published Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

Doh!

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 ...

70
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.
AndrewLohr said...

Yeah, be careful--but more people died in Ted Kennedy's car than at Three Mile Island. Chernobyl, now, where big government built the reactor...

December 22, 2011 at 12:08 a.m.
coolinohio said...

Yes, but be careful where you draw those comparisons -

"Laura Bush's car has killed more people than my guns..."

~ A well-armed LIBERAL

December 22, 2011 at 12:59 a.m.
lumpy said...

Only a moron would compare Laura Bush's accident to Ted Kennedy's. Kennedy, was a fat, drunk, womanizing creep who didn't do squat to save Mary Jo Kopechne. All he was concerned about was his own pasty white rump. Laura Bush was a 17 year old.

Put a beard, glasses and curly hair on Homer Simpson and you have Clay Bennett.

December 22, 2011 at 1:44 a.m.
acerigger said...

At least Ted had the excuse of being drunk.

December 22, 2011 at 1:56 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "Kennedy, was a fat, drunk, womanizing creep who didn't do squat to save Mary Jo Kopechne. All he was concerned about was his own pasty white rump."

How the heck do you know what Ted Kennedy did or didn't do that night? Were you there? He claimed to have dived in several times trying to reach her. It was pitch black. The car was upside down, something he was totally unaware of at the time, because he couldn't see it.

"Put a beard, glasses and curly hair on Homer Simpson and you have Clay Bennett."

Since this particular cartoon is neither demeaning or insulting toward anyone in particular, least of all yourself, I fail to understand why you have decided to insult Mr. Bennett.

You are a sphincter muscle surrounding a large void.

December 22, 2011 at 2:07 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

George Bush killed more than 4000 of our own people. Not to mention destroyed the economy. Tritium is dangerous, but probably not as devastating to our immediate well being as repugnants.

December 22, 2011 at 2:12 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "--but more people died in Ted Kennedy's car than at Three Mile Island."

That is very debatable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/people-died-at-three-mile_b_179588.html

December 22, 2011 at 2:18 a.m.
fairmon said...

There are risk in nearly anything. Regulating and effective auditing by highly trained experts can minimize the risk. The risk of not pursuing nuclear and other alternatives to imported middle east oil to fill the countries growing energy demands may be a much higher risk.

December 22, 2011 at 3:36 a.m.
fairmon said...

The Kennedy incident has nothing to do with the nuclear power issue but it is interesting how authorities estimated the speed at which Kennedy was driving when the accident occurred.

December 22, 2011 at 6:28 a.m.
fairmon said...

Does anyone know with certainty and specifically Obama's and each of the other parties candidates position on this issue? Is it possible neither party really wants lower per barrel and per gallon prices due to the decreased per barrel royalty and per gallon taxes that go to the general fund? Another issue where people blame everyone except the administration and the culprits in congress.

December 22, 2011 at 6:44 a.m.
fairmon said...

Can we get a bipartisan agreement on the nuclear issue? I assume bipartisan, using those in D.C as an example, means you should agree with me or there can be no agreement. I am sick of hearing the word bipartisan used by politicians plus their frequent statements like "we are working for the American people" or "we owe it to the American people to get this done" or "that is what people want".

December 22, 2011 at 6:56 a.m.
sunnydelight said...

RE: Michigan's Fermi reactor in 1966' In 1986, Chernobyl Unit Four did explode. Wasserman is an idiot. There are so many discrepencies in his article it's amusing. I have a stick on dynamite and an 8 inch piece of red broom handle. These two compare as would the two Nuke plants aforementioned .

December 22, 2011 at 8:14 a.m.
mrredskin said...

did you get rights to use Homer in your cartoon, there, Clay?

December 22, 2011 at 8:38 a.m.
dude_abides said...

I have to agree with harp3339... the Kennedy incident has no more to do with tritium flowing down the river to our drinking water intakes than Herman Cain's sexual harassment of women, Newt Gingrich's cheating on his sick wife, Rick Perry's racism, or Mitt Romney's bizarre Mormon Man Panties. Now the number two man at TVA is leaving. Makes me kind of Homerphobic, I must admit. Two questions: 1)Is tritium safe to ingest? 2)Is the "safe level" a ballpark figure that doesn't really need to be taken seriously?

December 22, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.
timbo said...

As usual..it took about 8 posts before anyone even mentioned the subject.

