published Saturday, March 5th, 2011

Equality

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.
OllieH said...

Very nice work, Clay. Worth waiting up for.

March 5, 2011 at 12:38 a.m.
woody said...

And all children are born "innocent." But at what point are they "...on the road to Hell...." with all the rest of us?

Apparently "equal", and "innocent" must be akin to "beauty". And is left to someone to determine.

Have a great day..Woody

March 5, 2011 at 6:43 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Perhaps there is more wisdom than you intended in that remark, Woody. "Equal" is very much is the eyes of those who are in a position to make that determination. And, in this country - a country in which the descendants of slave traders and slave owners are disproportionately among the wealthiest while the descendants of slaves are disproportionately among the disenfranchised - it is self-evident who is empowered to determine "equal".

March 5, 2011 at 7:09 a.m.
Oz said...

....some of us depreciate more than others? No, some make poor choices and don't use their talents to the best of their ability.

March 5, 2011 at 9:57 a.m.
delmar said...

IMHO, we as a society determine equal. I believe it comes down to how we treat each other and teach our children to treat others. That means standing up for the rights of all people and following the golden rule, and that goes beyond any religion or belief other than having compassion and empathy for our fellow man with no prejudices.

Sorry about that, now somebody help an old fart get down off this soapbox!

March 5, 2011 at 9:59 a.m.
OllieH said...
  1. List item

So, Oz, are you implying that the inequities that exist in society are determined by the choices we've made in life? If so, would those choices include the decision to be born black, or born a female? Of course, woe be it you if you made the bad choice to be born poor and gay.

Clay is exactly right in this cartoon. We should all expect to be seen and treated as equals, but the depreciation varies depending on who's assessing our relative value.

March 5, 2011 at 11:41 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .

. . . and corporations are endowed by SCOTUS for THEIR unalienable rights.

March 5, 2011 at 12:16 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said: “Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster.”

Indeed, if this is so, why are so many of these Governors and corporations like Koch Industries now saying that unions cannot contribute to the discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster?”

March 5, 2011 at 12:29 p.m.
dude_abides said...

...and now the tea party is on Haslam. If they succeed, I'm sure we'll see even more Chattanooga teachers headed for Georgia. Maybe we can get out of work preachers to teach science to the kids.

March 5, 2011 at 3:09 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Good cartoon this time clay

March 5, 2011 at 4:52 p.m.

There seems to be a consensus that it is the prerogative of contemporary society to, in some way, determine what counts as equal or even that it is an aesthetic value, subjectively determined (by the trained critic?).

The term “equal” can be slippery. It is used differently in different contexts. We should make more effort not to conflate the various meanings and uses of the term in such a way that we read our own values and opinions into the document.

One common use of “equal” tempts us to want to quantify its subject. When we discover that we can’t quantify political equality, some suggest that the concept is entirely relative to individual opinion. But anarchy was clearly not what Jefferson had in mind. Instead, the phrase “all men are created equal” must be seen in its immediate literary context and in the context of the historical tradition from which it derives.

Some misconstrue the entitlement to political liberty in economic terms – as an entitlement to equality of social status or material wealth. That notion is very appealing, and it is used to great effect in fanning the flames of class envy and resentment. Read the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and other contemporary writings of the signers of the Declaration and you will find that they meant nothing of the sort. They clearly distinguished political equality from, what was for them another live option: equality of condition. Madison and others, in fact, warned that class envy undermines political equality. Using Clay’s terms, it would be more accurate to say that, in society, as EQUALITY OF LIVING CONDITIONS appreciates in the public’s estimation, the value of POLITICAL EQUALITY depreciates.

Of course, absolute political equality didn’t exist when the document was written and signed. Since that time, political equality in the U.S. has undeniably appreciated as civil rights, including voting rights, expanded. It becomes endangered when we try to redefine “equality” in quantifiable, economic terms, or when we attempt to replace the free market (of ideas or of material goods) with utopian egalitarian dreams.

