published Sunday, March 13th, 2011


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 ...

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.
nucanuck said...

Newt's appetites aren't easily sated.

March 13, 2011 at 12:26 a.m.
podiebell said...

HAAAA!Hilarious! I love it.

March 13, 2011 at 12:50 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

having newt gingrich be the front man to criticize obama for not defending the defense of marriage act is not a good idea. gingrich's lame excuse for his marital problems was also a bad move.

but, neverthless.....he's 100% correct. it's obama's duty to make sure his attorney general defends the law. a law signed by bill clinton...ironically,....a serial adulterer.

obama's job is too defend the laws, not interpret them....his job is to defend the constitution.. i believe he took an oath. so far he's done a crappy job at that.

by the way, francis has gone bye bye....seamonkey is in the house.

March 13, 2011 at 1:02 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Didn't I read that he dumped his wife when she was cancer stricken? I would think his Contract On America finished his political career. That was the first time I had ever seen someone sell trash and call it treasure, and it worked! He's an Eft Wing radical. Sorry.

March 13, 2011 at 1:03 a.m.
fairmon said...

High testosterone levels didn't keep Clinton from being a good president. It did result in some being judgemental about his morals. He knew how to relax while on the job and on duty. Newt may be the man but he can't beat the incumbent unless the incumbent gets caught with his pants down. It doesn't appear the incumbent is vulnerable to the wiley ways of a wayward woman, he is actually kind of sissy acting.

We aren't seeking a pastor for a church or a member of the clergy. We need someone that can effectively run a business as big and as complex as the federal government. No one available, in sight or on the horizon yet.

Businesses on the ropes restructure, down size (lay off), cut the fat, increase prices, seek new opportunities. Would it be good if governments at all levels did this?

March 13, 2011 at 1:04 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Newt may not poll well with the ladies,but he certainly has upsized well to capture the fat white boy vote.

March 13, 2011 at 1:19 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Corpulence outweighs fidelity!

March 13, 2011 at 1:27 a.m.
trburrows said...

harp yeah, its ok to nail little girls with wife and daughter in white house. your are sick sick sick and so are your supporters. god help you all ...... get to hell

March 13, 2011 at 3:49 a.m.
bookworm said...

The defence of marriage act promotes heterosexual marriage: Ask Newt, he loves heterosexual marriage so much that he has been married multiple times.

March 13, 2011 at 6:10 a.m.

But...but...Patriotism made him do it. We can't blame him because he is wrapped in the American flag!

March 13, 2011 at 7:45 a.m.
delmar said...

From trburrows; "god help you all ...... get to hell"

Somehow that doesn't come off as sounding very Christian like.

March 13, 2011 at 8:13 a.m.
woody said...

Personally, and I speak from experience when I say a man's (or woman's failed marriages) shouldn't even be considered when weighing a person's qualifications for any office of authority, including that of president.
I am 22 years into my 4th (and last) and I can say, without too much fear of contradiction, that had it not been for my three failed attempts at marital bliss(?) I would never have found "Mrs Right."

Speaking of Newt, however, let me remind one and all a 'newt' is a crafty little lizard whose only concern is survival. 'Nuff said..Woody

March 13, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.
fairmon said...


Is that a christian with high morals or one with an attitude? I did not say it was OK for a married man to fool around with other women. However, I did say and I will maintain it has nothing to do with their ability to be president nor will it be part of my criteria for selecting a candidate to vote for. My reasons for not supporting Newt would not be his marriages or philandering.

Some think Obama is a Muslim. I don't, but I also don't care as long as he doesn't impose it on me or the country. I am a lot more concerned about his cabinet selections than his religion. He is smart but his management processes and some department head selections are suspect.

March 13, 2011 at 8:41 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Do as I say, not as I do. - Newt Gingrich

March 13, 2011 at 8:54 a.m.
fairmon said...