Nuclear power has an excellent safety record. Even the reactors in Japan that went completely nuts after the Tsunami killed relatively few people. If you libs want to eliminate risk, why don't you start at the top with automobiles. They kill more people in one year than all the nuclear plants have in history. (Now you can use Teddy Kennedy's wreck as an example.) You can start walking at any time as your contribution to highway safety. You can also turn off your computer to save energy thus eliminating the need for nuclear power. That would benefit us all.

This unwarranted fear is a reflection of ignorance, immaturity and a lack of the ability of abstract thought. Liberalism is based on emotion. They are like junkies who just want to "feel" as a fix for some deep psychological need. "Feeling" is like a drug and when they "feel" they get high and want everyone around them to "feel" just like they do. Thank God there are still some pragmatic people around.

You libs love government and TVA is one of the only government entities that pays it's way and has historically served a common purpose. Without the TVA dams and the electricity production, the Tennessee Valley would still be in the stone age.

As far as having the rights to using Homer, I am going to make sure that the owners of Homer Simpson know that this arrogant, condescending, second rate cartoonist is using Homer unauthorized.

Believe me, I would rather have Homer Simpson in charge than the majority of these liberal posters that chime in every time Bennett passes wind.

December 22, 2011 at 9:47 a.m.
dude_abides said...

timbo... You have the distinct advantage of being born high, and that makes us libs jealous.

December 22, 2011 at 10:08 a.m.
carlB said...

Clay, There are a lot of "layers" from the actual people who work to keep producing the power and the people who "oversee" the status of the entire nuclear power industry.

December 22, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.
hambone said...

I am all for nuclear power generation.

But to say that nuclear will replace oil imports is just showing your lack of knowledge of the subject.

Only 1% of power generation is from petroleum.

Expansion of liquidfied natural gas is the best way to replace oil imports.

December 22, 2011 at 10:43 a.m.
jesse said...

T.V.A. works!they get the job done CHEAP!

back in the late 70's i deliverd some equip. to a power plant in a small town in kansas(winter time,they were all runnin wide open!) and they had about 100 diesel engines running to gen.power! i thought at the time "man,what kinda elect.bills do these folks have!!"(BUT there main man(tva) ain't worth 4 mill.a year!!)

December 22, 2011 at 11:12 a.m.
MTJohn said...

timbo said...Nuclear power has an excellent safety record. Even the reactors in Japan that went completely nuts after the Tsunami killed relatively few people.

Timbo - how many deaths, attributable to nuclear accidents would be an acceptable level? Which social strata would you be willing to put at risk? What long-term negative environmental and public health consequences do you consider to be acceptable?

December 22, 2011 at 11:13 a.m.
potcat said...

Nuclear deaths are usually drawn out affairs, unless you are in a nuclear blast.

Reminds me of Christophfer Hitchens piece in Jan. Vanity Fair in which he ponders why he ever thought the saying " What-ever doesn't kill me makes me stronger" was profound, no longer applies, and why he ever thought it did.

December 22, 2011 at 12:20 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Nuclear power as we know it was first used in warfare for killing and that is the stigma attahed. When electricity first came into being some were going around the country killing animals deomonstrating it's potential dangers....things really haven't changed much.

December 22, 2011 at 12:34 p.m.
potcat said...

~~Mormon Man Panties~~...`~ good one dude.~``

December 22, 2011 at 12:39 p.m.
jesse said...

HOW WOULD ALL YOU LIB>GREENIES LIKE LIVIN IN THE 1860'S!!

go up and spend some time with the 99%ers at the court house and see how you like livin on the edge!!about 3 days gonna tell you "this ain't for me!"!you are a bunch of fools who have NO grip on reality!if you EVER have to FACE UP and deal w/the real world,you ain't gonna make it!!

December 22, 2011 at 1:40 p.m.
dude_abides said...

jesse... just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they couldn't buy and sell your ass at will. Conservatives vote for policies that help their own condition, but liberals don't have a problem with sharing the wealth. Hey, legalizing slavery would be great for the "small business man", if that's all that matters to you.

December 22, 2011 at 1:50 p.m.
mrredskin said...

MTJohn, how many deaths have there been in the US as a result of a nuclear accident?

December 22, 2011 at 2:09 p.m.
dude_abides said...

mrred... If I may answer for MTJ, that number would be the same amount as there have been deaths from nuclear bombs. If that is the standard, maybe we should take our national security less seriously.

