published Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

The Boosters

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 ...

79
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.
OllieH said...

It reminds me of when I got my hair cut when I was a little kid.

I guess it's the only way to compensate for a candidate who's so short on qualifications.

September 23, 2010 at 2:08 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

OK for liberal judges to quote the laws of foreign nations, but not OK for conservatives in the jet and web age to love one another?

September 23, 2010 at 2:10 a.m.
toonfan said...

Chuck Fleischmann still doesn't measure up to the job.

September 23, 2010 at 2:11 a.m.
OllieH said...

AndrewLohr writes, "OK for liberal judges to quote the laws of foreign nations, but not OK for conservatives in the jet and web age to love one another?"

At the risk of actually getting an answer, I have to ask- what in the blue blazes is that supposed to mean, Andrew?

September 23, 2010 at 2:18 a.m.
hambone said...

Me too, Ollie.

September 23, 2010 at 6:22 a.m.
acerigger said...

"

"OK for liberal judges to quote the laws of foreign nations"??? example(s),please.

September 23, 2010 at 7:22 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "OK for liberal judges to quote the laws of foreign nations, but not OK for conservatives in the jet and web age to love one another?"


What's not okay is the degree to which Conservatives love each other, and in how much they detest and disregard those who are not as Conservative as they may be.

And what's not okay is the degree that some Conservatives want to use the power of Government to manipulate the lives of all citizens to attempt to force all people to adopt their points of view.

Many Conservatives have not been very successful in using guile and persuasion to achieve the goal of converting all to their version of Christianity, so they came up with the bright idea of trying to wrest oversight of the legislative process in this nation to further their agendas.

Mike Pence, a virtual unknown in terms of national politics, is dipping his toes into the pool of Republican Presidential possible nominees for 2012. The pool is getting a little crowded, what with Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, David Petraeus, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist, and Lindsay Graham all considering runs in 2012.

Mike Pence makes no bones about the fact that he is an Evangelical Christian. He's served as U.S. Representative of Indiana's 2nd for two years, from 2001-2003, and has been the U.S. Representative of the 6th District since 2003.

An amazing contrast -- and one that will surely haunt Republicans if Pence somehow breaks out of the pack, is that his record of public service is similar to the President's, and he is also known for being an articulate public speaker.

And what has he spoken about? He opposes anti-Semitism, expanding hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation and gender identity, and any proposal granting amnesty for illegal immigrants. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and currently wants them extended for all, despite the current debt that has some in a tizzy. He staunchly opposes abortion under any circumstance and embryonic stem cell research.

He vocally opposes President Obama's timeline strategy to end the wars in the Middle East, and vehemently opposed the closing of Guantanamo Bay. He opposed the Fairness Doctrine. He opposes any and all online gambling.

He fits rather well into the Party of "NO!!" if you ask me. But he, like so many others in that wading pool at the moment, is too Conservative to stand any chance of being elected.

Chuck Fleischman made a good run to get to the position he currently finds himself in at the moment. He painted Robin Smith with that ultra-conservative brush and triumphed. If he turns around and becomes a little too chummy with those known to be the same, he's going to raise more than a few eyebrows.

September 23, 2010 at 8:30 a.m.
alprova said...

Why We Get sick...

http://i.imgur.com/yU5mS.jpg

September 23, 2010 at 8:39 a.m.
moonpie said...

While this cartoon succinctly makes it's point that Chuck's political standing is riding in large part on these endorsements, if I had been Clay's editor I would have encouraged him to go a different direction with this cartoon.

While convenient and reminiscent of Shrek's jabs at Lord Farquad, I think a person's physical characteristics which are beyond their control should not be fair territory in the political arena. Chuck's physical height has no bearing on his ability to govern or the strength of his ideas.


While there is some truth in that one of Chuck's assets is that he has had these endorsements, I think there are a lot of people who did and will continue to support him based on his character and political ideals.

I am not one of those people. I disagree with Chuck.


As for Andrew.... wow. Now THAT is a strawman argument if I've every seen one. These two issues have nothing to do with one another.

September 23, 2010 at 8:43 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

I'm going to play the game where we quote each other and change just a few words around:

"What's not okay is the degree to which [liberals] love each other, and in how much they detest and disregard those who are not as [liberal] as they may be."

That was fun.

September 23, 2010 at 8:45 a.m.
acerigger said...

Chuck will have no problem at all finding himself a place at the trough with buddies like these.