I wish any candidate for president was required to name those he planned to have on his staff before the vote. The VP is usually selected to strengthen the ticket not because of their ability to be president should the need arise. Who was the last VP that would have been considered a good presidential candidate? I would not go for Gore, Chaney or Biden in recent history. Can you imagine how vulnerable we would have been had McCain won at his age with Palen on the bench?

March 13, 2011 at 8:56 a.m.
ceeweed said...

Interesting debate. It certainly distracts from the real issues of the day. The crusade against Bill Clinton by republicans was political, it had very little to do with Monica. In the process, his biggest critics laid themselves bare and many of his enemies came up lacking in the "Family Values" department.

When we put politicians on pedestals and they eventually fall off their perches, we are disappointed. When politicians claim the moral high ground as they stand on shifting sand, it just stinks.

Arguing who amongst us have sins that top those of our opponents is futile an inane. It discounts the fact that we are all human.

March 13, 2011 at 9:12 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Newt's reason for being unfaithful in his marriages was because he loved his country so much and he's a great patriot. That's an excuse I've never heard before, I'll give him credit for originality.

March 13, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.
fairmon said...

A man's only reason for infidelity is the connection between their brain and crotch. If they can avoid clouding and muddling of their thinking process in other matters they can fulfill the duties of the office. It didn't appear to have an impact on Kennedy's or Clinton's ability to govern and make critical decisions. There may be good reasons for not supporting nerdie Newt but not multiple marriages.

March 13, 2011 at 9:38 a.m.
fairmon said...


There is a lot to be said for someone that will keep trying until they get it right. Sounds like practice paid off in your case.

March 13, 2011 at 9:41 a.m.
bret said...

Newt knows he can't win, but he makes the other lame GOP candidates look almost reputable by comparison. He's the fat ugly girl who goes to the bar with the homely chick. All of a sudden that homely chick doesn't look half bad.

March 13, 2011 at 10:19 a.m.
memphisexile said...

Newt can't win, but what he can do is run and get his name in the media a bunch. Look to see him selling a new book or some such thing soon. Its all about visibility and making money.

March 13, 2011 at 11:19 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Newt Gingrich says his passion for America contributed to his marital infidelity.

Gingrich, who's considering a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, told the Christian Broadcasting Network that he has asked God's forgiveness for past mistakes. He recently converted to Catholicism.

"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate," Gingrich said.

The former U.S. House speaker left Wife No. 1, Jackie Battley, while she was recovering from cancer to marry Wife No. 2, Marianne Ginther. During that marriage, he had an affair with former congressional aide Callista Bisek, who became Wife No. 3.

The affair happened at the same time he was attacking former President Bill Clinton for his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Catholicism? Now his passion for his country is forcing him to be attracted to little boys?

March 13, 2011 at 11:28 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Apologies to devout Catholics re: last line of post, but you people have got to do something, seriously.

March 13, 2011 at 11:31 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Gingrich left wife #2 on Mother's Day while she was dealing with MS (multiple sclerosis). Somehow he never learned the part about "in sickness and in health" in the marriage vows. Actually, he never took any part of his vows seriously. If only he weren't so patriotic, he wouldn't have cheated.

March 13, 2011 at 11:35 a.m.
fairmon said...


Do you think Newt should be known as "newtered" as in neutered? Was the poor pitiful wife #2 he left on mother's day the same one he was having an affair with when he left #1? She shouldn't have been surprised when #3 came on the scene. #3 is either very dumb or very smart and prepared for when #4 makes her appearance. He could make the commercial where the guy says my libido is like that of a 19 year old, the desire is there constantly or perhaps he is like a rooster that has to change chickens to perform.

I bet a lot of journalist hopes he will run. All the media fodder will save them from needing to understand and report on complex issues a campaign should focus on.

March 13, 2011 at 12:20 p.m.
Hoppergrasser said...

I did a history search of Newt. I started with the things I remembered from his time as Speaker of the House. I found all the things I remembered and much more.

