published Tuesday, March 1st, 2011

Moammar Gadhafi

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.
Salsa said...

The Ron Littlefield plan.

March 1, 2011 at 12:24 a.m.
fairmon said...

Those who think democracy is breaking out all over the middle east please go help them and stay as long as you hold that belief. They have no candidate selection process or succession plan in place. They have no constitution or balanced legal system. Sharia law is the best known and established. The reconciling process between the two prevailing tribes is to kill each other with a high percentage thinking it is their mission to rid the earth of infidels, guess where you are in that equation. Qaddafi is no less dangerous than Bin Laden and his demise is welcome but will his successor be better or worse? It is not unlike playing roulette of the Russian variety and some young energetic Muslims are spinning the wheel. Hope and luck are not good strategies but is about all they have. the U.S. is already in a quagmire that bankrupt and toppled the Russian empire and is now bankrupting America (Afghanistan). I hope the administration continues a "hands off" policy in all those middle east countries protesting and I wish they would adopt a "get out" policy in the two no win wars.

March 1, 2011 at 12:43 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

BRIEF HISTORY OF LIBYA In 2006 the United States restored full diplomatic relations with Libya and remove it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism after 27 years.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced, "We are taking these actions in recognition of Libya's continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism."

Libya was implicated in several terrorist attacks in the 1980s, most notably the 1988 bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. Authorities suspected the attack was in retaliation for either the 1986 U.S. air strikes against Libya, in which Gadhafi’s young daughter was killed, or a 1988 incident in which the U.S. mistakenly shot down an Iranian passenger jet over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people.

In 2004, Libya agreed to pay each victim’s family $8 million in restitution. Libya’s prime minister said that the deal was the “price for peace,” and both the U.N. and U.S. agreed to lifted sanctions. The implication that Libya only took responsibility to get the sanctions lifted infuriated the victims' families.

Oil Companies were delighted with the announcement following strong Congressional lobbying efforts. Restoration of diplomatic relations with Libya was predicted to have a major impact on oil markets.

March 1, 2011 at 1:35 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Harp,we may not get democracy in the Middle East,but much of the anger seems to be directed at the corruption and excesses of the ruling classes. That combined with wide income disparity and it doesn't take much to be willing to fight for something different,hopefully better.

Don't look now,but the good ole US of A is riddled with corporate and bankster corruption that has their lobbiest writing our business regulations while our Congress dithers over social issues. Corporations and corporate pay and bonuses have never been higher while at the same time,the average worker is worse off than he/she has been since the depression.

That's a formula for unrest whether it's here or in any other country.

Will we learn from these outbreaks or will we continue toward our own form of destabilization?

March 1, 2011 at 1:48 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Since U.S. government employees don't have collective bargaining (says Sean Hannity), does "either" link K'daffy to President Obama?

March 1, 2011 at 6:27 a.m.
fairmon said...

nucanuck,

We are both reasonably sure of the answer to your question. The amount of greed and money flowing in D.C. is mind boggling. The replication at state and local levels is brought about by grants, ear marks and other tools of manipulation. My guess is when the growing dependent sector can no longer be supported and includes more and more of those not inheriting that lot in life we will see similar rioting and protest. As you have probably concluded I have zero confidence that either party is pursuing a viable solution. It is evident their agenda is being retained or if not the party in power gaining control. We are bankrupt we just haven't filed yet but will soon by default. Neither the democrat's approach of slowing the growth of debt or the republican plan to make token cuts in spending will address the root causes of our dilemma.

bw48,

You are right. Oil, in my opinion, is the major driver for our involvement in the middle east. Renewing relations with Libya was a greed driven mistake but I don't recall any of the upset and objecting families turning down the hush money. Our failure to aggressively pursue energy independence and rising gas prices is one of the most crippling tax increases that can be implemented. High oil prices adversely affects the working class and those that can least afford the gas price "tax". One of Bin Laden's(sp) video rants was about how the U.S. was taking advantage of people in the middle east by involvement in the oil business and denying them their due wealth, causing poverty among "his people". I don't recall him or anyone else ever implicating the rulers that benefit from and hoard the oil wealth. We have had only a cursory look at thousands of Saudi Arabians with wealth beyond comprehension. Add those in other countries with comparable wealth and it is probably enough to pay off our debt. Toppling of those currently in power is worth the risk although the results will not likely be a democracy or anything like we think it should be, which may be a good thing.

March 1, 2011 at 6:54 a.m.
EaTn said...

Tyrant leaders can keep control for only so long: whether in countries, businesses or local governments. The unions filled the gap where needed, but most businesses realize that tyrant leadership doesn't profit them so they have an informal means of collective bargaining. Unfortunately, some state and local governments haven't learned how to skillfully collective bargain and now want to fall back to the old tyrant management principles.

March 1, 2011 at 6:56 a.m.
fairmon said...

EaTn

Are there any tyrant union leaders/bosses or are all the Capone and Hoffa types gone? Who assures demands are reasonable and affordable? Who represents me, the person funding the activity that is making the demands, when negotians are under way? It seems the process is broken even if the office holders fix is not the right one. An even worse situation is the ability of those in office to vote themself an increase in pay or benefits with the tax payer having no recourse. I'm not suggesting the governor's or the teachers are right, I'm not sure either is.

How would I recognize skillful collective bargaining on my behalf if I saw it? In other words what would skillful collective bargaining look like?

March 1, 2011 at 7:26 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Harp - I'm still waiting for democracy to break out in the United States.

March 1, 2011 at 7:35 a.m.
limric said...

Well, Gaddafi and Wisconsin's Gov. Walker are both Republicans so this great cartoon is entirely apropos. Good job Clay.

