published Sunday, October 24th, 2010

Screech!

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 ...

117
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.
acerigger said...

You Bet'cha!LOL! 18-20% of the population thinks she could "Lead America"!May God bless them,but may God "HELP" the rest of us!!

October 24, 2010 at 12:25 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Sarah Palin may not know much about economics or governance,but she can hang with the best at the political shuffle...and she knows how to make a buck.

October 24, 2010 at 1:23 a.m.
dougmusn said...

Palin, the ultimate test of Jacksonian democracy.

October 24, 2010 at 5:57 a.m.
EaTn said...

For the past two years I've kept wondering what that unnerving gibberish voice resembled and Clay has hit the nail on the head.

October 24, 2010 at 5:59 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

"PALIN" could be "BENNETT," or "DOWD" or "TEEPEN" or "KRUGMAN"--shrill, nasty, arrogant liberals (at least in many of their Times columns.) Hypocritical, in not holding themselves to the standards they wish on others. I will admit that this cartoon shows a lady's hand (harder to re-label than some of Mr Bennett's cartoons), and on my side I'll admit that Gary North sometimes takes a screechy attitude in his writings.

Contrast this with Saint Oliver Cromwell's "I beseech (beg) you in the bowels (loving mercies) of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."

October 24, 2010 at 6:02 a.m.
woody said...

Just what American politics needed..another reason to drive the sane away, while attracting even more 'crazies' than ever.

This is probably one of your best analogies yet, Clay.

TTFN, Woody

October 24, 2010 at 7:13 a.m.
Clara said...

All I can say is that those who are voting for Palin are actually voting for her husband...the unseen face attached to the hand!

October 24, 2010 at 7:17 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I don't know-O'Donnell makes Palin look pretty sane.

October 24, 2010 at 7:52 a.m.
GreenKepi said...

Great Cartoon…that scratching sound Clay is hearing is the sound of a genuine grass-roots citizen uprising. The scratching on the chalkboard is raging, and the sound is about to be heard loudly on November 2nd…America has lost its way, its heart, its moral compass and that sound being heard is the return to the old path, the path followed by our founders who put God first, trusting in Him – not big government – to be our salvation.

October 24, 2010 at 8:44 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

I'm still waiting on her definition of 'real' Americans!

October 24, 2010 at 8:58 a.m.
hcirehttae said...

OMG, Puritanical, genocidal, dictatorial... who quotes Oliver Cromwell to SUPPORT their own argument?

October 24, 2010 at 9:08 a.m.
Francis said...

no, clara...you must be referring to hillary clinton.

palin is a self-made woman....she didn't have a husband with connections......whether you agree with her politics or not the facts are that she made it on her own.

nobody gave her anything.

"real americans"..........i'd say if you don't believe in american exceptionalism then you're not a real american.....to not acknowledge our exceptional found ing, our exceptional struggle to overcome our imperfections and flaws and the poistive impact we've had on the world;....andif you don't respect freedom and attempt to silence oppossing opinions...then you're not a real american. or, at the very least, you don't understand what a gift to the worldthis country is. obama, by that definition..is not a real american.

October 24, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.
hambone said...

Francis, John McCain made Sarah Palin.

And I'm sure he would like a DO-OVER!!

October 24, 2010 at 10:45 a.m.
Francis said...

wrong, hambone.....mccain didnt' make her governor or alaska..mayor of a town..a business woman...and all the other things she did on her own....if not for palin..mccain would've done even worse..until she came on the scene..there was no enthusiasm for him.....that's a myth perpetuated by you libs...complete myth.....you sound like a sexist, hambone....sarah palin is a self-made woman.

you liberals are desperate to find some way to destroy her or minimize her.. the fact is...her popularity is rising...and obama's is dropping...the more the american people see of obama, the more they dislike him.

the idea that mccain would've come closer to defeating obama with someone else is fantasy.....he was handpicked by the liberals in the media as an accept able republican candidate...palin.. at true conservative...threw off the media's plan.......

October 24, 2010 at 11:22 a.m.
Francis said...

mccain is a country club repbulican.....you libs try to push the idea that palin dragged him down...sorry, that's just not reality. typical of liberals to put down a woman for her accomplishments if they're not the "right" kind of accomplish- ments...deal with it, man.

October 24, 2010 at 11:44 a.m.
EaTn said...

My ideal of a "real American" is not someone elected by their fellow citizens to a high position then quits when it gets heated to pursue fame and fortune.

October 24, 2010 at 12:05 p.m.
Francis said...

sorry, eatn...nobody's going to buy that...nobody..

the people of alaska have no problem with it. so, give it up.

you mean liberals saturating the state with bogus charges and lawsuits against her keeping her from doing her job.....distracting from her duties? ..it didn't work by the way...she's more popular than ever.

guess that would apply to obama, eatn..he didn't finish out his senatorial term.

also, after the last two years of glittering incompetance and idiocy, the notion or myth that palin isn't qualified to be president doesn't hold water. obama's banging cymbols and screeching toy monkey performance isn't much to brag about.

October 24, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis so lovingly wrote: "palin is a self-made woman....she didn't have a husband with connections......whether you agree with her politics or not the facts are that she made it on her own."


Sarah Palin would have been a disgraced and likely recalled Governor had John McCain not plucked her from the pool of contenders for the position as his running mate. Outside of Alaska, she was a nobody, and was on the fast track to become a disgraced nobody.


"nobody gave her anything."


Let's see...the woman was so poor at the time she was picked, that the McCain campaign had to give her a wardrobe to wear when she made public appearances.

When someone wrote a book on her behalf, since she can't construct a cognitive sentence, she was given a luxury bus to travel around the country.

And because there are a sliver of people in this country, who for some reason are turned on by the sight of a woman who looks as if she works as a librarian (ah...the irony is so thick that it takes a chainsaw to cut it), people line up to give her money to hear her screeching voice repeat the same lines over and over, really thinking that the woman actually makes a point.


"..."real americans"..........i'd say if you don't believe in american exceptionalism then you're not a real american."


That "exceptionalism" cost this country 3,000 lives.