December 22, 2011 at 3:17 p.m.
timbo said...

MTJohn.....You could ask that question about any technical advance in history. How many deaths for the wheel, horseback riding, trains, medical mistakes, medical breakthrought like heart sugery, the aviation industry, the space program, exploration of the ocean, etc., etc., etc, Life and death are risk versus benifit.

Your view is childish in that you are picking out one industry that you have an unreasonable fear about. You ignore all of the above everyday things that have a much higher death toll. You ignore them because of familiarity.

What would this world be like without the things I just mentioned? What would it be like if the cowards had dictated that we not take risks? We would be living in caves, crouching in the corner.

Nuclear energy is no more dangerous than people falling in bathtubs and killing themselves. Both are pretty rare.

December 22, 2011 at 3:22 p.m.
MTJohn said...

timbo said...MTJohn.....You could ask that question about any technical advance in history.

Correct. And, we should ask those kinds of questions before committing ourselves to significant technical advances. Unfortunately, we don't. Instead, the important questions are how much money is there to be made and who gets to line their pockets?

timbo said...Your view is childish in that you are picking out one industry that you have an unreasonable fear about. You ignore all of the above everyday things that have a much higher death toll. You ignore them because of familiarity.

Unlike those who chose to comment about Ted Kennedy, I chose to respond to the subject of today's cartoon. Further, I'd suggest that the childish view is one that seems to know what someone else thinks concerning matters the two have never discussed.

December 22, 2011 at 3:32 p.m.
limric said...

OK, since you asked mrredskin,

In 1944: Peter Bragg and Douglas Paul Meigs, two Manhattan Project chemists. 1946: Louis Slotin at the Los Alamos Lab. 1961: at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho, three technicians, were killed. 1964: A man died at the United Nuclear Corp. fuel facility in Rhode Island, when liquid uranium he was pouring went critical. Ooh – I bet that stings!! 1972: Two workers were killed at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia. 1979: Three Mile Island. Despite claims by the nuclear industry that "no one died at Three Mile Island," a study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths. 1986: A second incident at the Surry 2 unit resulted in four fatal injuries.

I could go into military accidents, but there isn’t enough space here. I’m sure you get the idea though.

In the grand scheme of power generation, I have to agree with Timbos quote (but nothing else), “Nuclear power has an excellent safety record.” It does, and it’s clean. Next time you’re pondering what to do with the waste of a nuclear plants ‘possibly lethal’ but still non-polluting by-products, look at what is being ejected from the stacks of the local coal, oil, or even gas plant. Hmm yea, I thought so.

Nukes – It’s what…cooks the dinner.

December 22, 2011 at 3:40 p.m.
potcat said...

timbo, your logic is insane.

timbo said, Nuclear energy is no more dangerous than people falling in bathtubs and killing themselves. Both are pretty rare.

One little problem with that logic. When a person falls in a bathtub and dies, it only effects that one person. If we had a Nuclear incidence that killed people, we would see babies being born deformed or retarded and people dying of cancer and the effects could last thousands of years on the enviroment and peoples lives would be effected for generations, if not completly extinguished. The difference between a bathtub and a Nuclear incidence are incomparable.

December 22, 2011 at 4:09 p.m.
timbo said...

potcat....if, if, if, .....If a meteor hits it all won't matter. That's what I am talking about with you and MTJohn. Why don't you two hide in the corner somewhere? How do we know that green initiatives are good for us? Should we wait 50 years to decide. I will just bet you two wouldn't want to wait for that to be thoroughly investigated if it eliminated nuclear power.

How many people like Al Gore have lined their pockets from the green delusion. I can't for the life of me see what is wrong with inventing something and making money for it. Are you a Franciscan monk? Do you not have a job and make nasty old money to pay the rent and food or just live under a bridge and eat mushrooms? You can immigrate to Cuba anytime for a taste of the Communist utopia. That want happen because you would rather stay here and reap the benefits of the people you criticize and then bitch.

December 22, 2011 at 4:50 p.m.
inthemiddle said...

Limric, The two incidents at Surry were due to steam line explosions and not a result of a radiological event. Not trying to play gotcha just saying.