March 1, 2011 at 8:15 a.m.
Francis said...

once again bennett illustrates why liberalism is a disease.

another cheap attempt to equate the horrific situation in the middle east with the tantrumfest going on in wisconsin.

those poor souls who are standing up for themselves in those crappy dictatorships can't even relate to the selfishness and entitlement mentality of those fat asses and crybabies bitching and moaning in wisconsin.

liberals have no ability to put things in perspective.

cheap, cheapass propaganda by a liberal hack.....

to try and equate Gadhafi with scott walker and what he's attempting to do is a geniune slap in the face to all those in the middle east who are fighting the same kind of elitist and entitlement mentality that the crybabies in wisconsin have.

blackwater and you other liberal geniuses......i guess it's better to pay huge prices at the gas station rather than drill in our own country. better there than here, huh? you reap what you sow.

March 1, 2011 at 8:21 a.m.
EaTn said...

harp3339-- who represents you in public negotiations? The elected officials that you voted in office represent you and is their job to negotiate on your behalf. Maybe you should ask them why they cannot perform their job.

March 1, 2011 at 8:24 a.m.
Francis said...

the crybabies in wisconsin, limric, have more in common with ghadafi than they do with the protesters in libya. ghadhafi expects, demands, is entitled to, will get his way..the people be damned...their ability to put food on the table be damned...the whiners in wisconsin will get what they 'deserve"...to hell with the people of the state of wisconsin who pay their wages and salaries.. and who are struggling in the econonomy. an entitelement mentality is an entitlement mentality is an entitlement mentality......even if force is necessary.

March 1, 2011 at 8:32 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

L4F whined, "when you work for Uncle Sam you should not expect to get rich at my expense."

Yeah, just look as those snobby teachers driving their fancy KIA automobiles and sashaying around in their snooty polyester pant suits. Thinking their better than us. Who needs them?

All we have to do is get those fat cat teachers in line and all our budget woes will vanish.

(Tea) party on boys.

March 1, 2011 at 8:51 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

BRIEF HISTORY OF LIBYA, Part 2.

There are similarities between Egypt and Libya. Both Murbarak and Gadafi were aging dictators who had ruled for a long time, and both were preparing to hand the reins of power over to their less than charismatic sons. You say you want a revolution? That’s the perfect time to strike.

But there is more to the unrest in both countries. Yes, people want a say in their government and they want to be free, but food shortages helped fuel unrest in both countries. When you’re already poor the last thing you want to see is your children going hungry.

Forbes reported in January that, “The world is treading on dangerous ground. Market forces are in place for another global food crisis, and, as the wheels keep turning, it will become harder for these to be put in reverse.”

Heavy flooding in Australia and Brazil, coupled with droughts in other parts of the world, fueled fears in major markets causing a spike in agricultural commodities. Since June, according to Forbes, corn is up 94%, soybeans are up 51%, and wheat is up 80%.

Food shortages have hit the Middle East, and as political transformation continues to rock the Arab world fuel prices will continue to soar. Great news for speculators who bought petroleum futures at their peak.

But the rising price of gas will only exacerbate the cost of food both here and around the world creating even further unrest.

Gadafi is just latest despot to watch his empire crumble but he won’t be the last.

March 1, 2011 at 9:01 a.m.
Dumbledore403 said...

Francis and Libertarian ...take a look at Chuck Mehan's letter in the paper today. I am not willing to risk my wife's and my life anymore. As I told Andrew a few months ago... there is way too many people telling me to be filled and clothed while they go around doing nothing. The past several weeks has been like the train lights entering the tunnel... and I am doing all I can do to get away...

March 1, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.

Francis,

I was always wondering what has to wrong in ones upbringing to end up with such conservative narrowmindedness. My conclusion after years in Alabama was exactly the opposite, namely the conservatives are "cancer" for the society.

So, you want to strip the bargaining rights from Unions. While it becomes less attractive to take a goverment job like teacher, firefighter, etc, the private industry would definitely profit a lot, since then they can keep their salaries low, and put the rest in their own pockets, like in totalitarian countries.

The schools will become even worse, education would even decline, although it is already on a pretty low level. The best thing for you is that conservatives can sell their irrational logic (like Glenn Beck's) to uneducated minds...

Many intellectuals will leave the country (which many of my colleagues do already) The middle class will more and more vanish and the US will end up being a real Banana-Republic..

... untill the day when the suppressed and poor class will rise against the Corporations like in the middle east... but then it will be more violent since the poor people are well armed...

... good night and good luck...

March 1, 2011 at 9:50 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Francis - I appreciate your consistency. You have yet to justify your support for the tea party movement based in either fact of logic. But, you have made a very compelling case based in half-truth and slander.

March 1, 2011 at 9:56 a.m.
tderng said...

eatn: When the public unions are giving tons of money to the people that they are bargaining with,then no one is looking out for the taxpayers. The democrats give the unions pretty much any thing they want because they don't want the campaign money to dry up.This thing with the flee party in Wisconsin is not about private sector unions at all. It is about the corruption in the democratic party that gets huge amounts of money from people with whom they are "bargaining" with and then giving them great "bargains". I guess if I were running this scam then I wouldn't want the taxpayer to realize whats going on either.

March 1, 2011 at 10:19 a.m.
MTJohn said...

tderng - How much money do you think WalMart contributed to Walker's campaign, in exchange for the huge tax break that Walker gave WalMart?

March 1, 2011 at 10:39 a.m.
tderng said...

MTJohn: Wrong also! Personally I don't believe any business or industry should be able to give any contributions to any political party! Having said that Walmart isn't going into collective bargaining with the state of Wisconsin.BTW love the avatar!!

March 1, 2011 at 10:44 a.m.
Hoppergrasser said...

Clay: That is a very good cartoon. Associating Gadhafi with the anti-collective bargaining bunch. Right On !¡! :-)

March 1, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.
tderng said...

Hoppergrasser: Who is being the most obnoxious during this debacle? The protesters with their hate filled signs and hate rhetoric or the peaceful anti-protesters? Who has been seen even assaulting the other opiners. This just shows me what the mentality of union members and the democratic party really is. If you don't agree with me then you should be assaulted and beaten into submission,so, I ask again who should be associated with Gadhafi?