September 23, 2010 at 8:45 a.m.
alprova said...

Musicman275 wrote: "I'm going to play the game where we quote each other and change just a few words around:

"What's not okay is the degree to which [liberals] love each other, and in how much they detest and disregard those who are not as [liberal] as they may be."

That was fun."


I don't detest or disregard the Conservatives who would use the power of Government to pass laws that would limit one's free will choices. I pity them. Why?

Because while they stand on ground they consider moral and just, the fact is that Conservatives who would legislate based on their perception of morality, are selfish, greedy, and judgmental on all fronts, hardly ever, if not actually never, coming up with viable, agreeable, and alternative solutions that would address the issues.

They just say, "NO!!" I hope they keep up the good work of reminding the nation why they are no longer in power, and why it would be ill advised to restore them to power.

And no, I'm not about to get into any deep discussions about those issues either. We all know what those issues are and we all know that no minds will be changed, no matter how deep or prolonged the discussions get.

Let them step up to bat, and we'll keep striking them out. A few hits every now and then does not necessarily mean that they will ever win the game. I do however admire their tenacity.

I was amused to see that the Republicans have decided to offer a second "Contract with America" yesterday. I haven't had time to download it and read it yet, but I will get to that ASAP. I'll wait until I need a good laugh to cheer me up.

Do the Republicans think that the nation will fall for that one again?

Apparently so.

September 23, 2010 at 9:36 a.m.
OllieH said...

Moonpie- This cartoon has nothing to do with Chuck's physical height, but rather Fleischmann's political stature. It could have been drawn about any candidate who was long on endorsements but short on substance.

It's a metaphor, plain and simple. The Huckabee and Pence endorsements are represented by phone books, placed as a booster seat for a candidate that might not seem up to the task otherwise.

The fact that Chuck is rather diminutive in physique does give this cartoon an added punch for those who are even aware of that fact, but to see this as being a 'short joke' is unfair.

September 23, 2010 at 9:54 a.m.
LibDem said...

I'm afraid Mr. Lohr is correct. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was criticized for referring to foreign laws "...to learn...from the experience" of foreign sources. It is indeed fortunate that the Bible was written by a farmer in Kansas.

September 23, 2010 at 10:16 a.m.
Francis said...

yes..he shouldn't get "chummy" with those evil conservatives..

but it's fine for obama to get chummy with anti-americans.

you liberals are not seeing what's going on out there....obama is being rejected overwhelmingly....even by democrats. extreme liberal idealogy is not being accepted.

now you're moving on from christine o'donnel to mike pence.

anyone is looking better than obama....anyone...

while you're reading something, alprova...read bob woodwards book...

liberals like to hang around with liberals...they want their views re- inforced.

"i don't know how he won, i don't know anyone who voted for him." that's a famous quote from some prominent liberal in new york after the election of 1968..i think it was...when nixon defeated humphrey

it's the same way on this site. you're in for a rude awakening.

by the way, justice ruth ginsburg has said that that foreign law should be considered.

September 23, 2010 at 10:25 a.m.
whatever said...

OK for liberal judges to quote the laws of foreign nations, but not OK for conservatives in the jet and web age to love one another?

Not if they're the same gender, haven't you been keeping up to date?

Sheesh.

But actually, yes, judges should be aware of the law of foreign nations, both liberal and conservative, well, judges shouldn't be either per se, but accepting that they are, a knowledge of the world's existing and historical jurisprudence is certainly a commendable attribute. Why would you say otherwise? Are you deeply afraid of these other nations imposing their law upon the United States? Well, are those nations not afraid of America doing the same to them? Ignorance and obliviousness does not reduce fear, finding common ground does. Being able to see agreement in diversity serves much better than a hysterical ranting at something that is not actually very audacious at all. Xenophobia is a bad attitude.

It's also historically incorrect to claim it's something new. The founding fathers knew their history and their current events. Don't insult them by making our justice system myopic and provincial.

Especially since I suspect that many, if not most, of those protesting the citations of foreign law would have a collective fit of apoplexy when you reminded them that the Bible and the Ten Commandments are expressly foreign and should, by their professed standards, be removed.

Anyway as far as Chuck Fleischmann goes, haven't heard a peep out of his camp since the primary. What the heck is he up to?