"....to not acknowledge our exceptional founding, our exceptional struggle to overcome our imperfections and flaws and the poistive impact we've had on the world;...."


I don't know which part of the above 'sentence' is more laughable -- the "exceptional" manner in which those who came here murdered to seize the land, the fact that we as a people are still struggling with "exceptional" people who are not "imperfect" or are "flawed," but rather who are determined to seize whatever they can for themselves, and to screw anyone else they can in the process, or the simple fact that the United States is viewed by much of the world as nothing more than a nation of thugs, for their meddling in the affairs of the world, and for murdering more innocent people in a process described as "spreading democracy."


"andif you don't respect freedom and attempt to silence oppossing opinions...then you're not a real american."


I'm truly starting to wonder if people such as yourself even know what freedom is. Decorum cannot begin to provide enough space to list the many hypocritical examples of freedoms that the right-wing in this nation would take away from all of us, if given the chance.


"or, at the very least, you don't understand what a gift to the worldthis country is. obama, by that definition..is not a real american."


I'd love to put you in a room filled with the families of those whom have experienced the "gift" that our leaders meddling in affairs gave to them in the form of funeral, and for you to explain that "gift" to them in detail.

October 24, 2010 at 12:53 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

@ Francis 10:29 a.m

...and if someone disagrees with your statement are they un-American?

Who gets to decide? You? Palin?

What happened to freedom of speech?

October 24, 2010 at 12:53 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Here is what Alaskans feel about Palin, tracked from 3/08 to the present. No exactly rosy.

http://www.haysresearch.com/page2/page24/page24.html

October 24, 2010 at 12:54 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "sorry, eatn...nobody's going to buy that...nobody.."


Even the Republican Party knows the truth about that woman. She can draw a crowd, and she can spout abusive rhetoric as good as the best man among them, but when it comes down to it, the woman cannot draw votes.

She's never polled above the low 20's, even among the Republicans at their own gatherings. Ron Paul polls higher than she does, and we all are keenly aware that he stands no chance at all in being elected as President.

She's a female with pretty face, and she claims to be a Conservative. She's like a cheerleader for the right-wing effort. That's it. That's all she'll ever be.


"the people of alaska have no problem with it. so, give it up."


The people of Alaska have no problem with "it" because her stepping down alleviated the "problem."


"you mean liberals saturating the state with bogus charges and lawsuits against her keeping her from doing her job.....distracting from her duties? ..it didn't work by the way...she's more popular than ever."


And what do you base that stupendous claim upon?

Earlier this month, a poll showed that only 22% of Americans have a favorable opinion of her and the Tea-Party. Among Republicans who were polled, only 44% had a favorable opinion of the woman. Only 41% of the Republicans had a favorable opinion of the Tea-Party.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Palin_1006.pdf


"guess that would apply to obama, eatn..he didn't finish out his senatorial term."


As is the case for all Presidential candidates who run for higher office and are elected.

Sarah Palin resigned seven months and five days after she lost her bid to become Vice-President.


"also, after the last two years of glittering incompetance and idiocy, the notion or myth that palin isn't qualified to be president doesn't hold water. obama's banging cymbols and screeching toy monkey performance isn't much to brag about."


As much factual evidence as there exists to prove your assertions incorrect, it would be a waste of time to post it again, for it has been posted many times and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Your ignorance is inconsequential, and so is Sarah Palin.

That doesn't mean however, that pleasure cannot be derived in discussing all of her inadequacies with her minions.

It drives them up a wall.

October 24, 2010 at 1:38 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Palin tells you what you want to hear, like all wanna-be politicians. She's insincere, vindictive, hypocritical, manipulative, arrogant, and condescending. Most people in Alaska who worked with her had nothing positive to say about her- professionally or personally. President Obama and V.P. Biden wasn't my first choice; but at least they can name USSC rulings impact our lives on a daily basis. Her hypocritical position on abstinence only programs only came to light when her daughter's pregnancy was disclosed. Then to make matters worse they trotted out the child's father in an obvious attempt at a shot gun wedding. Then she whines about the "media" coverage of her family. All this time she conveniently forgets that it was her putting her family on the alter of "family values" and let them become the sacrificial lamb for her political and financial ambitions.

October 24, 2010 at 1:52 p.m.
Francis said...

horsecrap, ozzy...and alprova....you're losing the battle...your anger is obvious

your rage is obvious..she really rubs you libs the wrong way...

"minions" not really..alprova....certainly not like you libs are obama's minions..

i love how she pushes your buttons..you libs....i don't think she's the perfect candidate....at all..but you libs reveal yourselves with your over the top hatred of her...amazing to watch..

and ozzy,,,no one lies and tells people what they want to hear like obama...

your description of her fits obama perfectly......you libs love to project your bull**** on everyone else..

what are you going to do if she keeps it up.....? whine all you want..it only seems to make her more popular....

October 24, 2010 at 3:42 p.m.
Francis said...

ozzy and alprova..your rage and hatred toward palin is stunning...it really is.

you fear her.....

"inconsequential", alprova....no..you are delusional...to say palin is inconsequent ial is to not be in touch with reality...she can outdraw obama...and may well be the most influential politician today..in terms of drawing a crowd...and getting endorsements...hell, obama is being asked to stay away and not endorse can- didates publically.....your ingorance of the facts and reality makes your posts regarding her quite "inconsequential"

October 24, 2010 at 3:51 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Once again, Francis, you have not addressed the evidence we provided that contradicts what you posted. Nor have you offered evidence to support hat you said. Why am I not surprised?

October 24, 2010 at 4 p.m.
Francis said...

and by the way...obama knows nothing about economics ...and proves it every day....unless you consider shaking people down for money as economics. he mistakes governing with being a mob boss. must be tough for you arrogant libs to have to contstantly put up with the filthy rabble and our annoying obser vations. bet you would like to just toss us in prison..like your fearless leader wants to.

October 24, 2010 at 4:03 p.m.
woody said...

I swear Francis, every time I think you have 'stuck your foot in your mouth' as far as you could without gagging, you go and outdo yourself.