March 1, 2011 at 11 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

The only people who ever collect in collective bargaining is the union. Violence, lying, intimidations usually pays off for union bosses.

March 1, 2011 at 11:07 a.m.

tderng,

your analogy is really "funny" having in mind the peaceful signs at tea-party-rallies without any hateful messages ...

March 1, 2011 at 11:07 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Corporate Contributions

tderng said, "I don't believe any business or industry should be able to give any contributions to any political party!"

So yours is a faith based political philosophy. Koch brothers led a field of corporate interests that funneled MILLIONS into Walker's campaign, for which they were richly rewarded with a $140 million tax cut in January. The immediate impact? A $137 million budget deficit.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It Walker was interested in only gaining financial concessions from Unions he'd be taking a victory lap around the capital. He got it. Mission accomplished. However, that still wasn't enough to solve this 'crisis' and he still hasn't explained how revoking the right to bargain collectively today will balance this self imposed budget shortfall.

Maybe I missed something.

Maybe he did.

March 1, 2011 at 11:11 a.m.
tderng said...

bw48: I didn't say it doesn't exist.Please don't put words in my mouth.But ok you've won me over! Gov. Walker should rescind all tax cut and incentives to all businesses and increase their taxes twofold, He should also raise taxes on every possible product sold in the state,ie: liquor,cigarettes,milk,cheese. Maybe if he does these businesses will relocate to Tennessee where they may get incentives to be here instead of being punished for coming. He's gonna have to come up with money to run the state from somewhere.Perhaps he will increase the state income tax or create one if there isn't one! oh darn,that may not work if businesses leave the state for a better deal elsewhere,hmm, whats he to do?

March 1, 2011 at 11:50 a.m.
canarysong said...

Francis wrote;

"those poor souls who are standing up for themselves in those crappy dictatorships can't even relate to the selfishness and entitlement mentality of those fat asses and crybabies bitching and moaning in wisconsin."

In fact, they can relate quite well. Donations of food to the Wisconsin protesters came in from people in Cairo who had been supporting the workers' protest there. Many of them see the bigger picture and share a feeling of solidarity with workers around the world. It does not take a giant leap of logic to see where this could lead if workers' rights begin to be taken away. Surely no one would want to risk a return to the conditions that workers had to deal with before they won the right to unionize.

The crowds in Madison this past weekend supporting the teachers swelled to 100,000. All types of people turned out, including plenty of republicans. The latest Wisconsin poll showed a large majority of voters supporting the right of public sector employees to engage in collective bargaining. If you are so concerned about the taxpayers of Wisconsin, perhaps you should listen to them for a change.

BTW, has it escaped your notice that public sector employees pay taxes too?

I just found a very recent Pew poll (national) that shows 60% of Americans oppose taking away collective bargaining rights to balance state budgets.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/rick-perry-roundtable.html

March 1, 2011 at 11:51 a.m.
hambone said...

It should be plain to everyone that the republican plan is to hurt the democrats base in Wisconsin and other states.

It should also be plain to everyone that what they have managed to do is energize the democrats base like it hasn't been in years.

What most people don't know is it is illeagal for union dues to be used for political porposes. The money that goes to democrats from unions is voluntary and will only increase now that they are mad!

March 1, 2011 at 11:53 a.m.
pmcauley said...

Hi all:

There's a book (Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians) that's a free e-book at the following site: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/. I recommend it to all political stripes. It deals with people who assume authority and how they deal with it. This gentleman discusses his investigation of various people with political bents at a University.

It's free, help yourself.

pm

March 1, 2011 at 12:09 p.m.
acerigger said...

tderng, I gotta ask, who are you trolling for? There are no "hate-filled signs or rhetoric among the peaceful protesters in Wis. unless the perps are right-wing plants. Take a look at the video of the so-called "assault", it was not the union people who "brought it on".Just more Faux Newz propaganda.

March 1, 2011 at 12:10 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Tderng, exaggerating to make a point?

The budget 'crisis' was self imposed. If Walker is truly interested in everyone sharing the burden than all he has to do is rescind the January tax cut.

Presto! Immediate budget 'crisis' solved. Then he can address his long term fiscal responsibility by keeping the financial concessions the Unions agreed to, make the same demands of the Unions that endorsed his candidacy, find other ways to tighten up expenditures (there is so much inherent beaurocratic waste in every government) and spread the pain around.

If 'we're all in this together' then everybody should chip in. Most of the Unions have already agreed to Walker's demands to a pay more for their healthcare and retirement.

Why not anyone else?

March 1, 2011 at 12:12 p.m.
canarysong said...

hambone said;

"It should be plain to everyone that the republican plan is to hurt the democrats base in Wisconsin and other states.

It should also be plain to everyone that what they have managed to do is energize the democrats base like it hasn't been in years."

I have been thinking exactly the same thing. For decades the left in this country has lacked cohesion, direction, and motivation. Not since the last years of the Vietnam war have we really been able to effectively rally around a cause. What is happening now in Wisconsin (and around the country) is powerful. We need to build on it.

March 1, 2011 at 12:29 p.m.
librul said...
March 1, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.
tderng said...

acerigger: even this cartoon is hatefilled rhetoric.

March 1, 2011 at 12:52 p.m.
limric said...