September 23, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.
Francis said...

believe me...a repbulican being chummy with mike huckabee and mike pence sits much, much better with the american people than obama being chummy with jeremiah wright, frequent white house visitor al sharpton , george soros or oprah winfrey.

we've got a president who's a donkey. who needs a teleprompter to speak at a h.s. function, who doesn't understand the simple concept of not spending more than you take in, who thinks victory is not the end game in a war, who thinks mexico was founded as country before the united states, who thinks it's ok to toss people in prison for not buying health insurance.....and so on, and so on....

we have a vice president who doesnt' know he's first in line to be president, a speaker of the house who says we need to pass a bill in order to see what's in it....a new supreme court justice, kagan, who wouldn't even adknowledge key elements of the declaration of independence in her con- firmation hearings....etc etc..

illegal aliens being treated like sacred cows...terrorists getting the same rights as the americans they've killed had...voter intimidating thugs getting not even getting a slap on the wrist.....taxes being increased at a time when no one can afford them...

all of what i mentioned...the american people see..

believe me...mike pence looks like a dream right now to the american people.......the more you liberals demonize someone the more popular they become...

September 23, 2010 at 10:56 a.m.
whatever said...

Somebody dissed Oprah?

Better watch out.

September 23, 2010 at 11:04 a.m.
moonpie said...

Ollie, I usually agree with you, but if Chuck weren't diminutive, the books would not have been stacked like a child's booster seat.

I agree it's a well-executed metaphor. But I don't think anyone who has ever met Chuck would not get that this was a jab at his actual stature, as well. (It's actually what gives the cartoon its full punch, as you indicated.)

No one has to agree with me as to whether this is fair game.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not upset at Clay. It's just not a choice I would have made. I think exagerration of gender, race and other uncontrollable physical attributes in a negative way actually undermines an argument, despite making it clever.

Perhaps, one could make the argument that Chuck has acted like a child at times, so the cartoon is based on deeds within his control. But this cartoon doesn't highlight any of those actions.

Of course, I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this. However, using another person's physical characteristics for comedy is not something I teach my children. I realize this cartoon is not for children, but they do take cues from us.

Ollie, I'll let you and others have the last words on this issue.

Clay, I still love you, man.

September 23, 2010 at 11:13 a.m.
whatever said...

Eh, I just assumed it was about his political stature.

September 23, 2010 at 11:22 a.m.
acerigger said...

STILL waiting for your version of "victory" fran.(two days later)sTROLL on over and enlighten us.

September 23, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.
Francis said...

why is it important to answer you?....who are you, my father?...are you grading me? the point being that i don't understand why anyone would volunteer to join and why a general would feel comfortable with a commander in chief who does not like the idea of america being victorious. that's my point. he doesn't believe in american exceptionalism, so that would carry over into military matters as well. he's not capable of having an objective, meeting it and declaring victory, because he doesn't want america to win in battle...because he thinks we'll be percieved as bullies.

September 23, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.
moonpie said...

acerigger,

While Francis can't define victory he, apparently, can read the President's mind.

Perhaps it's just a gift and we should not question it.

September 23, 2010 at 12:11 p.m.
whoknows said...

Al: While I don't necessarily disagree with your posts at 8:30 and 9:36, I do disagree with your generalization of Conservatives. What Musicman said was fair to what you said. If you classify all conservatives that way, liberals can be put in the same boat as well. It's like saying that all Tennesseeans are backwoods hicks, or all Muslims are full of hate and violence. There are plenty of detestable conservatives out there that fit the mold you offered, but there are just as many liberals who do as well. And while true, the Repub party is very popular with the word "NO" right now, that's practically always true for whichever party does not hold the power. The Dems become the party of "NO" when it is their turn in the back seat. It's all politics and games... that is what I detest and disagree with.

September 23, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
acerigger said...

Yeah,I knew when I asked, that if he answered it would be a non-answer.Sometimes though,I can't help breaking my own rule about not feeding the trolls.lol

September 23, 2010 at 12:37 p.m.
hambone said...

Ace, Give it up and buy Reynolds Wrap stock!!

September 23, 2010 at 12:48 p.m.
whatever said...

Al: While I don't necessarily disagree with your posts at 8:30 and 9:36, I do disagree with your generalization of Conservatives.

Generalization and such is indeed unhealthy, unfortunately that's never stopped anybody.

And sometimes it's true. Like noting here, there's quite a few self-professed "conservatives" whose ideologies are nothing more than attacking others.

There are plenty of detestable conservatives out there that fit the mold you offered, but there are just as many liberals who do as well.

While there are some, I don't think there are as many in my experience. But it doesn't matter how many there are I suppose, it does matter what you do about them. It really does.