The Declaration of Independence not only lays out America’s understanding of the purpose of government, it also the foundation for understanding the Constitution. (BTW, if you really want to see a “party of no” in action, try counting the number of times “no” is used in the Constitution.)

And the whole thing is founded on a creed: That our basic freedoms come not from men, but from God. When the creed is denied or undermined, you can say goodbye to political equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

March 5, 2011 at 4:58 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .

“When the Supreme Court took up the Citizens United case, Koch-funded front groups filed a series of amicus briefs arguing that unlimited corporate money in politics is protected by the First Amendment. . . .

For example, the Cato Institute, founded and financed by the Koch brothers, submitted a brief that called for “unfettered” corporate “speech” and the Institute for Justice, founded and financed by David’s brother Charles, submitted a brief claiming that campaign finance laws prohibiting unlimited corporate money “trump the First Amendment.” Koch-funded groups later lobbied aggressively to oppose efforts to provide transparency for the new tidal wave of corporate spending.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/10/citizens-united-koch/

March 5, 2011 at 5:03 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .

“. . . The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, who have long been staunch union opponents, were among the biggest contributors to Mr. Walker. (Americans for Prosperity, the conservative group financed by the Kochs, will begin running anti-union broadcast ads in Wisconsin in the next few days.) . . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-koch-brothers-20110206,0,4692342,full.story

“Americans For Prosperity adopts the anti-union positions held by its libertarian funders, David and Charles Koch A video published on YouTube on February 26, 2011 shows Scott Hagerstrom, the executive director of Americans for Prosperity Michigan, advocating "taking unions out at the knees so they don't have the resources" to fight for workplace benefits or political candidates.”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity

March 5, 2011 at 5:12 p.m.

Hey mountainlaurel,

Do you believe everything you read on liberal websites? It sure seems like you do.

You hold the "truths" you find on liberal websites to be self-evident? How ludicrous.

March 5, 2011 at 5:35 p.m.

Great cartoon.

Clay nails the "F.ck the poor"- mentality of "conservative christianity" ....

".. if you are born poor, God wants it that way"...

March 5, 2011 at 6 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: "Do you believe everything you read on liberal websites"

Specifically, what are you claiming to be non-factual, WWWTW?

Are you claiming the Cato institute was not founded and financed by the Koch brothers? Are you claiming that the Cato institute did not file briefs that argued that unlimited corporate money in politics is protected by the 1st Amendment?

Are you claiming that the Koch Brothers were not among the biggest contributors to Walker’s gubernatorial campaign? Are you claiming that the Koch brothers were not the founders of the Americans for Prosperity Tea Party organization?

March 5, 2011 at 6:03 p.m.
steve_smith_tn said...

Equality is a farce. We are not created equal. I love Jefferson, but even our Founders made mistakes.

March 5, 2011 at 6:20 p.m.
dude_abides said...

And the whole thing is founded on a creed: That our basic freedoms come not from men, but from God. When the creed is denied or undermined, you can say goodbye to political equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ---WWWTW

So if any of the founding fathers had slaves it was fine in the Lord's eyes? Or were they denying/undermining God's creed? Could we have said goodbye to LL&PH at that point? If wealth was gained in the ensuing 100 years in a way that wouldn't be legal today (slavery, anti-trust, usury, etc.), is there a statute of limitations in God's eyes that grandfathers that wealth/power into the righteous category? If the poor stormed the American Bastille, would the resulting redistribution of wealth/power be fine with God after 100 years or so, as long as we dusted off the Constitution, etc. and held it on high? We are so fortunate that God decided to jump in and ordain us Holy, in between the Native American massacres and the African American slave trade. Thanks WW, I will feel so much better driving through the ghetto now.

March 5, 2011 at 6:23 p.m.
Francis said...

dude...man is flawed...our founders were flawed..but they put into motion a system that gave us a a chance to overcome those flaws.....and right now..i'd rather live here than in any other place. even with obumble in there..

mountainlaurel..why don't you have the koch industry logo tattooed on your ass..or better yet portraits of the brothers koch......your'e obsessed with them.

all the people in america who are unemployed would gladly work for the koch brothers if they were offered them a job.......what are you offering them mountainlaurel?...just conspiracies and bitching about corporations..like the good communist that you are..