You know you've lost the argument as soon as you realize you've just used the word "horsecrap" in retaliation.

And besides, you should be glad Hillary's last name is Clinton, otherwise you would likely be complaining about President Rodham this very day.

Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, Woody

October 24, 2010 at 5:32 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

During the last few months I have found that the two words those like Francis hate to hear are "prove it". At the mention of that phrase they go off on rants about birth certificates and socialism. From now on "prove it".

October 24, 2010 at 5:36 p.m.
hambone said...

My goodness Francis you really are out there today.

Better layer on some more REYNOLDS WRAP!!

October 24, 2010 at 6:40 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

What makes me angry is when Pres. Bush, V.P Cheney, Palin, and others of their ilk question my patriotism because I don't subscribe to their warped belief that questioning the reasoning behind the Iraq war (and other peaceful activities) is traitorous or "unamerican". I will call out ANY politician (including Democrats) that does it. The one thing I can't stand is a hypocrite, and Palin has a verifiable record for proof. Claiming the moral high ground and passing judgement on groups of people while rolling in the moral mud doesn't cut it for me. I guess the unvarnished truth truth sux for some people.

October 24, 2010 at 8:48 p.m.
rolando said...

Francis, time and again you have accurately described the rabble here to a T; even though they fool themselves into quietly and deceptively self-describing as members of our "elite, ruling class".

You are rapidly becoming a one-man army against the socialistic fools. You have them badly outnumbered, by the way.

And Sarah Palin STILL has the fools running so scared they are filling their pants.

I would have included Clay in that assessment but his cartoon actually deserves a second, closer look. Sarah Palin has indeed ripped our inbred Federal Government a new backside and most assuredly re-defined and re-designed the American political/voter scene.

Can't wait for Tuesday night next week to count our new Congressmen/women.

October 24, 2010 at 9:27 p.m.
rolando said...

I inexcusably omitted those other "zero approval" folks posting here. Your positive comments regarding Ms Palin and her politics are a ray of sunshine in this dark cesspool of socialism.

My apologies to each of you...

October 24, 2010 at 9:31 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

rolando, would you like to refute the evidence posted here? Francis seems unable to.

October 24, 2010 at 9:37 p.m.
Francis said...

thanks, rolando....the wacked, cheap, two bit cracker jack analysis of how palin is viewed and the impact she's having out there by the liberals on this forum is a study in delusion. obama is being avoided like a cowpie buzzing with flies in a field, while palin's endorsments are as good as gold. palin is being viewed as a self-made american who speaks clearly and is not afraid to debate while obama is being viewed as a foreigner trying to remake a country he doesn't like into one of his socialist/authoritarian wet dreams. he's a sissy who's afraid to engage in a real debate so he speaks with his teleprompter to stacked college crowds thinking they'll fall again for his slogans. people feel more of a connection with palin because she's not some elitest, theoratician/academican/socialist/cold statist.

palin, agree with her or not...has "it".....obama, once thought to have "it".. has been proven to be a fraud.

you can quote all the numbers you want on here.... and skew it to fit your points..but you don't see what's going out there.

October 24, 2010 at 11:17 p.m.
reaganwasright said...

If Sarah Palin were actually all the Republicans had to offer, the party would be in real trouble.

I think she and Obama have mobilized the far right, but I don't think she's made any converts of moderates. Those have come in spite of her.

I think moderates and independents are flocking to the right because we are still struggling with job creation and debt. I think he would be a lot more popular if the economy had recovered to previous levels.

I'll take conservative supporters where and how we can get them, but let's not delude ourselves where they actually come from, or why they come.

October 25, 2010 at 12:38 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "horsecrap, ozzy...and alprova....you're losing the battle...your anger is obvious

your rage is obvious..she really rubs you libs the wrong way..."


Personally, I'm not involved in any battle, I have displayed no anger in relating certain facts surrounding Sarah Palin, I'm certainly not enraged at all, and Sarah Palin, to the best of my knowledge, has never so much as put her hands on me to rub me the right way.


"i love how she pushes your buttons..you libs....i don't think she's the perfect candidate....at all..but you libs reveal yourselves with your over the top hatred of her...amazing to watch.."


There was a time when I worried that she might be a threat to this nation. I no longer worry about that, for the woman has become nothing more than a vaudeville act, for a better way to describe it. The only thing she hasn't done is to throw down a hat to collect coins as people pass by.

The woman has only one shtick. Every one of her speeches consist of bashing the President.


"what are you going to do if she keeps it up.....? whine all you want..it only seems to make her more popular...."


I hope she does keep it up. I hope people like yourself keep up the fine job of supporting her in the manner that you do.

What will I do? Laugh at the joke that you have both become.

October 25, 2010 at 1:24 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "you fear her....."


I'm hardly afraid of that woman. I actually feel sorry for her. She is a shining example and representative of the kind of conservatism that the people of this nation have rejected time and again.


"..."inconsequential", alprova....no..you are delusional...to say palin is inconsequential is to not be in touch with reality...she can outdraw obama...and may well be the most influential politician today..in terms of drawing a crowd...and getting endorsements..."


I've wrote it before and I'll write it again. If Sarah Palin is brave enough to start a run for the Presidency, the Republicans who will be going up against her for the nomination, will wipe up the floor with her hair.


"hell, obama is being asked to stay away and not endorse candidates publically.....your ingorance of the facts and reality makes your posts regarding her quite "inconsequential"..."


There are only two House or Senate candidates who have publicly distanced themselves from the President.

Congressman Joe Donnelly, representing the 2nd District of Indiana, is a Blue Dog Democrat. No shock there. Right now, he has a nine point lead.

Congressman Travis Childers, representing Mississippi's 1st District, which is decidedly conservative and always has been. Obama won just 38 percent of the vote in 2008. And, Childers is only leading by five points as of the 17th of this month.

Tell me Francis, until today, have you ever heard of either of the two men who requested that the President not appear on a stage with them?

Do you think the President had his feelings hurt over their rejection?

Not on your life. They're not playing for the same team and they never have been.

October 25, 2010 at 2:40 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "and by the way...obama knows nothing about economics ...and proves it every day....unless you consider shaking people down for money as economics."