Here's some lesser-known provisions that Scott Walker and his Republican colleagues are trying to slip through the state legislature that should worry many Wisconsinites. Even if protesters successfully defend their rights to collectively bargain - they still have to deal with a GOP-led assault on the several health, environmental, and economic programs including a bill that will allow the state's uber-conservative Health and Human Services Secretary to override state Medicaid laws to make deep cuts into the critical health care program. There's also legislation that will exempt local governments from having to disinfect their waters - and a similar bill that exempts large tracts of wetlands from environmental oversight. It just so happens that many of those wetlands are owned by a rich Republican donor...talk about cronyism. This doesn't even cover the done deal giveaway of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants to the Koch brothers. And - there are two bills that drastically increase Governor Walker's powers, including giving him authority to write rules for the state's ethics watchdog agency - and allowing Walker to turn 37 state civil servants into political appointees (hacks) thus politicizing critical social services. What we're seeing in Wisconsin is not the agenda of a Republican governor - it's the agenda of a radical autocrat. And if Walker is successful - Wisconsin, as soon will be the rest of the country, screwed. A working man backing a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. The revolution will be televised

March 1, 2011 at 12:52 p.m.
khargis said...

at least it isnt merely the tired, old hitler comparison. it's the tired, old hitler comparison with gadhafi instead of hitler. brilliant. refreshing. original. instantly cliche.

March 1, 2011 at 1:05 p.m.
ITguy said...

whatsnottaken said... The only people who ever collect in collective bargaining is the union.

You can thank the unions for the 40 hour work week and all the other benefits that you currently enjoy. We have all been the recipients of the efforts of the unions. They did their job so well, that we now take these things for granted and they have worked themselves out of a job in many places.

Unions are totally unnecessary if Management is reasonable. What you see happening in Wisconsin is the result of an arrogant Governor using his newly found power to pay off his contributors.

I have asked this question before and did not get an answer: Who will want to enter the teaching profession if we continue to denigrate and disrespect teachers?

March 1, 2011 at 1:22 p.m.
fairmon said...

It sounds as though the prevailing sentiment here is that we should all support the democrats and union agendas without question and all would be well soon. It may be the republicans strategy should be keep giving them enough rope to hand all of us and their self. I could get behind that if it works that would be great if it doesn't the inevitable that the republicans cannot stop anyway happens. We should all know how trust worthy those self sacrificing union bosses and their staff can be, how dare anyone question their willingness to give up their compensation and perks for the membership. I have no friends or family in Wisconsin so I would not mind if they increased taxes on all businesses and individuals and met all the public employees demands and wants. The results could become a model for the rest of the country and the federal government. Most things are tried on a smaller scale before the final design of the product or process. Wisconsin is small enough if Connecticut won't volunteer to be first.

I am one of those profit hungry mongrels. I am thinking I wish I could buy austrian_in_alabama for what he is worth and quickly sell him for what he thinks he is worth. A typical educator with a degree that thinks they are superior in intellect than anyone outside academia whose opinion differs from theirs. I do read and consider all views until it becomes condescending and pompous. I am wondering if the departure from Alabama was all voluntary.

March 1, 2011 at 1:25 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"A typical educator with a degree that thinks they are superior in intellect than anyone outside academia whose opinion differs from theirs. "

Harp, I usually agree with most of your posts, but I find this offensive. Please don't paint groups with a single brush.

March 1, 2011 at 1:38 p.m.
MTJohn said...

tderng - you are correct, Walmart is not going into collective bargaining with the state of Wisconsin. But, they apparently cut a deal with Walker- at the expense of Wisconsin taxpayers. And now, to pay for it, Walker is trying to break promises that Wisconsin had previously made with its public employees.

I don't see this as an issue of choosing sides with either the governor or the public employees union. Rather, I see it as a matter of standing on the principle of fair play. If we are the democratic republic which we claim to be, then fair play is a value that we all ought to share.

March 1, 2011 at 2:04 p.m.

harp,

first, I had in Alabama a tenured position, and as university professor I am not legally a goverment employee, so not even a Walker-type governor could have fired me. the departure was more than voluntary..

I am not judging as an academia-guy, I am judging as a Eurpean, who knows the pro's and contras of both systems. I never saw more ignorance and stupidity than in those conservative faces who never left the south and thought the US is the only country in the world, and Adam and Eve were the first people on our planet...

March 1, 2011 at 2:15 p.m.
trburrows said...

sounds like we are talking about the nfl problems. haha

bw in your opinion, what would happen in the middle east if we had a real bad world food shortage? how would it affect the poor? thanks

March 1, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: "A typical educator with a degree that thinks they are superior in intellect than anyone outside academia whose opinion differs from theirs."

Hmmm. . . While not all conservatives are authoritarians, all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives. ["Conservatives Without Conscience" - John Dean]

March 1, 2011 at 2:34 p.m.
canarysong said...

Some language from Governor Walker's budget plan that is worth a close look:

"16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b)."

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/02/21/in-budget-bill-wisconsin-gov-walker-pushing-for-no-bid-sales-of-state-owned-power-plants/

"...this would allow the state to make no-bid sales, overriding public interest concerns, of heating, cooling or power plants. This rider is just an invitation to corruption..."

Hmmm,.. who might be in a position to benefit from this? The beleaguered Wisconsin taxpayer?.... Nope! Might it be the Koch brothers who have been active in purchasing power plants?.... Ding! Ding! Ding!

March 1, 2011 at 2:47 p.m.
khargis said...

mountainlaurel said... "Hmmm. . . While not all conservatives are authoritarians, all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives. ["Conservatives Without Conscience" - John Dean]"

Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Mao and Hugo Chavez are/were political conservatives?

March 1, 2011 at 3:24 p.m.
BobMKE said...

People have to take the following courses: 1. Rights 101 2. Rules 101 3. Privileges 101

People don’t understand the differences and how to respect everyone in dealing with the above listed.

Collective Bargaining is a PRIVILEGE. Got it?

When the private union personnel sit across the table with the company personnel they are representing the stack holders of the company.

When the public union personnel (out for themselves and are making big money) are sitting across the table from the personnel from the State, City, School Board Etc. (Note: Federal Employees Mr. Jimmy Carter II do not have collective bargaining) are unions sympathizers. The public unions help support the personnel sitting across from them. “No contributions to you if things don’t go our way.” (Note: The public unions gave 400 Million dollars during the last election and 98% went to the Democrats) So if the public unions have this much power who is representing the taxpayers? Certainly not the majority of the personnel from the State, Cities, School Boards Etc.