Deaths by wind Energy

Europe
D 5 DK 5 NL 2 Sweden 1 Sub Total 13

North America
USA 18 Canada 1 Sub Total 19 Total 32

December 22, 2011 at 6:14 p.m.
dude_abides said...

timbo... You are breaking your promise to us/yourself about longwindedness... get lost.

inthe"middle"... that's about as much as a turbine can do. Try comparing worst case scenarios.

December 22, 2011 at 6:25 p.m.

acerigger said...

At least Ted had the excuse of being drunk.

Wow only a complete idiot would post something like that. That even may not be fair to the idiots of the world. I take it your just a worthless drunk that does not value human life. Do us a favor and crawl back into your lonely hole.

December 22, 2011 at 6:26 p.m.
limric said...

And what heated the steam? Yep that'sa right - 'fission' Thus, the deaths were directly related to (caused by) nuclear power. Not saying that nuclear power is bad…just saying.

December 22, 2011 at 6:40 p.m.
MTJohn said...

timbo said........If a meteor hits it all won't matter. That's what I am talking about with you and MTJohn.

And, your point is???? Nuclear accidents, if even indirectly, are the consequence of intentional human actions. The same cannot be said about collisions with meteors.

Yes, we need energy. Yes, a portfolio of options is preferrable. And, yes, all options pose serious risks to humanity and to the planet. And, yes, we ignore inconvenient truths to our peril.

December 22, 2011 at 6:42 p.m.
inthemiddle said...

DUUUDE

Thats why I posted it....you can't compare a nuclear accident to an industrial accident. Those two were industrial accidents as were the wind turbine accidents I listed. I agree worst case scenario is the comparison to be made. To answer your previous question about safety.

The American limit is calculated to yield a dose of 4.0 millirems (or 40 microsieverts in SI units) per year. This is about 1.3% of the natural background radiation (roughly 3000 microsieverts).

Tritiated water has a short biological half-life in the human body of 7 to 14 days, which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of tritiated water from the environment.

For Limric, your self lighting gunsight uses tritium in small amounts, replacing radium which didn't turn out to be so safe.

December 22, 2011 at 6:52 p.m.
inthemiddle said...

And we could take that to the extreme if we agree that the universe was created from the big bang and that everything in universe was created from a nuclear explosion...or just like getting hit by a wooden bat that came from a tree that grew using photosynthesis which develops from the sun which is powered by nuclear fusion which is by definition nuclear power.

December 22, 2011 at 7:02 p.m.
dude_abides said...

itm... "The (Canadian)CNSC sets the limit for the radiation dose for the public arising from the activities of nuclear facilities at 1 mSv per year." So, our limit is 4 times higher than Canada's for starters, right? Even if tritium's short half-life precludes bioaccumulation, long term exposure to fresh doses might still make my nails glow like limric's gunsight.

December 22, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.
ricardo said...

timbo said: Nuclear energy is no more dangerous than people falling in bathtubs and killing themselves. Both are pretty rare.

The entire neighborhood doesn't get thyroid cancer if one person slips, falls, and kills himself in a bathtub.

December 22, 2011 at 9:31 p.m.
inthemiddle said...

That is incorrect dude. First of all the limits for tritium are as follows: Canada: 7,000 becquerel per liter (Bq/L).(189,189 pci/L) United States: 740 Bq/L or 20,000 picocurie per liter (pCi/L) (Safe Drinking Water Act) Notice Ours is lower. This is only a measurement of the amount of radioactivity (how strong the radioactivity is not how much you are receiving.

Now what you were talking about is the amount of exposure to the public resulting from the activities of a nuclear facility and we have the same limits.

10 CFR 20 (a) Each licensee shall conduct operations so that - The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation, from any administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under § 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, and from the licensee's disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with § 20.2003

nice try.

December 22, 2011 at 9:35 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

First of all, I don't understand why some people on this board feel that they have to say "lib" or "libtard" to emphasize their points...or rather lack of point which they try to cover by name calling. Why can't you just debate or post an opinion without name calling? Name calling doesn't make you look smarter.

Second, to disagree with hambone, I have to point out that 4% of the US power generation is fueled by petroleum. http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/fig11.gif

Then, to all of you that argue about the safety of nuclear power generation, look at these statistics compiled by WHO (World Health Organization):

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil - 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao)1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear-0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh.

I can tell you for a FACT that I would prefer to live near a nuclear power plant than to a coal powered plant if not for the health advantage but add the problem of ash storage and you really begin to get the picture. Hands down, nuclear is the safer fuel.