I think you will agree with me. Saying he had a questionable background is putting it mildly. He also had moral and ethical problems and is a few bricks short of a full load.

Newt has been married three times. In 1962, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26. They had two daughters. In the spring of 1980, Newt left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. According to Battley, Newt visited her later that year while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. In 1981, six months after it was final, Newt wed Ginther.

In the mid-1990s, Newt began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior; they continued their affair during the Lewinsky scandal. In 2000, Newt married Bisek shortly after his divorce with second wife Ginther was finalized.

Keep in mind, Newt was instrumental in pushing for the impeachment of President Clinton because of the Lewinsky scandal. But it was OK for Newt to do the same thing. :) Shortly after his affair with the House of Representatives staffer was revealed, Newt announced his resignation from his House seat and as Speaker. He did not want to suffer through the same humiliation he caused President Clinton.

Polls showed that Newt and the Republican Party's attempt to remove President Clinton from office was widely unpopular among Americans.

March 13, 2011 at 12:46 p.m.
Hoppergrasser said...

Remember the 1995 shutdown of the United States federal government. Newt orchestrated that.

The 1995 shutdown of the United States federal government was a major political crisis in which the U.S. federal government, as a result of a failure to pass a budget bill, stayed non-essential services from November 14 through November 19, 1995 and from December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996.

"He (Newt) told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One... Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child. The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."

Newt's complaint resulted in the perception that he was acting in a petty, egotistical manner. Later, the polls suggested that the event badly damaged Newt politically.

Ethics sanctions Consisted of two counts “of failure to seek legal advice” and one count of “providing the committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate” concerning the use of a tax exempt college course for political purposes. On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Newt, including a $300,000 “cost assessment” to recoup money spent on the investigation.

The Great Depression of 1929. Some of the major reasons for this depression and collapse of the financial sector was a lack of Government regulation and control of the financial sector, Wall Street, banks, insurance companies, loan companies, stock brokers, and investment banks. Investment banks were gambling with the peoples money. Banks were making loans to people and companies that didn't have the collateral. People were borrowing money to buy stock. Banks were promoting the sale of stock in companies that were failing, and Wall Street, stock brokers and investment banks were inflating the value of stocks. Also... The Government should have been injecting massive amounts of money into the failing economy to reverse it.

March 13, 2011 at 12:53 p.m.
Hoppergrasser said...

The Banking Act of 1933. Known as the Glass–Steagall Act. This legislation put the regulations and controls in place, introduced banking reforms and to control speculation.

1999... Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This legislation repealed much of the Glass-Steagall Act. It allowed the evil-doers with their creative minds to come in and destroy our financial system and our economy.

The repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street, investment banks and depository banks and has been blamed by some for exacerbating the damage caused by the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market that led to the Financial crisis of 2007–2010. The potential to make enormous profits trading mortgage-backed securities with artificially high ratings encouraged banks to take on otherwise intolerable risk in the form of bad loans. The ease with which people were obtaining home loans contributed to an artificial housing boom and exacerbated the inevitable decline.

This is where the Honorable Newt Speaker of the House comes in. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader decide what legislation will reach the floor and when. The Honorable Newt put the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act on the list of legislation to be voted on. President Clinton signed the legislation. He now admits it was a mistake. For twenty or thirty years (depending on what article you read) the financial industry was trying to get the Glass-Steagall Act repealed. No Speaker of the House would bring the legislation to the floor for a vote. They remembered what happened in 1929.

Our Government must take some drastic steps to reverse the problems we now have. If it does not, we will be faced with another severe depression worse than 1929.

Millions of people have lost their jobs, homes, savings, retirement, and companies were closed.

The people responsible for this will not be prosecuted. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

The corruption and incompetence in our government is enough to make you sick... and get you wee-weed up. :)

I have to close now. My ink ribbon is getting dry. :)

March 13, 2011 at 12:54 p.m.
Rufus_T_Firefly said...

That's the reason they're called lessons, because they lesson from day to day.