And while true, the Repub party is very popular with the word "NO" right now, that's practically always true for whichever party does not hold the power. The Dems become the party of "NO" when it is their turn in the back seat. It's all politics and games... that is what I detest and disagree with.

It was some midwestern Republican I think, who said the party needs to move past the simple "NO" to the "No, but here's what"

Too bad so few listened.

September 23, 2010 at 1:31 p.m.
alprova said...

whatever wrote: "If you classify all conservatives that way, liberals can be put in the same boat as well. It's like saying that all Tennesseeans are backwoods hicks, or all Muslims are full of hate and violence. There are plenty of detestable conservatives out there that fit the mold you offered, but there are just as many liberals who do as well."


But I didn't classify ALL Conservatives that way.

I used the words, "some" and the phrase, "those Conservatives who would use the power of Government to..."

September 23, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.
alprova said...

'scuse me...I glanced and thought that whatever wrote the above. Whoknows did. Sorry.

September 23, 2010 at 2:05 p.m.
whatever said...

Excuse me? I didn't write that, in fact I can't find anything you quoted to be any of my words. You want to address your remarks to "whoknows" instead.

September 23, 2010 at 2:05 p.m.
whatever said...

Oh yay, you corrected it before my post came through, thank you for doing so. I accept your mea culpa.

September 23, 2010 at 2:06 p.m.
alprova said...

LibDem wrote: "It is indeed fortunate that the Bible was written by a farmer in Kansas."


Ouch!! but what a wonderful and spot-on point that was.

September 23, 2010 at 2:07 p.m.
whatever said...

Pa Kent?

September 23, 2010 at 2:10 p.m.
whoknows said...

Whatever: "the party needs to move past the simple 'NO' to the 'No, but here's what'"

That's the truth. I'd like to see both parties try it when their in that situation.

Al, your original statment (with my parenthetical additions): "What's not okay is the degree to which Conservatives (no qualifier, generalizing all Conservatives into one lump sum) love each other, and in how much they (referring to the above generalization of Conservatives) detest and disregard those (qualifying everyone else) who are not as Conservative as they may be."

The simple word "some" after "which" before "conservatives" would have made the sentence much less general.

I'm sure you didn't intend to lump ALL Conservatives into that group. You're not that foolish, I'm sure. As the end of your sentence could have reinforced qualifiers had they been in the beginning of your sentence. Therefore Musicman's response, therefore my response. Just semantics. As I said, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just clarifying that generalization.

September 23, 2010 at 2:17 p.m.
woody said...

Congratulations, Francis...I had decided earlier not to comment today since I did such a poor job of making myself understood yesterday. And yet, your post back around 10:36 this morning changed my mind.

A few days ago I said I thought you needed a hug. Silly me, you're just a 'mean,spiteful person.' I now don't believe any amount of hugs could help your demeanor.

I won't use much of your earlier diatribe..I don't believe anyone here needs that much more punishment today. However, I did glean the final few words so as to make my point.

You said, and I quote,"...the more you liberals demonize someone the more popular they become...." Now, correct me if I am wrong, but if the exact opposite also holds true, then I can only take it for granted you are attempting to cannonize our president and your favorite arch-nemesis.

Thanks again, Woody

September 23, 2010 at 2:48 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Al, my previous post wasn't meant to imply I really feel that way, and I appologize if that's the way I came across. Thanks for making that clear, whoknows. I was showing the generalization whoknows pointed out without actually saying that. It would be pretty ridiculous for me to say that and believe it of all liberals.

September 23, 2010 at 3:03 p.m.
moonpie said...

A lot of hard line conservatives tout American Exceptionalism, as Francis did.

This has come to mean something different in recent years. I think that Obama believes in the older version of American Exceptionalism. He espouses it in his speeches, at any rate.

The newer form of American Exceptionalism he does not espouse.

The newer form says the United States is exempt from the same standards we hold other countries, too. It wraps hypocrisy in an American flag.

Francis, which version of American Exceptionalism do you stand for?

September 23, 2010 at 3:04 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "yes..he shouldn't get "chummy" with those evil conservatives.."


I didn't call anyone "evil." It's rather telling, in my opinion, that you decided to use that specific word yourself.


"now you're moving on from christine o'donnel to mike pence."


Yeah, I know. Unlike yourself, I don't find it necessary to attempt to beat a dead horse into the ground. Eventually, I bury the poor thing.