March 5, 2011 at 7:07 p.m.

dude_abides said...

“So if any of the founding fathers had slaves it was fine in the Lord's eyes? Or were they denying/undermining God's creed? Could we have said goodbye to LL&PH at that point?”


I said nothing about their righteousness. They were far from it and that is the point.

I said they were right when they identified the source of inalienable rights as someone other than themselves. They were well aware of their own sinfulness, which is why they knew they were not a reliable source for something as important as human liberty.

The most any government can do is to RECOGNIZE those rights. That doesn’t mean they always did, or that we always do. It just means that they at least knew that there is a higher moral law to which we can appeal when governments fail to recognize those rights. Those who have corrected many of the problems you mentioned had no disagreement with the founders about the moral source of those rights.

Because humans are as screwed up as we are, there must be a greater source for liberty than the whims of the majority, or even the consensus of enlightened or brilliant men and women. The French revolutionaries came to find this out in short order. They failed to understand that only with a higher source can liberty belong to everyone, not just those whose political leaders claim to value it.

What alternative do you propose as a source?

March 5, 2011 at 7:11 p.m.
dude_abides said...

I'm just saying that it's always been "to the victor belong the spoils." Who decides when the 'victoring' stops? When the South African mobs clear out the remainder of the white farmers we'll be back in there cutting deals. Whatever happens in this big mean world + time = legitimacy.

March 5, 2011 at 7:21 p.m.

I knew my use of the word "creed" would be controversial. By it, I mean that there was a specific belief, within a historical tradition, about the nature of human freedom, and it is one that not everyone shares. Someone said that we are the only nation founded on a creed. I’m not sure about that, but it was something pretty novel at the time. As a preface for establishing a constitution, they made a moral argument for legitimacy. I think it’s part of what made the constitution so durable, and able to correct itself. It was certainly a stark alternative to Europe’s prevailing absolutism and to “the divine right of kings,” which has been the rule rather than the exception in most every civilization throughout history. And it has had a pretty significant historical influence on folks, within and beyond our borders, wanting more liberty.

Political legitimacy is a tough issue. I've been writing on it on another blog. I know that on Libya, the president is expected to be making moral arguments about government by the consent of the governed, about national sovereignty in an international context, and, toughest of all, about whether or not a given course of action is in our national interest. Whether we wind up agreeing or disagreeing with his decision, we will demand that he make those arguments. And we wouldn’t demand it, at least not as much, if it wasn’t for how much we've been influenced(often unawares) by our national creed.

March 5, 2011 at 8:21 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

The depreciation factor must be true. All of us are not created equal. Just ask Bill Haslam who has proposed new restrictions to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/mar/01/restrictions-proposed-for-consumer-law/?partner=RSS

Funny, didn't see anything about that in the TFP.

The new bill would limit or ban punitive damages in health care lawsuits and under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. It would also exempt securities from being sued under the Act.

I suppose that you are only equal if you are Republican and big business. The rest of us are equally screwed.

March 5, 2011 at 8:23 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Francis said: "why don't you have the koch industry logo tattooed on your ass..or better yet portraits of the brothers koch......your'e obsessed with them."

Since it’s the Koch brothers who are spending millions of dollars trying to maniupulate our laws, pollute and poison our environment, eliminate workers’ collective bargaining rights, control how much middle class workers can earn, and stamp the Koch logo on every politician in town, I’d say it’s the Koch brothers who are obsessed, Francis.

March 5, 2011 at 8:44 p.m.
hambone said...

The GOP plan to bust unions has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it and is stuffed full of Koch money. Many people think that union DUES go to support the democrats, but that is illegal. The union money that supports democrats has always been voluntary contributions. The GOP's plan will backfire on them. So what ,if they bust some unions, rhe contributions will only increase. They have only united union workers more than they have been in years. They are sowing the wind and they will reap the whirlwind!