-Lewis Carroll

March 13, 2011 at 1:26 p.m.
LibDem said...

I agree that infidelity does not portend ineffective presidency. However, I think blaming patriotism may have been a mistake. Conservatives will have trouble rationalizing that. Rather he should have said that the lack of Constitutional bans on gay marriage and abortion drove him to infidelity. Conservatives could run with those two balls.

March 13, 2011 at 2:18 p.m.
fairmon said...

We all know behind every successful man is a woman. We should know behind the fall of every successful man is another woman.

March 13, 2011 at 5:33 p.m.
blackwater48 said...


Great post at 12:54 and a clear look at history, current events, and America's future.

And you're absolutely right: "Our Government must take some drastic steps to reverse the problems we now have."

Not with this Congress. Not with these 'tax cuts for the rich' Republicans. Not with these 'more deregulation' tea baggers.

They are much too busy trying to slow down the recovery and put more people out of work.

Great post though!

March 13, 2011 at 6:04 p.m.
EaTn said...

Thanks to all above for your enlightening and entertaining comments: good acts are hard to follow.

Someone alluded to Newt making all the other candidates look good. Maybe they are running the game we used when I was doing purchasing contract negotiations--the "good guy, bad guy" game. Newt would definitely have the credentials for playing the "bad guy" and make the rest of the GOP candidates look like white knights.

March 13, 2011 at 6:59 p.m.
hambone said...

Comparing what Newt did to Kennedy and Clinton is wrong. Kennedy and Clinton didn't commit their sins with the flag in one hand and the bible in the other!

March 13, 2011 at 7:19 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

kennedy committed his sins during the week and went to mass on sunday....clinton committed his sins under the same roof his wife and daughter were under, with the us flag flying above..and then made sure the press saw him carrying his hugel, white bible on sunday.....newt's excuse of patriotism for his unfaithfullness is as ridiculous as your attempt to put kennedy and clinton's behavior in a better light,'s all the same...adultery is adultery is audultery

once again..there's a double standard...a democrat can get away with anything, but a republican can't

March 13, 2011 at 8:38 p.m.
blackwater48 said...


Clinton and Kennedy may have had 'flings,' but Newt is in a different league.

He was 19 when he married his high school math teacher, and after she got sick he had an affair. He visited her in the hospital while she was recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the divorce.

Puts him in the same category as John Edwards.

Personally, I don't think he's running. He's trying to inflate his public image to promote his "Entrepreneur of the Year" scam he's been running for years.

Newt's shown the same class throughout his life which makes him unqualified to run a lemonade stand.

March 13, 2011 at 9:09 p.m.
dude_abides said...

SeaMonkey... Clinton didn't chase people around pointing and yelling like Newt did, staking claim to the moral high ground. Newt is a hypocritical pig. A Grand Old Pig. A would-be tea piggy. A Rush hog. A full boar swine.

March 13, 2011 at 10:45 p.m.
hambone said...

Kennedy has been dead for 48 years and I've never seen Clinton on CBN!

March 13, 2011 at 11:16 p.m.
trburrows said...

Some think Obama is a Muslim. I don't, but I also don't care as long as he doesn't impose it on me or the country. harp.... you dont care if he is a muslim????? burn in hell you anti american. if i see you on the street you will die because you are a muslim islamic despot.

March 13, 2011 at 11:29 p.m.
trburrows said...

Clinton and Kennedy may have had 'flings,' but Newt is in a different league.

He was 19 when he married his high school math teacher, and after she got sick he had an affair. He visited her in the hospital while she was recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the divorce.

Puts him in the same category as John Edwards.

Personally, I don't think he's running. He's trying to inflate his public image to promote his "Entrepreneur of the Year" scam he's been running for years.

Newt's shown the same class throughout his life which makes him unqualified to run a lemonade stand.

here is the post of the year...... bw is the joke of the century. no brains atol. everyone read and think about this post and then laugh and write him off as a lunitic.