There is not so much as one person who resides in the United States that has to date, been taxed one thin dime by the President, and you ought to know that fact.

To state otherwise is the height of absurdity, and it totally exposes your continued, willful ignorance.


"he mistakes governing with being a mob boss. must be tough for you arrogant libs to have to contstantly put up with the filthy rabble and our annoying observations."


Annoying? Yes. Observations? No. You're spouting deliberate lies and disprovable lies at that.


"bet you would like to just toss us in prison..like your fearless leader wants to."


I'd ask you what the heck you are referring to, but I'm afraid I already know what you are referring to. You're so predictable Francis.

But I'm going to play along on this one, because I know doggone well what you will respond with.

Please offer up one iota of proof that the President "wants to throw you or anyone else in prison"...for anything at all.

I have suspected for a while that you are a reincarnation of someone. You're dangerously close to proving it.

October 25, 2010 at 2:54 a.m.
Reardon said...

"There is not so much as one person who resides in the United States that has to date, been taxed one thin dime by the President, and you ought to know that fact.

To state otherwise is the height of absurdity, and it totally exposes your continued, willful ignorance."

Obama Signs Federal Cigarette Tax Hike -- in February of 2009.

http://tiny.cc/1j9fb

After saying he wouldn't tax anyone making below $250k.

What say you?

October 25, 2010 at 5:52 a.m.
alprova said...

Ah yes...the cigarette tax of 2009.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I've bantered that one around before, back last year.

To put it plain and simple, on the day when that tax went into effect, anyone who purchased tobacco products made a conscience decision to voluntarily contribute to the S-CHIP program.

If they claim that they were not voluntarily contributing to the cause, then they were being taxed for their stupidity in conscientiously choosing to smoke tobacco products.

Quitting the consumption of tobacco saves you not only the increased tax, but the former amount assessed in taxes before the increased taxes were levied, and also the base cost of the tobacco product as well.

It's a win/win proposition when one quits tobacco forever.

No one needs tobacco. It's a conscience and a voluntary act to purchase it, and no one is going to arrest you if you refuse to purchase a pack of cigarettes.

Please don't do some more Googling and come up with the tanning bed tax. The same premise applies to that one too.

Burning one's skin to look like a rotten orange is a completely voluntarily, unnecessary, and another sheer act of stupidity.

I know a woman who has had more than 50 cancerous lesions removed from her body -- a result of years of baking her body. Goodness only knows what is growing on the inside of her by now.

October 25, 2010 at 6:34 a.m.
woody said...

Good morning everyone. It's Monday and there is but one week left before Rolando, Francis and their 'grumbling' minions shout "Hallelujah" and "Nah, nah, nah, we told you so...."

Then the rest of us can sit back for the next two years and watch them busily wiping that proverbial egg off their faces. However, I would caution them not to 'hold their collective breaths' for the emergence of a "Palin for President" campaign.

"Kooks Anonymous" might be ready to crown her queen, but anyone with half a brain won't be seriously voting for anyone who will abruptly leave office before finishing the they were hired to do.

Unless, of course, your name is Richard M. Nixon.

Let's all have another cup of coffee, Woody

October 25, 2010 at 6:41 a.m.
Reardon said...

While I agree with you entirely on the effects of tobacco, the majority of those who smoke are on the lower-end of the income-making curve.

http://tiny.cc/319is

...But the point of the YouTube video was to show you that, in fact, Obama DID sign, with his very own signature, into law a series of taxes that would DEFINITELY affect those making lower incomes.... AFTER he said SPECIFICALLY during the election campaign that no new taxes would be levied on those who make less than $250,000 per year.

Because of this, you must redact your statement that no new tax on those making <$250k has been passed on behalf of the Obama Administration.

Here's the video again for your reference: http://tiny.cc/1j9fb. Just takes 20 or so seconds to watch the words come right out of his mouth.

Does this make Obama a liar? A pragmatist? What say you?

And when more people quit smoking due to higher taxes, thus S-CHIP become underfunded, is it still a win-win proposition? What other group will be put on the chopping block to be plundered to fund S-CHIP? Drinkers? Gamblers?

October 25, 2010 at 6:51 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Unforunately, woody, repukes don't even have half a brain rattling around in their empty craniums -- they have bought Goebbels tactics lock, stock and barrel, so to speak -- Francis, rolando and his ilk are just their water carriers on this board and throughout the country -- so willing to spread the lies and bigotry of their corporate masters. As Bob Dylan said, "they're just a pawn in their game."

October 25, 2010 at 6:56 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

old bennett has an identity problem: he don't know palin's hand from pelosi's

October 25, 2010 at 7:17 a.m.
Clara said...

What is S-CHIP all about, please?

I've never heard it discussed or even mentioned before.

Guess I'll have to look the whole thing up.

Bye for now...

October 25, 2010 at 7:39 a.m.
Clara said...

For Starts...from Wiki... [Improve]

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a national program in the United States which was founded by Senator Ted Kennedy and First Lady (now a senator from New York) Hillary Rodham Clinton. The program provides health insurance for families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford to buy private insurance. The program was created to address the growing number of children in the United States without health insurance. When it was created in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children in the US since Medicaid began in the 1960s. The statutory authority for SCHIP is under title XXI of the Social Security Act. A proposal recently passed in the Congress to expand SCHIP from $5 billion yearly by $35 billion over five years was vetoed by George W. Bush. The veto follows changes of program administrative rules in August which make it more difficult for states to expand eligibility.

SCHIP covered 6.9 million children at some point during Federal fiscal year 2006, and every state has an approved plan. States are given flexibility, and an enhanced match is paid to states. Some states have received Section 1115 demonstration authority to use SCHIP funds to cover the parents of children receiving benefits from both SCHIP and Medicaid, pregnant women, and other adults. However, the program already faces funding shortfalls in several states.