March 5, 2011 at 9:53 p.m.
Francis said...

yeah...that's the way it is mountainlaurel....let's rally the masses, grab the pitchforks, light the torches and storm the koch castle. i see michael moore...one of the biggest and wealthiest liberal fat asses is in wisconsin rallying all the union fat ass crybabies. how pathetic.

carl rove!!....hambone, you're insane......yeah..he's a real factor......not is only is carl rove a country club republican....he's been openly critical of the tea party and they're influence in the republican party.....so which is it?

bust the unions??....you liberals are dilusional. there's not a snowballs chance in hell of anyone busting the unions...getting rid of them..or abolishing them. how ridiculous.

all anyone is asking of government unions is to be responsible and reasonable during this economy crisis andtake some of the burden off the tax payers. but no......unions must have their precious gurantees..and they're big fat entitements...everyone else be damned.....

unions have become the entitlement class....

March 5, 2011 at 11:08 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

March 5, 2011 at 6 p.m austrian_in_alabama said... “mentality of conservative christianity"

Austrian, you have no idea what you are talking about. Try sharing your feelings and spare us your uninformed opinion about what others feel.

March 6, 2011 at 12:31 a.m.
Oz said...

OllieH said... List item So, Oz, are you implying that the inequities that exist in society are determined by the choices we've made in life? No. You seem to think being poor, gay, or a certain race makes one unequal. I don't think race, sexual orientation, or income determine success. I know successful people in every category. Their attitude and work ethic made them successful. They did not settle for being a label in the blame game.

March 6, 2011 at 12:32 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Francis said: "yeah...that's the way it is mountainlaurel....let's rally the masses, grab the pitchforks, light the torches and storm the koch castle."

Except it’s some of the greedy corporate egotists like the Koch brothers who are storming the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our Nation, Francis. It’s become clear people like this are very self-serving and they have no interest in greater truths like the kind that our founders identified in our Declaration of Independence – concepts such as equality and the unalienable rights of all men are considered a nuisance and only interfere with their desire to make money for their own little kingdoms where they rule at our expense.

March 6, 2011 at 6:18 a.m.
fairmon said...

Mntlaurel,

Do you think people are not intelligent enough to reject anything subversive by the Kocks. Is there not enough balance from the opposing factors to off set what you view as wrong on their part?Do you not trust your elected officials or voters that select the office holders to react appropriately to inappropriate initiatives.

Those that agree with you if sufficient in number will neutralize any initiative they may elect to support. Isn't the freedom to express and pursue different views a basic tenant of our system?

To me being created equal means we have an obligation to assure that every citizen has the same options to pursue being all they can be and to be treated equally in doing so. It does not mean we have an obligation to support those capable of providing their own support.

March 6, 2011 at 6:29 a.m.
fairmon said...

Many people do make choices that increases the rate of depreciation others make choices that increases their appreciation. To allow the making of choices for others that increases their rate of depreciation or appreciation is a bigger problem.

The measurement method of equal creation is not provided therefore is interpreted by each in their own way or is so complex the issue is ignored. Some go to the extreme that all wealth should be evenly distributed among those pursuing their inalienable rights and we should all progress or digress equally. The other extreme is I got mine and you are on your own to get yours. Assuring each creation has equal choices may be a reasonable balance.

March 6, 2011 at 6:53 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Harp - no. Some people are not intelligent enough to reject subversive messages, especially when lies are packaged to sound like untruths that people want to believe - ergo, the success of FoxNews and the rise of the Tea Party.

No, there is not enough balance, either.

March 6, 2011 at 7:41 a.m.
fairmon said...