I'm an engineer, a liberal, and I think that nuclear power is fantastic! That should blow a few of those stereotypes on this board out of the water.

December 22, 2011 at 9:53 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

Assuming that most of you use a bathtub frequently...be cautious. They are one of the most dangerous places to be in a house and cause about 300-400 deaths per year and about 300-400 injuries every day. Way more dangerous than nuclear power.

Here's a study on that: http://www.cornellaging.com/gem/research_bathing_magnitude.html

And, lumpy, I am curious...are you saying that 17 year old people can't be murderers?

The way I see it, both Kennedy and Laura Bush were accidents. Both killed someone. Irrelevant what had happened in the minutes/hours/days leading up to it...someone died.

I do have issue, however, with Laura Bush trying to place part of the blame on the type of car her ex-boyfriend was driving (a Corvair) as a reason that he died because it was a dangerous type car as opposed to her being in her dad's Chevy Impala or her running a stop sign on a straight away on a clear night on flat ground. Yep, it was the Corvair. A veritable death trap.

December 22, 2011 at 10:22 p.m.
dude_abides said...

intermilan... "No matter how you look at it, tritium standards are absurdly high. A lot of damage to humanity is occurring because so much tritium is being legally released into our environment. As long as nuclear power plants exist, the nuclear industry cannot stop the creation of tritium (although some plants are set up to produce excess quantities of the stuff, in order to supply tritium to the nuclear weapons industry). If the nuclear industry is going to continue to operate, it needs to be allowed to release tritium, so it needs the public to believe tritium is harmless. That is why we are told that tritium's decay is "low energy," and that the nuclear industry's tritium releases are "harmless and close to background."

Prior to the nuclear age, "background" was less than one tenth of one percent of what the EPA standard for drinking water currently allows. Everything above the pre-nuclear age amount is unnatural, and the vast majority is also unnecessary. All tritium, from any source, is harmful."

Here's the link: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/tritium/2006/EPATritiumStandard.htm

December 22, 2011 at 10:37 p.m.
dude_abides said...

LATE BREAKING NEWS:

Powerful Quake rocks Christchurch New Zealand. Scientists blame tritium bombs detonated by free radicals associated with Single Electron Oxidation Society

December 22, 2011 at 10:49 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

DUDE!!! Good one!

December 23, 2011 at 12:44 a.m.
fairmon said...

The risk of not pursuing nuclear and other alternatives to imported middle east oil to fill the countries growing energy demands may be a much higher risk.

hambone responded with...

I am all for nuclear power generation.

But to say that nuclear will replace oil imports is just showing your lack of knowledge of the subject.

Only 1% of power generation is from petroleum.

Expansion of liquefied natural gas is the best way to replace oil imports.

hambone I agree....however,

pursuing nuclear and other alternatives doesn't mean nuclear alone will reduce dependence on imported oil. Other alternatives includes electrical vehicles which will require more power generation and reduced dependence. It means accessing our own and Canadian reserves, especially natural gas, and converting vehicles to natural gas. It means wind and solar and other means not yet known.

Stop the flow of weapons and ammunition to the middle east and stop the need for oil from the middle east and the disruptive behavior there will quickly subside then our pompous leaders can quit pretending to be humanitarians as justification for our involvement in middle eastern affairs.

December 23, 2011 at 1:31 a.m.
limric said...

inthemiddle,

I love my Trijicon scope, even with its nasty tritium. The one I have is an ACOG 4x32. For hunting though, I use Nikons, Leupolds, one new Redfield and a commie POSP range finding scope on a Dragunov.

Beware Libtards and firearms. ;-)

December 23, 2011 at 9:48 a.m.
jesse said...

limric runs his sh#t on you dudes and you don't even know what he is doin ! i love it !! hey limric?if they EVER fig.out what your doin they gonna be after your ASS w/a rope!!

December 23, 2011 at 10:37 a.m.
dude_abides said...

I would like to thank the Good Lohr for allowing Speaker Boehner to have a good cry and a change of heart. He is now Obama's shorty while Michelle is in Hawaii.

December 23, 2011 at 10:45 a.m.

I think people are being a little shortsighted by just focusing on electrical power generation by petroleum being replaced.