In 2007, researchers from Brigham Young University and Arizona State found that children who drop out of SCHIP cost states more money because they shift away from routine care to more frequent emergency care situations. The conclusion of the study is that an attempt to cut the costs of a state program could create a false savings because other government organizations pick up the tab for the children who leave SCHIP and later need care. In a 2007 analysis by the Congessional Budget Office, researchers determined that "for every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children." The CBO speculates this is because the state programs offer better benefits and lower cost than the private alternatives. A Cato Institute briefing paper estimated the "crowding out" of private insurers by the public program could be as much as 60%. The program cost $40 billion federal dollars over 10 years.

And this is the Google page with others.

http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.kerrlake.com&q=What+is+S-CHIP%3F&sa=Search&sitesearch=&client=pub-6483208595085928&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1&hl=en

October 25, 2010 at 8:03 a.m.
Clara said...

It seems S-CHIP was endorsed? by Kennedy and has been in existance since the 1960's.

Both parties have endorsed it since.

Shame on you!

October 25, 2010 at 8:07 a.m.
rolando said...

Excellent point, joepulitzer, most excellent. Thanx for the laugh.

October 25, 2010 at 8:07 a.m.
rolando said...

In a word, lkeith, "No".

Why waste my breath "casting pearls before swine"? [I quote/paraphrase that in a symbolic sense...]

October 25, 2010 at 8:11 a.m.
BobMKE said...

Palin for President = No. After the election next week, GOP Party Chairwomen = YES. If that would happen the GOP would raise millions for the 2012+ elections.

October 25, 2010 at 8:34 a.m.
alprova said...

Reardon wrote: "...But the point of the YouTube video was to show you that, in fact, Obama DID sign, with his very own signature, into law a series of taxes that would DEFINITELY affect those making lower incomes.... AFTER he said SPECIFICALLY during the election campaign that no new taxes would be levied on those who make less than $250,000 per year."


The tobacco tax passed was not passed to include or exclude anyone based on their income. It was assessed on only those stupid enough to smoke, dip, or chew.

Get it?


"Because of this, you must redact your statement that no new tax on those making <$250k has been passed on behalf of the Obama Administration."


Nope, because the vast majority of the people in this nation do not smoke, dip, or chew, and are therefore not paying the tax. It is only confined to and collected from those who imbibe tobacco. Income is not a factor.


"Does this make Obama a liar? A pragmatist? What say you?"


Please, knock off the Bill O'Reilly plug. It makes me want to barf.

Call him whatever you want. Both sides are on the table. Everyone is free to make up their own minds, and around here, we usually do.


"And when more people quit smoking due to higher taxes, thus S-CHIP become underfunded, is it still a win-win proposition?"


Naw, but the rich can give up another 1% for the poor children in America. Problem solved.


"What other group will be put on the chopping block to be plundered to fund S-CHIP? Drinkers? Gamblers?"


I say both of those, legalize pot, and slap a dollar a pack tax on that too.

If we get really bad off, legalize prostitution and slap a ten dollar "convenience fee" on those late night booty calls.

I've got some more ideas. Wanna read 'em?

October 25, 2010 at 8:36 a.m.
Reardon said...

Al, with all due respect, there's really no need to back-pedal.

Obama said explicitly said, "No new taxes for anyone making under $250,000."

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LGwqb...

Obama passes a tax... that largely hurt those in the lower income brackets.

Here's the proof: http://tiny.cc/319is

You, inadvertently or blatantly, claimed he hadn't raised any taxes.

No matter how you twist Obama's words, or redefine what a tax is, the fact of the matter is you're wrong.

Just admit it -- it's no big deal.

That's really the problem with this forum -- you guys will criticize Rolando and Francis-in-the-coalmine about their lack of proof, or lack of a substantive argument. And sometimes, you're certainly right.

But when somebody calls you out on being incorrect in a respectful manner and actually provides proof, you spend two posts back-pedaling.

How can you claim to have any credibility in your argument when you're doing the same exact thing as they are?

October 25, 2010 at 9:18 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

In other words, rolando, you're a coward and have no evidence to offer to refute what was presented.

October 25, 2010 at 10:03 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Funny, I get that fingernails on the blackboard feeling every time I hear Obama speak.

Perspective is everything I guess.

October 25, 2010 at 10:11 a.m.
ibshame said...

If the Repubs want to put Sarah Palin out there to run in 2012, I say hoorah for them. Go for it!! By the time the so-called "liberal media" gets through with all the stuff they didn't bring out in 2008 along with a rehash of the stuff they did bring out, it should be a cakewalk for Obama. She'll definitely carry TN that's for sure along with Ala., Mississippi and GA. Throw in some of those "red states" in the Southwest and who knows she just might get one more electoral vote than McCain. What she won't get is the White House. We're still living through the disastrous results of the last "dummy" who was installed in the White House thanks to Tennessee in 2000. Al Gore was never going to carry Fla. as long as Jeb Bush was Governor. However, If the votes in Tennessee had gone to Al Gore the way they went to Clinton in 1992 and 1996, It would not have mattered what happened in FLA. with the Electoral Vote and the whole country would have been better off. At the very least 4000 young men and women would not have lost their lives due to an unneccesary war in Iraq. I don't believe the rest of the country is willing to allow another "dummy" like Palin to lead us into another disaster. However, if she's the best the Repubs have to offer then "Bring it on." You betcha, wink, wink.

October 25, 2010 at 10:41 a.m.
BobMKE said...

The National Debt is now at 14 Trillion. (Not counting Social Security, Medicare, Obama Care) That means that every person in the Country now owes $43,000.00, and counting. When Bush left office, every person owed $18,000.00 on the National Debt. That change is sure working out for us. Obama is going around the Country with his "Pity Party" speech stumping for his fellow big spenders.

October 25, 2010 at 11:40 a.m.
ibshame said...