March 13, 2011 at 11:45 p.m.
trburrows said...

oh by the way let me say that nothing that bw or canary has posted in the last week have been backed up with posts of facts or links. but that is typical of blowhards and fallsies.

March 14, 2011 at 12:24 a.m.
canarysong said...


"...everyone read and think about this post and then laugh and write him off as a lunitic."

I've just read YOUR 11:16 and 11:29 posts and I've written you off as a psychopath. You threatened to kill Harp if you see him in the street? What is wrong with you? If there has been anything displayed here that could be described as "anti american", it's your unbelievable level of ignorant, hateful bigotry. And there may be a "lunitic" here, but it certainly isn't Blackwater.

March 14, 2011 at 1:02 a.m.
fairmon said...


We could arrange the meeting in the street. I may help you break your bad habit of threatening people.

March 14, 2011 at 6:01 a.m.
delmar said...

in response to trburrows March 13, 2011 at 11:29 p.m post;

Unbelievable, just totally unbelievable, yet there it is. Says a lot, IMHO.

March 14, 2011 at 7:18 a.m.
woody said...

Harp, I must say, your 5:33 pm 'post' on Sunday was a classic. So much, in fact, that the "love of my life" stood reading it over my shoulder this morning, slapped me on the back and said, "...and don't forget it ...." For the record, I won't..Woody

March 14, 2011 at 7:19 a.m.
woody said...

Oh, and by the way, Harp, since you are the challenged one..what will be your choice of weaponry? If it be 'barbs' or 'harsh words' at twenty paces may I have the honor of being your 'second'? After reading quite a few 'out-of-sort posts' over the past several years right here, I can honestly say that just like the late Jimmy Durante, "...I got a million of them...."


March 14, 2011 at 7:26 a.m.
acerigger said...

I tend to agree with Bill Maher when he noted that "I don't believe that real newts are that slimey".

March 14, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.
limric said...

The Passions of Newt: I was working so hard - so passionately at the time. One perilous night, when I lifted my head from my desk, there she was. Dressed in broad stripes and bright stars. I was always a sucker for broad stripes and bright stars. It happened after a long day of exceedingly hard work. Boy was I tired from all that hard work! She knew I wanted her. And I knew she wanted me. In a flash, our clothes fell to the floor, and she whispered in my ear, "Give me your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free," and before I knew it, I saw that golden valley. Oh, the rockets' red glare! The bombs bursting in air! In that moment of indivisible union, I screamed out, "America, America! God shed His grace on thee!” I just couldn't help myself. I guess that makes me a sinner. But it also makes me a patriot. Did I mention that I was working so very hard? Great Cartoon Clay.

March 14, 2011 at 9:03 a.m.
fairmon said...


How many good men do you know that were successful then brought down by the "other woman". It must be the brain crotch connection that short circuits.

Thanks for the offer to second me on the challenge. At 6'5'' and 250lb. I may not be up to the challenge. I prefer no witnesses since the exorcism of a bad habit such as tnb has can get ugly. A significant emotional event can alter an abrasive personality. If he survives the encounter with me it may save his life later. Don't let it be said I am not sensitive to the needs of others.

March 14, 2011 at 9:24 a.m.
woody said...

Harp, as I am fond of saying, and you may quote me, "Thank you, Lord, for allowing me to outlive my youthful indiscretions." And to Limric..Whew..I thought I was going to have to turn my laptop off for a few moments to allow it to 'cool down'. Definitely a "PG13" post, but worth the read nonetheless. Fanning myself..Woody

March 14, 2011 at 10:01 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Great post, Limric.

Okay, Harp, here's my list of good men brought down by the "other woman" aka the tramp:

Gov. Mark Sanford, the vixen was a Latino - definitely not the luv Guv's fault there.

Sen. John Ensign, the vixen was his top aide's wife

Rep. Chris Lee, resigned after soliciting on Craig's List (LOL!)