March 1, 2011 at 3:58 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Khargis said: "Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Mao and Hugo Chavez are/were political conservatives?"

John Dean is talking about "personality" types among people. After Hitler, a lot of research was done in an effort to determine why someone like Adolph Hitler was able to take over Germany etc. Anyway, what the researchers found was that authoritarians have conservative personalities. Think about it for a bit - Do any of the dictators that you've identified fit the definition of a "liberal"?

Definition of Liberal:

Tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others.

Favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.

Generous with money, time, or some other assets.

March 1, 2011 at 4 p.m.
MTJohn said...

BobMke - privileges that are memorialized in some form of agreement are no longer just privileges. There are constitutional protections against ex post facto laws. Thus, benefits obtained through collective bargaining qualify as rights.

March 1, 2011 at 4:19 p.m.
tderng said...

mountainlaurel said...Definition of Liberal:

Tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others.

Favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.

Generous with money, time, or some other assets.

Then there are no liberals on this forum.I see no or very,very little tolerance of different views,in this forum or outside of it for that matter It is not protecting personal freedoms if more money percentage wise is taken away from someone without their consent just because they make more. Conservatives generally are more generous than "liberals" with with their own money. In my opinion of course since I don't have time to hunt down links to "prove " my point of view. Having said that I do believe that a modern society has a duty to take care of its citizens that are unable to take care of themselves.However it is not mandated to take care of everyone who simply doesn't want to work. If someone is caught defrauding the government by receiving benefits that aren't deserved the punishment should be very harsh,such as being forced to work on America's infrastructure,with pay of course,but required to pay back the amount that was gained by fraud.Every penny with interest. Just sending them to jail is not enough to keep these people from repeating their actions.When their debt is paid off they should be free to look for work elsewhere.In my opinion.

March 1, 2011 at 5:04 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"Having said that I do believe that a modern society has a duty to take care of its citizens that are unable to take care of themselves.However it is not mandated to take care of everyone who simply doesn't want to work. If someone is caught defrauding the government by receiving benefits that aren't deserved the punishment should be very harsh,such as being forced to work on America's infrastructure,with pay of course,but required to pay back the amount that was gained by fraud.Every penny with interest. Just sending them to jail is not enough to keep these people from repeating their actions.When their debt is paid off they should be free to look for work elsewhere.In my opinion."

This I agree with. Yet I am a liberal. Soooooo.... "Then there are no liberals on this forum.I see no or very,very little tolerance of different views,in this forum or outside of it for that matter". This I don't agree with. Stereotyping once again, mate.

March 1, 2011 at 5:19 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Libertarians4Freedom said in response to mountainlaural: Tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others.

---Unless they are homophobic, racist, sexist or simply different from yours.

You are correct on most of those, although most liberals and conservatives I know personally are very tolerant of other's views as Ikeithlu demonstrated above. I do not know many that are tolerant of "homophobic, racist, sexist" views or standards though since most humans do not tolerate bigots.

Well... I do know many "Christians" that try to use their faith to justify homophopia, even though I have never seen any bible passage that justifies this bigotry.

March 1, 2011 at 5:39 p.m.
tderng said...

No one should ever be tolerant of homophobic,racist or sexist views! They have no place in a modern society. I have said for many years that if Americans can't get over the prejudices between African-Americans and Caucasians this country is doomed!Both parties need to stop living in the past and work for the future!Together! People are people regardless of the color of their skin or their beliefs. I do,however,draw the line at the institution of sharia law here in america,but,if anyone wants to follow Islam that is their right.I can't understand how any woman in the modern world would willingly follow sharia law it.It is extremely degrading to women.Not allowing them to get en education or venture outside without an escort.Sheesh I wonder how many very smart women who could possibly have found cures to currently incurable diseases has the world lost because of this belief system?

March 1, 2011 at 6:26 p.m.
canarysong said...

I had to leave this website and go check the weather report for Las Vegas to see if hell had frozen over, but I actually agree with most of what tderng said in his 6:26 post(!!?).

BTW; I don't think you meant any offense, but when people have been living in, fighting for, and contributing to this country for many generations, you can go ahead and just call them 'Americans'. The average black person in America would feel about as out of place in Africa as you would. And I don't think they will mind if you need to acknowledge a difference in pigmentation; it's OK. I'm not trying to pick on you; I'm just saying.

March 1, 2011 at 7:12 p.m.
tderng said...

lol canarysong it must be at least cold there!When I said Americans I was including blacks.Absolutely no offense was meant! I only used the hyphenated term because I thought it was the preferred terminology.I personally think we all should use the term 'AMERICAN' to describe ourselves no matter the skin color or ancestry.

March 1, 2011 at 8:16 p.m.

When it comes to monopolizing coercive state power, I’m afraid Gadhafi has more in with public employee unions than with responsible taxpayers and their elected officials.

“A Union Education: What Wisconsin reveals about public workers and political power” (Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2011) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576172701898769040.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook

"… Unlike in the private economy, a public union has a natural monopoly over government services. An industrial union will fight for a greater share of corporate profits, but it also knows that a business must make profits or it will move or shut down. The union chief for teachers, transit workers or firemen knows that the city is not going to close the schools, buses or firehouses.

“This monopoly power, in turn, gives public unions inordinate sway over elected officials. The money they collect from member dues helps to elect politicians who are then supposed to represent the taxpayers during the next round of collective bargaining. In effect union representatives sit on both sides of the bargaining table, with no one sitting in for taxpayers …

“Thus the collision course with taxpayers. Public unions depend entirely on tax revenues to fund their pay and benefits. They thus have every incentive to elect politicians who favor higher taxes and more government spending. The great expansion of state and local spending followed the rise of public unions.”