MTJohn,

Some may not be intelligent enough to avoid being duped but surely they aren't a majority. I prefer to believe if the tea groups are wrong people will realize that and their positions will be short lived. Surely we have elected leaders that will not allow those that support destructive and subversive behavior to prevail. If we haven't then we are headed for destruction in a painful way. I see initiatives from both parties that I find credible and some from each that seem less credible and objective. I have in the past and will most likely vote a split ticket based on what I think is best and not in response to some ideological rhetoric that is not logical to me. I may be wrong and others may like what they hear and see happening but at least I reached my own conclusions and didn't just respond to some snake oil salesman. What they do is much more telling than what they say. Sources other than the media, be it Fox or main stream, are more reliable, more informative and leaves the interpretation to me. I don't value those that jump on TV or write an article conveying their opinion as factual and as though people didn't hear what was said and are not able to grasp and interpret it on their own. Some use data and statistics to support their position while most people fail to understand how statistics can be skewed and appear to be accurate. That old saying that figures don't lie but liars figure may apply.

The pendulum swings slowly and balance will occur for a period of time then the imbalance will move to the opposite side of what is current. A legitimate concern is that governments never reduce in size and power. Their rate of expansion may slow but it has never reversed or stood still. The republican rhetoric is a joke they are only trying to change what entity grows not reducing growth of government power and influence. The same is true at state and local levels and will continue until we are all paying taxes, fees and hidden cost at a much higher rate.

March 6, 2011 at 9:19 a.m.
MTJohn said...

harp3339 said... If we haven't then we are headed for destruction in a painful way....

Harp - you are prescient!

March 6, 2011 at 9:34 a.m.
canarysong said...

Harp;

For choices to be anything resembling equal, opportunity must be closer to equal.

I don't think that the most left-leaning person on this board is advocating the equal distribution of wealth. There is a vast area between the extreme disparity of wealth that we have right now and an out and out equal distribution of wealth. The right needs to stop painting issues in terms of black and white absolutes. There are choices in between, say the levels of income distribution that the US had in the years from the 1950's to 1980. Then wealth distribution was much more equitable, the economy was strong, and the middle class was growing. BTW, many taxes were considerably higher then, as well.

What we would like to see is a more level playing field and to make sure that the truly needy are not cast aside like human refuse. When a young person's spark of creative genius or passion for improving the problems of humanity is snuffed out by the brutality of poverty, then we all are the poorer for it.

March 6, 2011 at 10:25 a.m.
fairmon said...

Canarysong,

Please read my earlier post and tell me where I said anything different than your lecture to me. Equal opportunity and support those needing such to have it. That is as far as I am willing to go. If you think I should do more then forget it. I will resist to the fullest extent possible going beyond that. Why should I support those not willing to utilize the opportunities provided?

March 6, 2011 at 1:02 p.m.
canarysong said...

Take a chill-pill, harp. It was not my intention to lecture you, although you certainly are not the first person to ever accuse me of getting a bit preachy:-)

My point was simply that we are a long way from any semblance of equal opportunity in this country, and we all suffer for it in one way or another. We are overdue for a serious re-assessment of our values. I wish I could explore this further with you, but I really have to run. I'm sure there will be another opportunity to revisit these issues. Have a good one!

March 6, 2011 at 1:37 p.m.
Clara said...

Sometime in the past I've been accused of being too personal on this blog, so I will continue being so.

Let's see...

I was born equal, to what. I'm female which, when I was born was not equal to men but with a better chance of living.

It seems I am the oldest person on this blog. That doesn't make me equal in age.

I might be a bit smarter than some of the people on this blog, but not experienced enough to express it logically.

My inability to comprehend what vowels I put where is also unequal to a lot of the rest of you.

I have had more experiences than most.

I was born poor!

I'm still poor but in a comparison with the world's population, I'm well off.

Right now, I'm not in good health compared to the rest of the world's population.

Therefore I am not equal to others in a lots of ways, as are others.

We are individuals and should remember that about others.

Stop classifying!

POO

March 6, 2011 at 2:21 p.m.
Clara said...

Will someone please tell me how to get my avatar on this blog!

I've the picture I want to use and I've tried with some of the online avatar creators but am not getting anywere.

Thanks

March 6, 2011 at 2:26 p.m.
MTJohn said...

Clara - save the pic that you want to use as a jpeg on your computer. Then, upload the pic using the avatar function in your profile. Then save your revised profile.

March 6, 2011 at 3:45 p.m.
fairmon said...