Rep. Chip Pickering lived on C-Street, left Congress and wife to be with his mistress (concubine).

Sen. Larry Craig, good man brought down while soliciting other good men. Whew! Not a woman's fault this time.

Sen. Strom Thurmond, wasn't brought down due to his good slave/ maid keeping it a secret until after his death. The segregationist Senator fathered a child out of wedlock with his African American maid. This good man was allowed to live out his life of sheer hypocrisy without anyone calling him on it.

Mayor Rudy Guiliani Rudy, Rudy, Rudy... Stop you're messing around, bud. This good man has been brought down just as often as Newt from vixens. So sad.

Couple of more scandals coming down the pike soon are Speaker John Boehner and First Dude Todd Palin.

All these good men brought down by she devils. What a shame!

March 14, 2011 at 11:06 a.m.
potcat said...

The Republican Party and their Whore Newt,what are THE PARAGONS OF VIRTUE,Family VALUES and all things GOD to do? He is not really running for President, but refilling his campaign election accounts with millions of dollars to spend on travel, restaurants, hotels and who knows what the hell else. Thats what he did with his other left over money from his last run.Its GREED and the republicans know it.They just play along deceiving there base for one of their own.The Redemption Liars Club. If the Free Press editorial writters don't stop blatantly LYING on a daily basis, all in the name of GOD, its getting really offensive and they are arrogant hypocrites...They say its unrest in the middle East thats the cause of high GAS prices..LIARS..In todays top of the page Editorial 'Politicians bearing bailouts'is so insulting to ones intellect, you have to wonder who are they writting for? Its a LIE! They blame the people who bought the homes... We know thats not TRUE.It goes on and on and on, day after day. Its getting out of hand. Are they not accountable, at least to the Papper and the readers for a semblence of TRUTH!

March 14, 2011 at 11:09 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

And yes, there have been Democrats too: John Edwards, Wayne Hayes, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, and of course Bill Clinton. Add David Vitter to the GOP list. The difference? Which party touts itself as the "family values" party? Cheating is wrong, but claiming the high road when doing so is hypocrisy.

March 14, 2011 at 11:14 a.m.
limric said...

Nope Blackwater, I'm gonna have to disagree.

I think he's a shoe-in for the nomination. Yea he screwed around on his wife (s), has been divorced and remarried, as have half the republican candidates since 1980. But hey, he screwed around with women. Gingrich’s latest media coverage is a great way to distract the country from the GOP’s closet homosexuality we've come to rely on throughout the past 50 years or so. HEY - Look over there, it's something shiny.

OH, I hope to the dear lord Jesus that he and Sarah are the GOP contenders.

March 14, 2011 at 12:03 p.m.
jayhay182 said...

Why is Clay always drawing cars that are flying?

March 14, 2011 at 1:05 p.m.
blackwater48 said...


I Understand your point of view, Limric, but if he declares himself a candidate his finances will come under closer scrutiny. Full disclosure will reveal his "Entrepreneur of the Year" scam.

That's the one where he sends you a letter saying you've been 'selected' for this prestigious award from the Newtster himself and, for a mere $5K, you get to an audience, a photo of the two of you, and a fancy gavel with your name engraved.

His ego is screaming to run but I'm sure his lawyers and accountants are screaming back, NO! Don't do it! Don't open the books!

Your dream ticket of Newt and Sarah is too good to come true, but fingers crossed!

March 14, 2011 at 1:12 p.m.
canarysong said...

Harp wrote;

"It must be the brain crotch connection that short circuits"

They're connected? I never noticed. It seems that the lower areas are usually in charge, lack of adequate blood flow to the brain, perhaps. That's why women should rule the world ;-)


I think you've created a whole new genre of porn; should sell well among the tea party crowd (but they'll have to deny buying it!).

March 14, 2011 at 1:28 p.m.
limric said...