March 1, 2011 at 8:51 p.m.
canarysong said...

trderng;

I could tell that your "African-American" reference was not meant in any bigoted way, but I thought it was worth mentioning. It just seems like an odd and a little exclusionary term to me. Labels affect how people see themselves, how others see them, and how people perceive that they are seen by others. However, we can have problems when the acceptable labels change faster than we can keep up with them. I don't always catch onto every change right away either.

March 1, 2011 at 8:52 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

The erratic Republican mindset continues to boggle the mind.

Now, it appears they have voted to slash the federal anti-terrorism funds for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey by 66%. House Homeland Security Chairman King {R) said it’s dangerous to do so, but, apparently, he was one of the people who voted to do so:

“About five years ago, the Bush administration's Dubai Ports World deal sparked considerable controversy. In a counter-terrorism era, the argument went at the time, port security had to remain a key national priority.

Apparently, Republicans’ priorities have changed in the years since.

The GOP war on government spending is set to claim an unexpected casualty: port security in New York and New Jersey.

A measure passed by the House to fund the rest of the fiscal year would slash federal anti-terrorism cash for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey by a stunning 66%, a Daily News analysis found.

Nearly $34 million was budgeted to help keep the ports safe, but the Republican-led House voted to spend only $11 million in its proposal to cut $61 billion this year.”

The cut was included in the GOP spending plan -- dubbed the "So Be It Spending Plan” in some circles -- passed by the House two weeks ago.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King (R-N.Y) said this week, "From a security perspective and a dollars and cents perspective, it's very shortsighted, it's dangerous, and it's wrong.

Of course, King voted for the Republicans' spending plan, despite the fact that it included this shortsighted, dangerous, and wrong provision."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ [Steve Benen]

March 1, 2011 at 8:53 p.m.
khargis said...

mountainlaurel said...

John Dean is talking about "personality" types among people. After Hitler, a lot of research was done in an effort to determine why someone like Adolph Hitler was able to take over Germany etc. Anyway, what the researchers found was that authoritarians have conservative personalities. Think about it for a bit - Do any of the dictators that you've identified fit the definition of a "liberal"?

Definition of Liberal:

Tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others.

Favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.

Generous with money, time, or some other assets.

that is the strangest definition of "liberal" ive ever read. did dean come up with that? you should question its source, as it is very self-contradictory.

extending democracy does not protect the freedom of the individual, nor does it promote tolerance of differing views.

democracy is majority rule, mob rule, tyranny of the majority, a system by which 51% of the voters can strip the other 49% of whatever freedoms they choose, by which the majority can criminalize victimless behavior on a whim, and by which the majority can strip the minority of its property (i.e. wealth).

this is why we are guaranteed a republic, in which the rights of the individual, however unpopular, are to be protected against the tyranny of the majority.

to "distribute wealth more evenly", wealth must be taken from its rightful owner and given to someone who didnt earn it. this is also an attack on "the personal freedom of the individual", because if a man has no right to his property, his hard earned wages, his is but a slave, and without freedom.

strangely enough, the leftist dictators i identified marketed themselves as men that fit that definition to a tee.

March 1, 2011 at 11:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

Mntlaurel,

Those you identified advertised they had the virtues you describe as liberal. Do you know any liberal, truly liberal, that ever successfully managed a highly competitive for profit business? Anyone can manage a near monopoly or several service industries but a wealth creating business with stiff competition will not survive the leadership of a liberal. That is by no means suggesting no one should be liberal they are essential, creative and provide balance. However if depending on them to create the wealth they redistribute may be very dissapointing.

I don't see how you could point to John Dean as an authority. People like Hitler, Kadhafi, Murbarik, The Iatolah (sp) are neither liberal or conservative as we typically classify people. They are mean, cruel, vicious demented power hungry self serving tyrants. Those that are being toppled should be toppled and destroyed plus some not yet challenged. Chaves has nationalized most businesses in his country and redistributes wealth, provides what little health care that is available and sets the pay scale for workers, He even sets some prices on goods produced there, is he liberal or conservative? He endorses communism and the definition of a liberal someone posted sounds real close to the communist manifesto. I don't agree with the description posted.

March 2, 2011 at 12:47 a.m.

khargis,

I was always wondering were the conservatives got their ideological phrase "redistribution of wealth" from..

Your hero, Ronald Reagan, caused the biggest redistribution of wealth ever, right to the top.. Top executives got their income multiplied whereas the middle class staid basically the same. I am sure this is all well deserved and you find a bible-quote to justify this development. Guys like Richard Fuld have rightfully stolen their money and should never be forced to pay one percent more taxes..

You conservatives always talk about "fair tax" but never about "fair pay". After Obama's helping GM the CEO earns about 100 times less then the guy who ruined the company...

You conservatives are calling Obamacare "job-killing". But the fact that repealing it is "people-killing" does not bother your christian world-view at all.

You have much more in common with Stalin et. al. than you realize, most importantly the despise for lower-income-people. But Salin, at least, did not hide behind fake christian values in defending his despise...

But, let me also tell you, before you compare US politics with former russian, chinese or other leaders you should compare the political situations. I am sure if the founders of the US would have been nowadays right wing conservatives they would have turned the US immediately into a totalitarian state...

March 2, 2011 at 4:34 a.m.
alprova said...

Khargis wrote: "democracy is majority rule, mob rule, tyranny of the majority, a system by which 51% of the voters can strip the other 49% of whatever freedoms they choose, by which the majority can criminalize victimless behavior on a whim, and by which the majority can strip the minority of its property (i.e. wealth)."

~~~~~

You're incorrect. While that is the popular definition as spewed by conservative talking bobble head dolls, there is a much more relevant definition on the table.

Why is it that conservatives push for Democracy when destroying a nation, but vilify our form of Government internally, when describing it.

Mob rule? Try a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. Verbose it may be, but much more closer to the truth.

Tyranny of the majority? Try the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges, where one class of people are prevented from lording over the rest of a nation.


"this is why we are guaranteed a republic, in which the rights of the individual, however unpopular, are to be protected against the tyranny of the majority."