When Bush came into office, Bill Clinton left him with a surplus which he quickly dispatched to his rich buddies. Then when that wasn't enough damage he proceeded to start a war with a country that had no connection whatsoever to the attack on 9/11. Yet all of these so-called "deficit hawks" sat on the sidelines and said nothing. The Bush years brought plenty to the rich. The Banking Industry was de-regulated, the Mortgage Industry was de-regulated, the Oil Industry was de-regulated, the Insurance Companies kicked people out of their health insurance benefits, and last but certainly not least an attempt was made to privatize Social Security by handing those funds over to Wall Street. Luckily that's about the only thing that was stopped. If the elderly are complaining now about not getting their COLA raises just think where they would be if Bush and the Repubs had their way with privatizing Social Security by handing it over to Wall Street to play with. Barack Obama was sworn in on Jan. 21, 2009. All of the above took place long before he was sworn in. In fact, Bush initiated the TARP program to bail out the banks and Wall Street in the Summer of 2008. Bush and his minions ran loose and free with spending for 8 long nightmarish years but all of these people who are hollering now were silent then and nothing was said or done to stop it.
Now you want to put the blame on Obama for everything that took place long before he raised his hand and took the oath to become President. You people want Obama to come in and clean up what amounts to a "nuclear disaster" with a broom and dust pan. It doesn't work that way and it's naive of anyone to think that it does. The fact of the matter is this: Bush and Pals brought this country to its knees and Obama was left holding the bag. If this country wants a repeat of the Bush years then by all means they should return control of Congress to the Repubs. Who knows this time Wall Street just might hit the jackpot and get the Social Security funds to play with like they did with mortgages. Hmm what was the term they used on Wall Street to play games with in the Mortgage Industry? Oh yeah, DERIVATIVES, something to this day no one can tell you with a straight face what they really are but they certainly made a lot of fat cats fatter and along the way brought foreclosures to record highs. All of this long before Obama started his "pity party."

October 25, 2010 at 12:35 p.m.
alprova said...

Reardon wrote: "Obama said explicitly said, "No new taxes for anyone making under $250,000."..."


...and the issue has been addressed. But, if you're thirsty for more, I have more to add.

HR 2 was passed with a veto-proof two-thirds majority, of 290-138 on January 14, 2009. That was 6 days before the President took office. The Senate passed their version on January 29, 2009, also with a two-thirds majority. The final vote, on that same day, in the House, was 290-135.

You can't pin this on Obama. He had to sign it.

Now if you want to argue that he would not have vetoed the bill, fine. He probably wouldn't. But that's as close as you can come to pinning those cigarette taxes on the man.


"Obama passes a tax... that largely hurt those in the lower income brackets."


No President passes a tax. They may sign it into law, but they don't pass it. It wasn't his initiative to begin with. It was the initiative of the Democrats, no question, but not the President.


"You, inadvertently or blatantly, claimed he hadn't raised any taxes."


He didn't, in the same manner that Bill Clinton didn't cause the Mortgage Crisis by signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law. That too was passed with a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate, ruled then by a Republican majority.


"No matter how you twist Obama's words, or redefine what a tax is, the fact of the matter is you're wrong."


No...I'm not. Even without the above added facts, the man was never referring to anything but the taxes one pays when one files their tax return, and most reasonable people know and understand that.

You're repeating an argument laid out last year in the blogosphere, when the man signed the bill into law, and it's as invalid now as it was then.

A "sin tax" equal to approximately $248 a year for a pack-a-day smoker, would have never passed had it been levied as an increase to income taxes. But because paying the tax involved a willful act that could be avoided easily by not purchasing an unnecessary product like tobacco, it was passed.


"Just admit it -- it's no big deal."


Sorry.


That's really the problem with this forum -- you guys will criticize Rolando and Francis-in-the-coalmine about their lack of proof, or lack of a substantive argument. And sometimes, you're certainly right.


Thank you. In light of the above added facts, am I still wrong in your estimation?


"But when somebody calls you out on being incorrect in a respectful manner and actually provides proof, you spend two posts back-pedaling."


No. What I was forced to do, was to dig up all the details of that issue, in order to revisit it entirely all over again.


"How can you claim to have any credibility in your argument when you're doing the same exact thing as they are?"


I think I'm covered.

What say you?

October 25, 2010 at 12:44 p.m.

Thank you, alprova for your reasoned and well researched argument. By the way, Oliver Cromwell was a homicidal and genocidal nut who did not think the Catholic Irish were human beings.

October 25, 2010 at 1:22 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Have Fran or Rolando offered any facts to back up their banter yet? Just asking.

October 25, 2010 at 1:38 p.m.
princehal said...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Francis=Canaryinthecoalmine.

October 25, 2010 at 1:57 p.m.
Francis said...

"facts to back up banter"?

go out and see what's going on...see for yourself...see palin beng asked to endorse and drawing crowds..see obama being asked to stay away and not drawing crowds...what more can i say......if you want to claim the opposite.. go ahead...but it 's not reality..

bobmke is right....his numbers are right on the mark..

you keep demanding "proof"...but when proof is offered you just put it down and deny it....there's no point to debate you.....

it would be as if in 2008 i would claim that obama is not popular out there.. even though he was...even though i thought he was awful, i couldn't deny his popularity..

but my how things have changed..

democrats are scattering from obama in droves...check it out.

the mid-term election next week is "absolute proof" that obama is now regarded as a liar and incompetant. it's also vindication for palin and all those who called obama what he really is..unqualified and dishonest.

the numbers prove obama what he is...incompetant..

young voters are staying away from voting....those who voted for obama., that is....they know a liar when they see one.

October 25, 2010 at 3:12 p.m.
Francis said...

you libs defense of obama and the liberals in charge and those that support obama.... is moronic...absolutely moronic.....just today paul krugman..that knucklehead socialist masquerading as an econonmist..is stating that obama hasn't spent enough.....yeah..i guess the noble prize for economics isn't what it used to be.....

what you libs don['t understand that the majority of american feel as if they're being pushed around by obama and pelosi...

that cartoon..should have nancy pelosi's hand on it scratching the chalkboard.....nancy pelosi is reviled and detested...palin is admired... go figure, huh?......check out pelosi's numbers....just a little north of lizzy borden

October 25, 2010 at 3:21 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"you keep demanding "proof"...but when proof is offered you just put it down and deny it....there's no point to debate you....."

I must have missed the proof you offered.

Beuler? Beuler? Anyone?