Canarysong,

aha, we agree that opportunities are no where equal and should be. We will never agree on how they should be equalized so let't don't even go there. I may quit liking you and that would not be good.

March 6, 2011 at 5:48 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

We 300 million Americans have depreciated so much that a Chicago lawyer has to run our health care for us? We've turned into babies and need a babysitter gorvernment?

To equalize by force requires an unequal Equalizer. In Mao's China, everyone wore gray pajamas, but Mao ran the country (and his gray PJs were silk).

So if the IRS is to equalize our money, it gets to point a gun at our wallets. Some people like running the lives of other people, but that's not equality; in fact, the pursuit of that kind of equality automatically produces a tyrannical inequality, in which some people tell others what to do and what not to do. Slavery in the name of equality.

The rich and big business, and others, may use the government to keep their pockets full and discourage competition. GM has lawyers and accountants; Shadetree Motors doesn't. The Institute for Justice does a great lob breaking down laws that create or maintain inequality, such as the TN law that only funeral homes could sell coffins. Let competition decide! Jesus is rather libertarian (as I often post).

March 6, 2011 at 8:44 p.m.
canarysong said...

Harp;

Agreed.

Andrewlohr;

" Some people like running the lives of other people...", "...in which some people tell others what to do and what not to do."

Oh right; I get it. Like when the religious right tries to tell people what they may and may not do in their own bedrooms, who they may choose to form a family with, who is morally fit to give their life for their country, and whether women may choose to have a legal medical procedure (and on and on...)

How fortunate for the rest of us that you are here to interpret Jesus' message for us! (insert eye roll here)

March 6, 2011 at 9:31 p.m.
Clara said...

MT John,

Thank you for trying to help. No luck posting my Avatar although I've tried numerous times. Perhaps it is my dial up.

March 6, 2011 at 9:33 p.m.
canarysong said...

Clara;

Even with help I couldn't figure out the avatar. I had to have my son do it for me. Maybe there is someone young and/or very computer savvy that can do it for you?

March 6, 2011 at 9:41 p.m.

I wonder how many people who posted on this one have actually read the document depicted in the cartoon. My guess is that very few have, at least not recently. It's just a lot easier to just chime in with the "What I think it should mean," or "What it means to me," or "Clay's nebulous message perfectly expresses my political agenda" malarkey. It's kind of sad, if amusing.

March 7, 2011 at 12:48 a.m.
canarysong said...

wwwtw;

"...sad, if amusing."

Yes.....

Do you really imagine yourself to be the only person that reads the writings of the founders of our country? Please! I do, in fact read Jefferson, Madison, and Thomas Paine. I also have the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution on my phone in an app, and, yes, I HAVE read them recently. It's very funny because when I read your earlier post on this thread I was thinking that YOU evidently had not read the constitution very carefully.

I would love to elaborate, but it is late and I have had an exhausting weekend with my business. I'm sure that there will be ample opportunity to get into this another time.

March 7, 2011 at 1:36 a.m.

canarysong said...

“Do you really imagine yourself to be the only person that reads the writings of the founders of our country?”


Not at all. It just seems that if was fresh on everyone's mind, you would find more references to the document's content in a stream about one of its most highly cherished phrases. With a couple of exceptions, including you (good job), the evidence is lacking.

(I was also hoping for more contempt about references to endowments from a Creator in an important public document such as the Declaration, but I was disappointed.)

Well, if we get to discuss the founding documents, I'll need to go ahead and change my avatar.

Hold on ...

March 7, 2011 at 4:06 p.m.

There. That's more fitting.

March 7, 2011 at 4:17 p.m.
alexboydston said...

Clay, When the founding fathers were stating "equal" here they were not referring to a man's financial condition. I think that some who support liberal socialism believe that the financial condition is what is referred to. The value and rights of the human soul, mind and being is what they were talking about. They did not intend for all to have the same amount of money. What you are suggesting is the idea of Marxism/Communism. We are a democracy and capitalist nation.

March 12, 2011 at 8:22 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.