~~~~~

I think we've moved away from concerning ourselves as a society with individual rights, to perhaps still protecting the rights of minorities, but far too many are working very hard to erode the rights of anyone who does not fit into some mainstream definition of normalcy.


"to "distribute wealth more evenly", wealth must be taken from its rightful owner and given to someone who didnt earn it. this is also an attack on "the personal freedom of the individual", because if a man has no right to his property, his hard earned wages, his is but a slave, and without freedom."

~~~~~

There is not one nation on Earth that will allow you to keep 100% of what you earn. Why not focus on the fact that at least in this nation, you get to keep more of what you do earn, for the most part you are afforded a decent amount of privacy and that you are allowed to voluntarily declare what it is you pay.


"strangely enough, the leftist dictators i identified marketed themselves as men that fit that definition to a tee."

~~~~~

Be that as it may, any comparison to any person in this country is a moot point...period. You have nothing to complain about.


On a side-note, I truly wish that the TFP would limit participants of the forums to one identity at a time, and to permanently revoke any disabled identity to create a new one.

It's getting very annoying to field comments from people who will change identities in order to falsely represent themselves as another person than whom they previously established themselves to be.

It's the mark of a troll -- a person who simply cannot accept rejection of their views and their common personality disorders.

March 2, 2011 at 6:15 a.m.
delmar said...

From tderng; "It is not protecting personal freedoms if more money percentage wise is taken away from someone without their consent just because they make more."

So you think no one should pay taxes or just the rich? And I'm assuming you are talking about taxes here.

"Conservatives generally are more generous than "liberals" with with their own money. In my opinion of course since I don't have time to hunt down links to "prove " my point of view."

Okay, and my opinion is that you are wrong.

March 2, 2011 at 7:09 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Kharagis said: “strangest definition of "liberal" I’ve ever read. Did dean come up with that? you should question its source, as it is very self-contradictory.”

For the record, the definition of “liberal” that I posted came directly from the online Encarta World English dictionary. I posted the first three definitions for the word “liberal,” and I think the definitions do reflect the most common usage. The common usages of the word “conservative” from the same online dictionary are: in favor of preserving the status quo, traditional values, customs, and against abrupt change; associated with characteristic of or displaying conservatism; cautiously moderate and therefore often less than the final outcome.

March 2, 2011 at 8:41 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “Do you know any liberal, truly liberal, that ever successfully managed a highly competitive for profit business? Anyone can manage a near monopoly or several service industries but a wealth creating business with stiff competition will not survive the leadership of a liberal.”

I’m assuming you’re saying this tongue in cheek, Harp3339. But just in case you’re not kidding my answer is - yes, I know lots of liberals - politically speaking - who are successfully managing and have successfully managed for profit businesses. What I find hard to believe is that you don’t know any – talk about a very small business circle, Harp3339.

In regard to John Dean and his book “Conservatives Without Conscience," you might consider reading the book. Dean has compiled some interesting facts that were pulled from numerous studies on the subject of authoritarianism. Again, I think you need to understand the studies were referring to specific personality types and traits of authoritarians, which has nothing to do with political parties. Realistically speaking, a political party is just a label, and any authoritarian type may opt to choose any label of his/her choice, which they obviously do. In fact, I don’t think there has ever been a dictator in history that has promoted his/her own “authoritarianism” party. The real agenda is always hidden under the guise of some other more acceptable political cause – once they’re in, of course, things change quickly.

March 2, 2011 at 8:48 a.m.

harp3339 said...

"I don't see how you could point to John Dean as an authority. People like Hitler, Kadhafi, Murbarik, The Iatolah (sp) are neither liberal or conservative as we typically classify people. They are mean, cruel, vicious demented power hungry self serving tyrants."


Excellent point.

March 2, 2011 at 2:55 p.m.
fairmon said...

Mntlaurel,

I work with large corporations my observation is that production and profit systems managers are typically conservative to varying degree. liberals prefer HR and service sectors. I advise some to seek a better balance and recommend restructuring to achieve it. I get paid an insane amount to ask people questions until they reach an obvious solution and find the will to do it. The amazing thing is the number of repeat request after causing so much anxiety and stress in prior encounters. I rarely make recommendations which gives the a client the option of making a subjective judgement. However, if they reach a conclusoion and identify solutions they are more likely to do it.

I decline request from strictly service sector businesses. They typically have the answer before a question is asked. Most have a "country club" mentality. We should revisit how wealth is created since we reached an impasse before. Service sectors such as insurance companies, bankers, brokers, lawyers, medical services are all essential and an integral part of the process but none create wealth: An insurance company collects premiums, take a 4% graft from each dollar. They pay a policy holder a million dollar settlement from the funds collected. No new wealth but simply moving of wealth. A medical facility provides a service and collect from the patient or from a third party. Money changes owners but no wealth is created. A lawyer wins a big settlement. He keeps his 33% and his client gains some wealth. Two people are more wealthy someone less wealthy no wealth is created. Miners, manufactures which includes construction, farmers and commercial fishermen take something of lesser value and transform it to something of greater value therefore creating wealth. Apple develops an I phone and arranges for various components to be assembled resulting in something of greater value than the individual components. An aircraft company assembles thousands of components from other wealth creating industries and creates an airplane of even greater value, again creation of wealth.

I have declined consulting with any government entity. If I were advising either political party at this point I may recommend making sure their opposition is allowed to do everything they propose that is legal and constitutional even if liberally interpreted. I believe the economy is past the tipping point and regardless of which party prevails the economy will implode the dollar will not continue being the world's reserve currency. I doubt 1 of 100 people understand how devastating that will be. Assuming survival the party in power will be avoided for decades. I really don't think either party or the tea pee'rs have a clue how to address the current dilemma.