October 25, 2010 at 3:45 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "go out and see what's going on...see for yourself...see palin beng asked to endorse and drawing crowds..see obama being asked to stay away and not drawing crowds...what more can i say......if you want to claim the opposite..go ahead...but it 's not reality..


Believe whatever you want. The woman has just about spent all of her political capital. Her Tea-Party candidates are not doing all that well.

Rand Paul is the only Tea-Party candidate that has a chance at the moment of winning next week, but his lead has been narrowing little by little. If the polls are off by five points, he may not pull it off.

And even if he does, he will be as ineffective as his father is. Ron Paul's ideas have never gained any traction, and neither will Rand's.


"bobmke is right....his numbers are right on the mark.."


You know, Martin Luther King was a dreamer. His dreams came true. The dream you are having will never come true, but feel free to dream on.


"you keep demanding "proof"...but when proof is offered you just put it down and deny it....there's no point to debate you....."


What proof have you offered to date when you have been challenged? I don't recall so much as a link being posted to prove a thing you have ever offered.


"democrats are scattering from obama in droves...check it out."


Proof? A Blue Dog and a Democrat who won in a Republican dominated district doth not a drove maketh.


"young voters are staying away from voting....those who voted for obama., that is....they know a liar when they see one."


I don't know where you get your information from, but it will likely be the younger voters who will turn out in very high numbers to counter all this brainwashing that the Tea-Partiers have been cramming down Senior Citizens throats.

I've spent a great deal of time on the phones over the past two weeks. The polls being collected online are not being supported by those taken by more random means.

We'll know all in a week.

October 25, 2010 at 4:29 p.m.
Clara said...

independentlighthouse,

Sorry! Your sources wouldn't open for me.

Since they are videos, I might get them by midnight. I haven't the time. Not your fault, I'm sure!

October 25, 2010 at 4:45 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "you libs defense of obama and the liberals in charge and those that support obama.... is moronic...absolutely moronic.....just today paul krugman..that knucklehead socialist masquerading as an econonmist..is stating that obama hasn't spent enough.....yeah..i guess the noble prize for economics isn't what it used to be....."


I see. And your credentials are...what?


"what you libs don['t understand that the majority of american feel as if they're being pushed around by obama and pelosi..."


And the proof of that statement can be found where?


"that cartoon..should have nancy pelosi's hand on it scratching the chalkboard.....nancy pelosi is reviled and detested...palin is admired...go figure, huh?......check out pelosi's numbers....just a little north of lizzy borden"


Well a very good counter to that statement is to point out that for some reason, those who vote in her District keep electing her. Her colleagues in Washington voted her to lead the House of Representatives.

Sarah Palin has not been voted into office for a thing since 2006, and her popularity numbers shouldn't give anyone reason to think she will be voted into office ever again. Put a fork in her. She's done.

But we do agree on one thing.

I don't care for the woman and I do not want her to be Speaker of the House next term. She is very much the one of the worst of politicians that have ever permeated Washington D.C., but I don't live in her District and thus, do not have a dog in that hunt.

We'll all have to hope that eventually someone comes along to dethrone her.

October 25, 2010 at 4:46 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Holy mackeral. I finally agree with Bennett on something.

October 25, 2010 at 4:50 p.m.
maryanne said...

I thought we could all at least agree that this is funny.

October 25, 2010 at 4:56 p.m.
Hoppergrasser said...

Maryanne... Welcome to the group. :)

October 25, 2010 at 5:13 p.m.
acerigger said...

Seems like I saw where sarah drew 400 people at a rally in Ca. last week,(in a venue which seated 1800). On the other hand, Pres. Obama drew 37,500 in Ca. last week. Sure sounds like he's about to get over-taken by Palin.(snark) Oh, and too bad Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorino had "scheduling conflicts" and couldn't attend Sarah's speech after she endorsed both of them. But for some posters on this thread,"numbers don't matter",it's the reality on the ground.(what-ever that's supposed to mean?)

October 25, 2010 at 5:35 p.m.
Francis said...

wrong alprova....she's not done..at all. there's no evidence at all that she's done.....none at all........in fact, there's piles of evidence to show that obama is done...watch for the democrat party to push for hillary to be the nominee in 2012...she probably won't go for it..but somone will push for it.

you libs keep insisting that palin's done...but that's wishful thinking on your parts. you're scared of her. in your tight liberal circles you've convinced your selves she's done..because you want her to be...but in the real world she's very much respected and is impactful.

there's no evidence at all that she's done.......to insist that speaks to your ig- norance and delusion...all evidence points the other way.

most importantly...most people now realize that the claim that she's unqualified is even more ludicrous now given obama's glittering display of immaturity and incompetance over the last couple of years...you've been trying to destroy her for two years....it's having the opposite effect.

it's illogical and nonsensical to claim she's done.....you can keep insisting.. she is...but there's no evidence to back that up....she's booked solid and candidates are clamoring for her to endorse them...and she doesn't even hold public office.

get real..

you can disagree with her...say whatever you want...but her impact is undeniable.

even bill clinton and hillary clinton have said so.

October 25, 2010 at 5:50 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "you can disagree with her...say whatever you want...but her impact is undeniable."


Well, one thing is for sure. She has you running around the room in circles, panting like a little puppy who's been caged for eight hours, and you're dribbling all over the floor.

October 25, 2010 at 6:59 p.m.
rolando said...

Francis, these lemmings would demand proof in the statement "...we hold these truths to be self-evident".

No wonder they cannot get the heads around the idea that some things ARE self-evident -- all they need to do is use a little "scientific" research and just plain old keep-your-mouth-shut-and-listen for a change. But they simply cannot see the real world.

October 25, 2010 at 7:58 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Still no evidence, rolando. How much more time do you need to find it?

October 25, 2010 at 8:09 p.m.
BobMKE said...

ibshame,

Several events caused the housing bust of 2008 which spread to the financial markets and beyond.

1977 - Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) (On Carter's watch)

1992 - The Department of Housing and Urban Development pressured Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to purchase large bundles of these loans for the conflicting purposes of diversifying the risk and making evern more money available to banks to make further risky loans.(On Clinton's Watch)

A by-product of this government intervention and social engineering was a financial instrument called the DERIVATIVE. = Ticking Time Bomb.