With sufficient cheap electrical power, a lot of heating could be converted. It might also become more feasible to convert coal into a form usable in automobiles, though I would prefer that not be considered a long-term solution, it would serve as an option until better infrastructure for electric vehicles was developed.

Also the armchair lawyers trying to waste the time of matt groening and Fox will be sad to learn that copyright law provides for fair use for the purpose of commentary such as this. The Simpsons do it all the time themselves, and even make jokes about the idea. See the episode where Homer's father dates Marge's mother.

December 23, 2011 at 10:52 a.m.
jesse said...

thr reality of 2011 is we got coal ,we got nukes.we got hydro!we ain't got solar.wind,or geo-thermal! GET REAL!!there is not a greenie on here that would live in the 1860's to make the point that nukes are NOT invirom.friendly! the situation is we gotta go w/what we got!do the best we can and except the fact that it is what it is!!

December 23, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.

No,human beings do not have to accept things without a struggle. We do use tools for a reason, because of a refusal to accept the limitations of our bodies.

Doing the best we can precludes such blind acceptance. Take away that last clause,nd you would be more accurate, though you are wrong to say we don't have solar, wind,or geothermal. There are substantial options for each.

December 23, 2011 at 11:35 a.m.
jesse said...

hey,happy w/the bulbs!

when you cut the power from all these nukes,and coal fired generators and go w/out untill the solar,windmills come on line THEN get on here and RANT about the dangers of what we got!!! options my ass!!

December 23, 2011 at noon
dude_abides said...

tu pac... What were you doing at that recent gathering? I know you wouldn't make a statement like that unless it would stand up to your exquisite burden of intricate proof. That's not another food stamps/Cadillac story, is it?

On your inquiry regarding your interest in owning human beings, I've seen some news stories about people of your (free range) persuasion taking "vacations" to, I think, Southeast Asia to "meet" little boys and girls. Check with the Department of State on those type opportunities.

December 23, 2011 at 1:53 p.m.

Jesse, my real concern is not with the use of nuclear power, but again, with the final clause you ended your post with. I find that to be a poor expression that is not reflective of humanity's conduct in general.

I also consider your claim that "we ain't got solar.wind,or geo-thermal!" to be incorrect, but if you will examine my words, you will not see any statement that reflects a general policy of rejecting the use of any particular energy source. Just an objection to your excessive statement.

December 23, 2011 at 2:17 p.m.
dude_abides said...

tu_bff... symbols is??? BTW... I think you want to put a c in participate, not an s. :)

December 23, 2011 at 3:08 p.m.
dude_abides said...

tu_tu... Symbols is, symbols are... yeah, I like "are" better. Every time when you think, every time you think.(?)

Couldn't make it to your video, but I did LMAO at that publication's wacky take on all of today's issues. Is that rag really on your reading list?

December 23, 2011 at 3:39 p.m.
acerigger said...

What WAS Laura's excuse??

December 23, 2011 at 6:42 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

"All you have to do is put in your credit card number and you can donate to directly to the treasury."

Seriously. Does anyone honestly think that they were going to enter a CC number on that woman's tablet? Seriously. And that is the basis for saying that the millionaires declined to make a donation?

Oooo...big point there.

December 23, 2011 at 6:44 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

From her book as sourced on ABC News...

*Writing publicly for the first time about the accident, Bush says the boy she killed, Mike Douglas, was not her boyfriend "though some in the press have claimed that he was." But he was a "very close friend" with whom she regularly talked on the phone.

"All through high school, Mike and I were good friends. We talked on the phone for hours, and Mike's circle of friends included nearly all of my own. And so it was unbelievable that it was his car in that almost always empty intersection," she writes.

"A dangerous intersection, a less than safe car [Douglas drove a Corvair, made famous by Ralph Nader's 'Unsafe at Any Speed'] and me. I don't see well, I didn't ever see well, and maybe that played a part. Or perhaps it was simply dark. Judy and I were talking and I was an inexperienced driver who got to a corner before I expected it," Bush writes.*

Sounds like she is still trying to find THE excuse.

December 23, 2011 at 6:48 p.m.
acerigger said...

SavartiTN,for anyone interested,that was the point of my December 22, 2011 at 1:56 a.m. post. I think some people just ain't that smart.

December 23, 2011 at 9:12 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

t_q...maybe you might want to be careful with the "symbols" and "junior high school giggling girls" reference.

December 24, 2011 at 11:01 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.