Your turn, don't hold back, blast away I can take it.

March 2, 2011 at 6:28 p.m.
canarysong said...

Gee, harp, what a buzz-kill...

I realize that you know a lot about business, so your prediction makes me nervous. I sure hope you're wrong.

I don't think I'll sleep tonight............

March 2, 2011 at 6:49 p.m.
canarysong said...

BTW,

I haven't looked anything up, but aren't Warren Buffet and Steve Jobs both liberals? They've certainly been successful.

March 2, 2011 at 6:54 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp 3339 wrote: "I work with large corporations my observation is that production and profit systems managers are typically conservative to varying degree."

~~~~

Despite any and all claims, I don't see how you could begin to be in any position to know that many people's political preferences.


"liberals prefer HR and service sectors."

~~~~~

It's a Liberal conspiracy, I tell ya.


"I advise some to seek a better balance and recommend restructuring to achieve it. I get paid an insane amount to ask people questions...(snip). The amazing thing is the number of repeat request after causing so much anxiety and stress in prior encounters. I rarely make recommendations which gives the a client the option of making a subjective judgement. However, if they reach a conclusoion and identify solutions they are more likely to do it."

~~~~~

I think some hip-waders are in order.


"I decline request from strictly service sector businesses...(snip of the most ridiculous explanation ever typed, regarding wealth creation ever typewritten)...I have declined consulting with any government entity..."

~~~~~

I have serious doubt that you've been asked. It doesn't take a genius to figure out reasons that exist to doubt your claims.


"If I were advising either political party at this point I may recommend making sure their opposition is allowed to do everything they propose that is legal and constitutional even if liberally interpreted."

~~~~~

Well, they are obviously not asking you a thing, and in your attempt to convince people that you are some sort of political whiz, probably makes sense to only Andrew Lohr at this point.


"I believe the economy is past the tipping point and regardless of which party prevails the economy will implode the dollar will not continue being the world's reserve currency."

~~~~~

The economy is not past any tipping point, and even if the dollar were not the world's reserve currency, it would not be the end of the United States either. Where do you people come up with this stuff?


"I doubt 1 of 100 people understand how devastating that will be."

~~~~~

Well, clearly you're not in that 1% that you have carved out for yourself either. The fact of the matter is that the process of equalizing the world's worlds finances began a long time ago. The United States cannot exist out there on an island of it's own. And unfortunately, we've got to come down out of the clouds, one way or the other.

Devastating? Naw. Life altering? Maybe, at least for those who's wealth is totally tied to the value of a dollar, and if they trade it for in currencies of other nations. It sure won't hurt me.


"Assuming survival the party in power will be avoided for decades. I really don't think either party or the tea pee'rs have a clue how to address the current dilemma."

~~~~~

Is everything doom and gloom to you?

March 2, 2011 at 8:30 p.m.
fairmon said...

Canarysong Neither Buffet or Gates would fit the typical definition of liberal and certainly not the post here by someone. Their philanthropy should not be construed to mean the have liberal ideals. The fact is their establishment of a charitable trust with Gates and his wife as directors/administrators allowed them to direct money where they chose and prevented confiscation of huge amounts by the government. I applaud them since their way is significantly more efficient than the government's ridiculous cost plus fraud to administer government welfare programs. Their emphasis is in education which is the only way to reduce the dependent segment of society.

March 2, 2011 at 11:37 p.m.
fairmon said...

Mntlaurel,

I haven't attempted to convince anyone I am a political whiz in fact I avoid politicians and politics like a plague. I prefer spending time on financial matters which includes the impact politicians have on financial markets. I assume you know Libya had 30 billion dollars invested in the U.S. Other middle eastern countries have even more. I expect at some point our leaders will at least suspect how a few people used oil prices and short selling to destroy Lehman brothers setting the stage for the catastrophe in the markets and economy in '08. Terrorism is not just combat with shooting and killing and suicide bombs. Your comments validate my suspicions that you are a good hearted person that cares about those in need with limited opportunity to prosper which is a wonderful trait. I agree with your principles and efforts but not the process for addressing them. It seems you trust politicians and have limited understanding of financial and business systems. I do understand the impact of the dollar not being the world's reserve currency. I didn't say it would be the end of America I did say and it would be very painful and life changing for Americans that can least afford it. Have you ever heard of the largest bank in Europe, Unicredit? Libya owns over 7% of it. The seizure of Libya's assets may take them along the same path as Lehman setting off another economic crisis, let's hope not. Russia and China have already agreed to not use the dollar as the reserve currency in their trading with each other. Who do you think is loaning the government money now that China and others are not buying treasuries? Do you see any problem with the central bank printing money to buy 70% of issued treasury bonds? How do we loan our self money? Who, how and when will it be paid back to whom? I apologize if that sounds like gloom and doom and I do hope your optimism is right as rain and I am as wrong as I could possibly be. If we don't have an economic crisis between now and year end a prepaid dinner at a local restaurant of your choice is on me.

March 3, 2011 at 12:28 a.m.
canarysong said...

You're reading too fast, harp. I said "Steve Jobs". He describes himself as a '"liberal democrat". He has this little business,....something to do with fruit, I think...... :-)

March 3, 2011 at 10:55 a.m.
fairmon said...

Canarysong, Sorry about that. I think if you check out Steve Jobs business actions he would not be viewed as liberal. He does contribute liberally to charitable causes. He is liberal regarding most social issues and behavior. I agree with liberals in their right to chose stand and other social matters. I don't think he endorses any candidate. I think Warren Buffet compliments Obama but never reveals who he supports or votes for. That little fruit company of Jobs' has done well hasn't it? I just didn't buy enough stock in it. Apples are good for you.

March 3, 2011 at 6:55 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.