Oh...and by the way, is there one word that I wrote up there about the man that is not 100% true and correct?

You see, the difference between you and I is that I don't need to spend my time assassinating characters by digging up and quoting the opinions of others, who have nothing better to do than to spread rumors, myths, misinformation, and outright lies.

The facts in regard to Mike Pence are what they are, and those facts speak volumes for the man.

As for Christine O'Donnell, no one need do a thing but watch her self-destruct in the coming weeks. She can't help but open her mouth and insert both of her feet, and has done so many times.


"while you're reading something, alprova...read bob woodwards book..."


No thanks. I get enough of that kind of unsubstantiated fluff reading your posts. Bob Woodward made me gag back when I was on the Republican bandwagon.

He'd sell out his own family for a new sensational story that would sell in book form.

In my opinion, he spent all of his credibility and his credentials as an investigative reported when he opined on Larry King's show that there was a "zero chance that weapons of mass destruction would not be found in Iraq."

September 23, 2010 at 3:11 p.m.
alprova said...

whoknows wrote: "Al, your original statment (with my parenthetical additions): "What's not okay is the degree to which Conservatives (no qualifier, generalizing all Conservatives into one lump sum) love each other, and in how much they (referring to the above generalization of Conservatives) detest and disregard those (qualifying everyone else) who are not as Conservative as they may be."

The simple word "some" after "which" before "conservatives" would have made the sentence much less general."


Fair enough. I did fail to include proper wording in my initial sentence, and I so stand corrected. I accept my punishment with humility.

September 23, 2010 at 3:15 p.m.
alprova said...

Musicman375 wrote: "Al, my previous post wasn't meant to imply I really feel that way, and I appologize if that's the way I came across. Thanks for making that clear, whoknows. I was showing the generalization whoknows pointed out without actually saying that. It would be pretty ridiculous for me to say that and believe it of all liberals."


Ouch!! My hands have been slapped twice, and for the right reasons. I do try to disclaim and to try to refrain from blank check generalizations, but I goofed on that first sentence, for sure.

Thanks for the corrections guys.

September 23, 2010 at 3:18 p.m.
Francis said...

well, well, alprova...aren't we just above it all now.

and woody, you're much too thin-skinned and sensative.

you can call me a bigot, or mean, or spiteful or whatever..i couldn't care less...whatever makes you feel better.

but it doesn't matter how many times i emphasize that my criticism is of extremist mulims and not the majority of muslims or islam itself, libs like you will still call me a bigot

and no matter how many times i blast obama on his policies, his behavior, his ideology, his ig- norance, his imcompetance..and yes, his being awarded the title of genius..you'll call me a racist because he's black. calling him a donkey is so mild compared to what bush was called. do you recall the book and movie about how to assass- inate bush? please. caling him a donkey, which i think he is...is minor league compared to what you libs say.

can you imagine if obma's daughters were attacked like sarah palin's daughters were attacked by hollywood, the media and liberals? you liberals have a double standard.

and moonpie...define the old version of american exceptionalism for me?

you say he believes in it. tell me how he espouses it in his speeches? what is it?

that newer version you describe is absurd and a cartoon, i have no idea what that means or that it has anything to do with excecptionalism.

obama has gone overseas and to the u.n. and repeatedly put down our history, who we are and how many mistakes we've made. he's apologized to the world for us. he attended a church in which racism, bigotry, anti- semitism and anti-americanism was preached. he believes we're just one of many nations. he, like madaline albright, doesnt' feel comfortable with us being a superpower. he doesn't want us to lead or kick ass in the business world. he cannot use victory and united states in the same sentence.

if that's his version of american exceptionalism, mine is the opposite.

September 23, 2010 at 8:43 p.m.
rolando said...

The gold-star stickers are out in full force on this thread. They MUST have their little mutual admiration society...in competition with the local kindergarteners.

September 23, 2010 at 8:55 p.m.
whatever said...

Upset that you didn't buy gold while it was cheap?

September 23, 2010 at 8:59 p.m.
Oz said...

We don't need another lawyer from either party in Washington. They should be banned from the White House, Senate, and Congress.

September 23, 2010 at 9:57 p.m.
whatever said...

Sounds like a Constitutional Amendment waiting to happen.

September 23, 2010 at 10:05 p.m.
moonpie said...

Francis, American Exceptionalism traditionally has meant that the US has a special place in the world by virtue of it's ideals and diversity and liberty. It meant we were an example to the nations of how people should live.