The Federal Reserve Board's role in the housing boom and bust cannot be stressed enough.

2008 Congress passed (Democratic) and Bush (dumb move)signed Economic Stimulus Act and the Economic Recovery Act.

2009 TARP and the so-called American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan by guess who?

Now how is Obama going to pay for Obama Care?

Space does not allow me to go into further detail regarding the above, but everyone can check it out for themselves.

PS, if the cartoon was drawn by a conservative the sleeve would read Pelosi.

October 25, 2010 at 8:14 p.m.
rolando said...

As long as it takes you to do your homework, lkeith. Try the "scientific' approach you tout so loudly... In any case, keep trying; you will get the hang of it.

It's all there, self-evident as all get out.

October 25, 2010 at 8:41 p.m.
Clara said...

Francis,

Why thank you, Francis

I must be a real American by your standards, because I am much more exceptional than you are, in many ways.

The first one being that I am much older. The second one is that I carefully read and try to back up my statements. The third reason is that you are tied down to a group, and I am truly free of any assignments.

There are more but I won't bore you with my exceptionalism.

October 25, 2010 at 8:50 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I did my homework rolando. I'm waiting for you to do yours, but your intellectual dishonesty is pretty evident.

October 25, 2010 at 8:55 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

FYI - I'm on the Coast Guard Cutter ooa SC. I have almost a split crew on Libs and Cons and as of right now the Cons are losing every debate because of lack of facts. We have a rule on the boat, that you must site a reference for all your arguments. They rarely come up with anything of substance. I voted for Obama and I support him. I do not agree with all the parts of health care reform and I think some of the tax cuts should be extended. Having said that, my biggest hurdle as a leader is convincing young men and women that their commander-in-chief is not a Muslim or an illegal alien or a socialist. So I ask you again, this time not for proof but for answers. What do you tell a young soldier, who may be going in harm’s way, that he/she is following a lawful order? How do you motivate and individual when she is being told that if she supports the President that she is un-American? Why should they continue their education when a B.A. from Columbia and a law degree from Harvard means that you’re incompetent. I’m not looking for talking points, this is the real world, I’m looking for truth. Young impressionable minds are reading your post. They want to believe what they read and act on it. Help them and help yourself by being responsible and accurate.

October 25, 2010 at 9:07 p.m.
Reardon said...

Sea,

Read Atlas Shrugged. You'll find the stepping stones to answering some of your most pressing requests for truth within it.

My father gave it to me several years before I actually read it. It totally changed my life, I think for the better.

An Al, thanks for the courteous response. While I'm knee-deep in work and don't have enough time to reply to your claims with a descriptive response, I'll just agree to disagree with you.

Best, Dave

October 25, 2010 at 10:10 p.m.
acerigger said...

What we're experiencing right now is just a natural symptom of the illness of modern conservatism's Randian philosophy, which, at its core, really does hold that the Big Money Boyz should be allowed unfettered freedom to make money without restrictions or rules. And when they gamble on the wrong thing, they believe that it is the right thing for the rubes to bail them out. Their basic philosophy holds that the taxpayers are parasites who benefit when the John Galts of the world make money so they should shoulder the burden when they fail. Indeed, they believe the serfs should be grateful for what they got out of it (which, by the way, wasn't much lately since the BMB decided some time back that they didn't have anything to lose by taking more and more of the pie for themselves.) Atlas Shrugged indeed! Go read "1984" for some real insight.

October 25, 2010 at 11:23 p.m.
Reardon said...

Ace, please re-read Atlas Shrugged again; you clearly have no understanding of libertarian philosophy.

For anyone to imply that our "symptoms" are results of Randian philosophy, clearly have no conceptualization of the basics of Objectivism.

It may actually do you better to read Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, for a clearer understanding.

October 26, 2010 at 9:53 a.m.
ibshame said...

For BobMke: On the Day George W. Bush took office in 2001 the National Debt was $5.727 trillion dollars. By the time 2008 rolled around it had grown to $9.849 trillion dollars. More than a 70% increase. The Repubs had been in control of Congress from 1995-2006. When Bush took office in 2001 the National Debt was 56.4% of GDP. When Bush left office in 2009 the National Debt was 83.4% of GDP. Again Repubs controlled Congress from 1995-2006. When Bush took office in 2001 more than 22 million jobs had been created under Bill Clinton. When Bush left office only 1.1 million jobs had been created and the country had started to lose jobs at the rate of a million or more a month. All of this information is readily accessible at the Congressional Budget Office Website.
Your choice of events negates the fact of who was in charge for the greater part of the debacle we are now faced with as far as the economy goes. From 1995-2006 DEREGULATION was the name of the game in the Republican controlled Congress. The Banking Industry, the Housing Industry, the Oil Industry and last but certainly not least Wall Street were given free reign. If Bush had gotten away with it, there would be millions of people without Social Security because he and his pals were ready to give it all to Wall Street. Privatization was the way to "save" SS according to them.

As for Palin and her Tea Party and their supposed anger. Their anger pales in comparison to the anger I feel towards the Democrats. They are cowering in the corner when at the very least they should be proud of the things they have accomplished in just the last two years alone. This country would be in far worse shape now if they had not taken the initiative to bring order back to this country. I feel the same way about Obama. I am angry with him for not pushing the Dems to do more. He should have realized after about the first 6 mos. of his administration that he was not going to get cooperation from the Repubs and he should have pushed them aside and pressured the Dems to keep moving forward. Instead, he tried to do the "right thing" by reaching out to the Repubs. What did he get for his effort? From the wingnut fringes of the Repub. party: accusations that he was not even a citizen of this country or he was some kind of secret muslim bent on bringing "Sharia Law" to the United States or last but certainly not least he was the "Anti-Christ." Talk about ignorance. Yes, I'm angry but I also know to give Repubs and the Tea Party control of Congress would be like cutting my nose off to spite my face.

October 26, 2010 at 11:19 a.m.
Clara said...

Very good, ibshame!

October 26, 2010 at 7:52 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.