'd argue not.

And conclusively, one must define the nature of "good" and the type of "service" a morally-bound government would provide. You know my terms (hint, non-aggression principle). What are yours? If they violate the laws of nature and of man, then it is immoral, no matter how much of a necessary evil it is.

October 6, 2010 at 8:49 a.m.
rolando said...

"But I think the peasants find you revolting."

You may have correctly identified yourself there, whatever, but you shouuldn't drag the other Lib-Progs with you. They aren't ALL peasants...

Your one-liner attacks are a hoot. And yes, I am amused.

October 6, 2010 at 9:03 a.m.
whatever said...

Just because I consent on some level, doesn't mean I fully agree with its activities.

I don't fully agree with almost anything anybody else does, but then I don't expect to do so.

Seems a bit untenable to me. However you can disagree with many things without a complete and utter rejection of every thing involved. The problem I have with many people's arguments, is not that they aren't genuine. It's that they aren't based on what I would consider feasible terms.

Too much outrage at the wrong time is really not persuasive.

And conclusively, one must define the nature of "good" and the type of "service" a morally-bound government would provide. You know my terms (hint, non-aggression principle). What are yours?

If you want to hold a Constitutional Convention to discuss that subject, I'm all for it.

Otherwise it'd be pointless.

October 6, 2010 at 9:19 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oz, your contact group of Christians is very narrow indeed. Most do not believe in an 8000 year old earth and special creation.

October 6, 2010 at 9:39 a.m.
Duford said...

There's a difference about partially agreeing versus supporting actions that infringes upon one's rights.

If I discuss how you, for example, are infringing upon one's rights, naturally I have to support your position from a philosophical basis.

If you attempt to retort with credibility, it certainly supports your position if you have evidence, philosophical/epistemological/moral, etc.

You don't need to cop out a discussion on ethics by citing a Constitutional Convention to discuss morality. Especially if you have objections to said philosophy/position. Otherwise your objections are simply html code on a screen. But if that's your intention, so be it.

From an argumentative standpoint, you're in a nice position -- one who can criticize freely while not revealing fully your principles. What's the point of even engaging on an honest basis if you always maintain this position?

Point being, "feasibility" has to be defined and given structure. Just because you don't think it's "feasible" doesn't mean you're right -- or that my argument is wrong.

But who knows what you mean by feasible, as you have deemed it "pointless" to make a point.

Ahh, now I've realized... your name -- whatever -- quite suitable.

Respectfully,

October 6, 2010 at 11:54 a.m.
whatever said...

I think you misunderstand, I believe that if we wish to define what services government should provide, we should note we'd have to do so in such forums as are appropriate.

If you had accepted that, instead of going off all half-cocked and raging at me in your polite and respectful way, then I'd be more inclined to provide more of my thoughts on the subject.

But no, you'd rather just lash out instead of trying to understand what I have to say. I suppose I could have been clearer about what I meant, but really, could you back down a bit and not jump down my throat just because I believe that we'd need to settle the question with a Constitutional Convention?

Do you believe I am mistaken in my appraisal that if we wish to decide how the government is meant to serve its citizens, we should do so in the mindset of establishing it outright instead of some half-cocked discussion of what's allowed now, and what cruft we have already to deal with?

Besides, one thing you may not have considered is that I am not bound to ironclad positions, but would rather discuss and debate ideas freely than confine myself to narrow definitions and labels?

I believe that would be best served if we did establish that we were working from a fresh start. Pardon me for having such an approach. What philosophical objections do you have to offer to it, and what options would you suggest instead?

That'd be more helpful than your misguided attacks.

Also, I've given why I think certain arguments are not feasible. It's because they seem to reject everything completely, and I find that way too much outrage to be persuasive. Did you not understand that either? Was it unclear to you? How could I have explained it better?

October 6, 2010 at 12:17 p.m.
whatever said...

There's a difference about partially agreeing versus supporting actions that infringes upon one's rights.

BTW, this part I agree with. Just because you pay taxes, or pay somebody's fees for a given service, doesn't mean you support everything they do with the money.

October 6, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
rolando said...

LOL. lkeith, you back on that 8,000 year old Earth thing again? Depends on your definition of "year", as always. Time, as someone once said, is variable depending on what one uses as a reference.

Your references simply do not reflect everyone's...and Who is to say which is "correct"? Answer; they both are.

October 6, 2010 at 2:16 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Nope-rolando. You are wrong. The Genesis story is not meant to have days stretched into years. It is mythology. A good creation story, but so are many others. The earth is billions of years old, and animals and plants evolved from older forms. That isn't theory, it is fact. The mechanisms and specifics make up the theory, but that it happened is fact.

Only those few churches that require a literal translation seem to have a problem with that. And they are few indeed.

October 6, 2010 at 3 p.m.
BobMKE said...

"From an argumentative standpoint, you're in a nice position -- one who can criticize freely while not revealing fully your principles. What's the point of even engaging on an honest basis if you always maintain this position?" Great point Duford. I enjoyed your back and forth with Whatever.

Whatever, again what are your principles? In my post I asked you what layer of the Democratic Party Onion are you.

Duford, if Whatever doesn't answer this time I guess it is hopeless with him.

October 6, 2010 at 3:07 p.m.
whatever said...

Sorry dude, I don't consider myself part of ANY party.

If you want to ask me my principles, well, I'm going to say that I'm afraid I don't have any convenient labels or a vision statement I can provide you, so in the interests of not giving an inaccurate picture to you, nor spending too much time on the subject, I'm going to have to ask you to narrow it down a bit.

Sorry, but I just don't believe I could answer your question fairly, it's too broad.

Which I suppose could be a part of an answer in itself.

But can you ask a more specific question?

October 6, 2010 at 3:33 p.m.
rolando said...

"The Genesis story is not meant to have days stretched into years. It is mythology."

It is obviously mythological to you, lkeith. Others do not agree.

So you are contradicting Einstein's idea [Ithink it was his]that time is a variable and dependent on one's reference point? The old "Who's moving?" idea...and how fast?

October 6, 2010 at 6:36 p.m.
rolando said...

Good luck with that, bobLKE. LOL.

October 6, 2010 at 6:39 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Einstein did not dispute the age of the earth, rolando.

October 6, 2010 at 7:08 p.m.
whatever said...

I don't think relativity justifies taking the creation myth in the Bible as literal fact.

October 6, 2010 at 7:58 p.m.
BobMKE said...

Whatever,

Are you a Liberal, Socialist, Social Democrat, Statist, Progressive, Communist, Marxist, Maoist or something I have not listed? If you stand for everything, then you'll fall for anything.

You know where my principles and core values are. I am a conservative. I am proud of that and I will defend my beliefs.

The people who post here must accept the fact that this coming election, and also the 2012 election, are going to be unique. The reason is, the Democrats are becoming moderates, the Independants are becoming Republicans and the Conservatives are becoming activist. That leaves the far left out of the picture. I will say it again, Obama and his Chicago political machine thought that they had a mandate to take the Democratic Party and this Country to the far left and he was wrong.

October 7, 2010 at 12:09 a.m.
anniebelle said...

boobmke, you're so typical of the CONS/REGRESSIVE -- always some childlike label or bumper sticker out of your mouths. I would hope we are all AMERICANS first and want what is best for the majority of our citizens not just the priviledged elites or the holier-than-thous who would, in a heartbeat, accept their 'cult' running this country as they lambast other cults. Do you even remember why our forefathers came to this country or have any concept of our Constitution -- your comments suggest NOT.

October 7, 2010 at 5:56 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.