In recent years, people like Liz Chaney have been promoting American Exceptionalism as a concept in which the US is always the good guy, no matter how badly we act. It's ok for us to torture if we do it, because our goals are good.

It has basically transformed into what the Soviets believed about the USSR and what the Nazis believed about Germany, whatever we do is ok because our cause is just.

If the new view were genuine, then anyone who believes that America is always right should never question our government or it's actions. Which, of course, would define them as a fool.

A great country can afford to be humble. Only the insecure must continuosly assert dominence.

You advocate for asserting dominance.

You and others who espouse this line of diplomacy only make the US look like a people quivering in fear.

September 23, 2010 at 11:03 p.m.
alprova said...

moonpie wrote: "A great country can afford to be humble. Only the insecure must continuously assert dominance.

You advocate for asserting dominance.

You and others who espouse this line of diplomacy only make the US look like a people quivering in fear."


Well...at least some of our leaders anyway.

It's very much like how a school yard bully operates. The minute that someone puts up a fight, and punches the bully back, the bully rethinks his strategy henceforth.

Unfortunately, some of the policies of this nation that have ired others in the world continue unabated, even though someone punched back.

September 24, 2010 at 7:48 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "well, well, alprova...aren't we just above it all now."


I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. I posted some simple facts. Sue me.


"and no matter how many times i blast obama on his policies, his behavior, his ideology, his ignorance, his imcompetance..and yes, his being awarded the title of genius..you'll call me a racist because he's black."


Disagreeing with the man for his politics is one thing. Posting rumor, innuendo, and idiotic rants that have long been debunked is more than a little ignorant on your part.

You're a suspected bigot because you don't let up.


"calling him a donkey is so mild compared to what bush was called. do you recall the book and movie about how to assassinate bush? please. caling him a donkey, which i think he is...is minor league compared to what you libs say."


Look, I've been around in this forum for awhile now, and no one that I am aware of has lowered themselves by calling GWB names, or has EVER called for his assassination. What people do outside of this forum is not our burden to bear, so it would be nice if you would knock off your retaliatory rhetoric.


"can you imagine if obma's daughters were attacked like sarah palin's daughters were attacked by hollywood, the media and liberals? you liberals have a double standard."


Wait just a doggone minute. The President has done an admirable job of keeping his children out of the limelight. Sarah Palin has thrust not only herself, but her entire family in front of the nation repeatedly, anytime a camera is raised into a horizontal position.

Her quest, whatever that may be depending on what day of the week it is, to seek fame and fortune or to play around in a political arena where she is clearly outside her realm, is her own fault.


"obama has gone overseas and to the u.n. and repeatedly put down our history, who we are and how many mistakes we've made. he's apologized to the world for us."


Really? Can you provide some proof to those charges?

There's little doubt that there is a great deal of truth to the fact that some of our country's leaders are responsible for many despicable acts throughout history, but has the President actually "apologized to the world" for anything?

No he has not.


"he attended a church in which racism, bigotry, anti-semitism and anti-americanism was preached."


I'll just bet that you have never taken the time to actually sit still in your chair and watch so much as one of those sermons that Jeremiah Wright offered, in it's entirety.

If there is one thing that you should have learned by now, it is that taking a five second clip out of context and playing it on national television, can totally skew and twist the intent of the words spoken by practically anyone.

September 24, 2010 at 9:01 a.m.
moonpie said...

rolando, my computer doesn't let me vote for some reason. So I'd like to honor you with a "star" right now.

I'd also recommend the book, "You Are Special" to all Wemmicks.

September 24, 2010 at 9:12 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "he believes we're just one of many nations."


We aren't? Wow.


"he, like madaline albright, doesnt' feel comfortable with us being a superpower. he doesn't want us to lead or kick ass in the business world."


You mean by exploiting cheap labor around the globe for the profit boosting of American nameplates?

The United States leads in that category alright.


"he cannot use victory and united states in the same sentence."


[rolling my eyes upward]

How do you define "victory?" Victory is a concept rarely achieved through the efforts of war. Everyone loses when war is waged. Everyone that is, but those who profit from war. They will face God for that too.

Have we been victorious in Iraq? Ask the estimated hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been thrown into mass graves after being killed through the efforts of transforming that nation. Better yet, why not ask their surviving family members.

What is victory? It's an illusion. It's a made up word by those who would never for one second stand a post and hoist a gun in battle.