Au contra re Canarysong. It is true that the lower half of men, although dumber, commands attention. But, the increased blood flow to the female nether regions is what precipitates "Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." and...well you know. Thats why MEN rule the universe....this is as it should be. So. Could you just clean my shirts and rustle me up some grub and let the big boys tell you what to do and not to do. Oh by the way, can the little woman borrow one of your burqas for our GOP shindig this evening? Silly girl. ;-]

March 14, 2011 at 1:49 p.m.
blackwater48 said...


That's why I always ask my wife, 'I'm in charge, aren't I honey?'

March 14, 2011 at 1:52 p.m.
woody said...

Canarysong, Limric, al...I believe Tom Paul Glaser said it best when he wrote, "Put another log on the fire. Boil me up some bacon and some beans. Go outside and change one of my tires. Come back in and sew my old blue jeans...then come and tell me why you're leaving me." Or something to that effect.


March 14, 2011 at 2:08 p.m.
canarysong said...

Limric, blackwater, woody;

I'm very glad that your pig noses are the fake strap-on variety, otherwise you guys would be living alone!

March 14, 2011 at 2:27 p.m.
limric said...

Touché femme fringante. Et non, je n'aimerais pas une bouchée de votre pomme. Good night feathered femme fatale.

March 14, 2011 at 3:19 p.m.
canarysong said...


Too bad. It's a 'Gala'; described by the produce department at Whole Foods as "crisp, firm, and sweet".

March 14, 2011 at 3:37 p.m.
fairmon said...


You left off John Edwards and the late Senator Ted Kennedy.

I am glad they finally determined the speed of the the senators car at the time of the accident. Not sure the data should be posted here but reportedly it would have required a speed of 87 mph to knock her panties completely off and have them land in the glove box.

The gov. in S.C. is either the dumbest ever or he plans to write a steamy romance novel. I assume his description of the romance was a brief glimpse of the book.

Craig and Franks should play well together.

March 14, 2011 at 4:10 p.m.
canarysong said...

Good to know, harp. Was that analysis done by the NHTSA or some other agency? ;-) I think I'll keep my speedometer under 85mph!

And it just keeps on......

"Wisconsin Republican Targeted For Recall by Wife and Maid

Yes, life as a Republican sell out is tough these days. Republican state Senator Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac) is one of the eight senators being targeted by outraged Wisconsinites. When they arrived at his home bearing their recall petition, his maid answered the door. She was more than pleased to sign the petition and said she was sure his wife would also sign it. Later Mrs. Hopper appeared at the door and informed the protesters that Sen. Hopper was no longer living at this address."

Why the betrayal?

"Well, er, it turns out, Mr. Hopper was exercising his family values by living in another district with a 25 year old former state Senate committee staffer and now lobbyist. Oh, I loves it when the Republicans sleep with their dollar bills literally. It just makes the story so much easier."

"...This is what you get when you elect people who need the public to believe the false image they project. The fact that she is a lobbyist is just so predictable and leads me to wonder if Republican men can only feel mild stirrings of lust when money is in play. We should note that Randy’s mistress lobbies for Persuasion Partners, among whose clients we find Scott Walker and Americans For Prosperity (aka: Koch brothers). Yeah, wherever we look we find Republicans, Koch, and dollars. Even in their beds."

With so many of the far right politicians living in glass houses, one would think they would stop throwing stones. The gay and lesbian people I know do a much better job of representing good values (family and civic) than these hypocrites..

March 14, 2011 at 4:33 p.m.
potcat said...

Republican men only feel mild stirrings of lust when money is in play, says" Canarysong" I would add a Viagra,I hear they're minute men.Throw in some toys,"for the woman" she's going to need them and i bet one might not fall a sleep.

March 14, 2011 at 5:22 p.m.
canarysong said...


"Republican men only feel mild stirrings of lust when money is in play, says" Canarysong" "

Not my words, I'm just delivering a story; make of it what you will. I'm sure that isn't true of all republicans.