Since World War II, this country, as in our leaders in Washington and in our military, have been responsible for the deaths of more innocent people than any modern day tyrant. Be proud all you want. I'm disgusted.

Our meddling in the affairs of other nations resulted in 9/11. Choices by our leaders have alienated this nation to a great many people who should have been left alone to settle their own differences.

The taxpayers of this nation have paid billions to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East and not one problem has been solved to date, other than to reduce threats to Israel. The differences exist that have existed there for eons, and they will continue to exist after we pull out of the region in the future.

Victory? Yeah right. It means as much as it did when GWB stood on the battleship underneath a banner that read, "Mission Accomplished."

September 24, 2010 at 9:21 a.m.
LibDem said...

(This is hearsay. I was not present.)

Referring to Stephen Decatur's toast, G. K. Chesterton wrote: "'My country, right or wrong.' is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'"

(Credit Richard Shenkman)

The problem with global, instantaneous communication is that our family policy disputes are overheard by the world. An inconsequential minister in Florida gets the attention of a President and a General because they have to deal with the fallout.

September 24, 2010 at 10:39 a.m.
woody said...

Francis..my skin depth is about normal for my height and weight.. And as far as being sensitive..my mother always thought that was a good trait..and my wife seems to have fallen in love with 'it'.

However, I have never in my life called anyone a bigot. And yet, if you keep up your current diatribe against our president (warranted for or not), I have no doubt someone eventually will.

Why not look at the "bright side?" Woody

September 24, 2010 at 1:22 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Wow, is this a liberal snake pit or what?

Francis, I can't see why you bother with this crowd. There is no saving them!

September 24, 2010 at 2:11 p.m.
whatever said...

Wow, is this a liberal snake pit or what?

Don't like it that other people disagree with you? Sorry, but guess it happens sometimes.

Francis, I can't see why you bother with this crowd. There is no saving them!

Not with his tactics anyway. He makes far more people roll their eyes than he ever persuades.

He's the kind I never want on my side.

True story.

You'd be better off distancing yourself.

September 24, 2010 at 2:14 p.m.
acerigger said...

"

Wow, is this a liberal snake pit or what?

Francis, I can't see why you bother with this crowd. There is no saving them!" Username: BigRidgePatriot>>>>>>>>>>>>>Good advice fran,buh-by? hint,you'd be much more appreciated at red-state or worldnet or some other wing-nut site,but,you would have to compete for who's the best Obama-basher.

September 24, 2010 at 4:16 p.m.
Clara said...

Excuse me, but wasn't this blog supposed to be about Chuck Fleishman and his endorsements?

I confess that I know nothing about this group and hoped I'd be enlightened. I didn't need enlightenment about Francis, who seems to have waylayed the entire group away from this issue,and we only payed attention to him.

September 24, 2010 at 4:29 p.m.
whatever said...

Excuse me, but wasn't this blog supposed to be about Chuck Fleishman and his endorsements?

Discussion moved on, there's nothing to say about it. Then again as far as I'm concerned neither candidate in this election has done anything to tell me why to vote for them.

September 24, 2010 at 4:35 p.m.
moonpie said...

Francis, I understand how you or anyone would be troubled by President Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright.

I am certainly no expert in Jeremiah Wright, or the timeline of many of his comments, or the full context of all of them.

I have seen some comments he made.

He made the same arguments that Ron Paul did about the U.S. bringing wrath upon itself by it's treatment of other nations. The difference between them is that Wright believes these policies were directed agains Blacks. (He seems to lump anyone in Northern Africa into the Black fold - including Jesus.)

I don't hear a lot of people saying Ron Paul is anti-American for getting to the same diplomatic princicple. (It just goes to show you that infusing race into an argument and implode your argument with a lot of people, as it does in Wright's case.)

I saw his tirade against rich whites controlling America and about how Hilary could never really understand or represent Blacks. His rhetoric may have been high impact and over the top and I wish he and all people could temper their remarks. In this sermon, he was vigorously defending someone he regarded dearly. He was as tough as a Hockey mom in that speech. And again, it was race-based.

I have not seen Obama use a radical race-based approach to his presidency - though one could make the argument for Elena Kagan was in large part race-based.

And while I am sure there are many other troubling things Wright believes and has said, this does not mean that Barack Obama espouses these beliefs. Obama even denounced some of Wrights statements, saying he had crossed the line.

Members of my family, my clergy and members of my church frequently say things that I do not agree with and if I were in politics, some of these things would potentially be troublesome to my campgain. Despite them saying things that are inflammatory, I still see the good in them.

If Obama believed exactly what Wright believed, I don't think he would have promoted the war in Afghanistan as the justified war.

Nevertheless, I certainly respect and understand your and anyone else's concern regarding Obama's association Rev. Wright.

In my mind, it's a relationship that should be watched closely and only condemn Obama if he acts like the Rev. Wright. I have not seen evidence of this.

September 24, 2010 at 5:08 p.m.
moonpie said...

Clara, I don't think there was enough in this cartoon to spur two days of comments over it.

Debating Francis is fun. It's kind of like trying to reason with a spider monkey... you never know what will be flung your way... but it's entertaining to watch him jump around.

I'm sure he feels the same way about some of us.

September 24, 2010 at 5:11 p.m.
whatever said...

I'm sure he feels the same way about some of us.

He did say so.

Me, I just don't find it worth straining to read his words.

September 24, 2010 at 5:12 p.m.
rolando said...

moonpie --

Thank you for citing Mr Lucado's book; I found a great synopsis at http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1400304148.

He has written the same basic things I tried to instill in all my children. These are good things -- but go against everything wrong our government is teaching them these days... Our gov't does not want individual citizens; it wants easily manipulated, ignorant cookie-cutter stamp-outs.

I am not into headshrinkers, by any means -- especially illegal drug-using ones -- but Dr. Timothy Leary [yeah, that one] said a number of interesting things before he burned out his last brain cell on LSD. One of them was, "Think for yourself and question authority." [Often erroneously attributed to Abbie Hoffman.]

As it turns out, he was right...

See a number of other self-evident truths at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary or try http://www.matrixmasters.net/blogs/?p=337

Oh yeah...please don't worry yourself about the lack of "stars", gold or otherwise. I really have no use for them. I can pick it out of the posts of those with whom I "resonate".

September 24, 2010 at 8:44 p.m.
rolando said...

The concern about the Rev Jeremiah Wright/Maobama connection is of little consequence; here is an interesting report going the rounds -- it was confirmed this evening at http://www.stjohns-dc.org/article.php?id=41, [unless they have removed it].

quote

Guess who preached Sunday where Obama finally went to church?

It was widely reported that the president and his family trekked across Lafayette Park on foot to attend St. John's Episcopal Church. We all thought it was because the polls show that a significant number of the American people see this president as a Muslim and he was trying to improve his image. That's what the media and the White House wanted you to think.

Now we find out that the speaker was: Dr. Ziad Asali, M.D., a Muslim, founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine, was the guest speaker. He was there to speak on the subject of "Prospects of the two-state solution in the Middle-East."

Dr. Ziad J. Asali is described as "a long-time activist on Middle East issues" who has testified to both chambers of Congress about Palestinian interests, increased U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, and "Israel's disproportionate use of force" in Gaza.

unquote

September 24, 2010 at 8:51 p.m.
whatever said...

I wonder what that subject has to do with this particular thread.

September 24, 2010 at 8:57 p.m.
Oz said...

Maybe Chuck won't have Stephen Colbert testify before Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100924/ap_on_en_tv/us_congress_colbert

September 24, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Guess who preached Sunday where Obama finally went to church?..."

"...Now we find out that the speaker was: Dr. Ziad Asali, M.D., a Muslim..."

You previously stated: "I can pick it out of the posts of those with whom I "resonate"."


Rolando, you do indeed pick out that with which you resonate, and it often proves you to be rather ignorant.

And apparently, you do not have the fortitude to do even the slightest amount of fact-checking before you quote and paste lies such as the above -- a lie that has went viral since this past Sunday.

Dr. Ziad Asali, M.D. is not a Muslim. The man is Jewish, and was born in Israel. He has dual citizenship in Israel and the United States.

He has been on task forces for years and has been part of several delegations that have attempted to work for peaceful solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and yes, on behalf of both Israel and the Palestinians.

It seems that there is no boundary that people will not cross in their attempt to demonize our President.

It's such a shame that you and a couple of others refuse to refrain from posting pure fiction that people cut and paste onto blogs.

You ought to be ashamed, but I doubt at this point that you know how to be ashamed.

September 25, 2010 at 1:18 a.m.
whatever said...

He certainly does seem to be a man of peace, and I can't find a reason to object to hearing him speak.

It does seem a bit troubling that an issue would be made of it.

September 25, 2010 at 9:47 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.