March 14, 2011 at 5:52 p.m.
fairmon said...


I am not a republican or democrat but I have to admit a well baited trap will catch me every time. I assume most people have heard of the scams happening at Home Depots, Lowe's and some fast foods. A couple of scantily clad good looking younger women come on to a guy, ask for a ride then tease and please him until one of them lifts his bill fold. One guy I know has already lost several bill folds and is buying them at the dollar store in case he loses another. He may be a republican, I don't know. It is like a lot of things, philandering doesn't appear to be limited to either party.

March 14, 2011 at 7:10 p.m.
potcat said...

Sorry for the misstatement. I am trying to cook supper,anwser a dozen questious from hubby and the phone is ringing off the hook, all while i am trying to read these post. Multi tasking is not my forte.

March 14, 2011 at 7:37 p.m.
canarysong said...


I agree completely. Human nature knows no political parties. However, as others have pointed out, the annoying hypocrisy comes in when the philandering is done by those who either ran for office under the banner of 'family values', try to have democrats impeached for the same behavior, or are among those who demonize others (like gays & lesbians) for their personal lifestyle choices. Moreover, one certainly could argue that the choice (if it even is a choice) to lead a gay/lesbian lifestyle is essentially 'victimless', while infidelity often results in hurting others, whether intended or not.

March 14, 2011 at 7:45 p.m.

A moralistic Republican exposed as a hypocrite? Yeah, right. That's about as believable as the suggestion that NPR is biased. Preposterous!!

March 14, 2011 at 7:57 p.m.

Gosh. You don't hear much about church bombings these days. At least not outside the Middle East.

And on austrian_in_alabama's CTFP page, where the hate fest re-located. I guess some folks have more tolerance for dreams of bombing religious buildings than others.

You people are scary.

March 14, 2011 at 10:58 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

What "hate fest" is that, what? AIA's page has no such thing. He made one single comment on my page, but one comment is not a "hate fest", and no one else echoed the sentiments. Aren't you a) changing the subject of this thread and b) making something out of nothing? Get a grip!

March 14, 2011 at 11:12 p.m.

A grip on bombing churches and seeing groups of Americans as "cancer?"

No thanks.

March 14, 2011 at 11:15 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Hey-it's a free country with free speech, and although what he says is a little over the top, it's no different than you seeing such things as a "hate fest", which is in essence accusing several of us of the same type of speech. You are making a mountain out of a pimple on a flea's butt, and trying to implicate others in sins they did not commit. Is this paranoia, or are you just trying to pick a fight?

March 14, 2011 at 11:19 p.m.

If someone of another political persuasion had said anything remotely similar, you guys would be livid. It just goes to show that those who pretend to be "liberals" are quite illiberal, uncivil, and sometimes even violent toward anyone dares to disagree with them.

Her comments were greeted with effusive compliments, so I guess in a warped way, it was a "love fest."

Free speech, sure. But don't scream when such hate speech is subjected to scrutiny. I can understand your embarrassment, but free speech has to work in more than one direction.

March 14, 2011 at 11:30 p.m.

"Refreshing?" "I enjoy it?"

You people are scary.

March 14, 2011 at 11:32 p.m.
fairmon said...


If I didn't know better I would conclude you are a dyed in the wool democrat and whatever they do or so has to be better than anything another party or independent could ever do or say. I admire your loyalty but with all due respect your party sucks as bad as the other, in my humble opinion.

March 15, 2011 at 12:14 a.m.
canarysong said...


"And on austrian_in_alabama's CTFP page, where the hate fest re-located. I guess some folks have more tolerance for dreams of bombing religious buildings than others."

--- Just what "hate fest" would this be? Point out even one single thing that I said that was hateful. You can't because there is nothing.

--- You expect much more respect for your religious beliefs than you are willing to give anyone who does not believe in any gods (or I suspect those who believe in different gods).

--- Saying that I do not believe what someone else believes is not the equivalent of saying that I hate them for believing what they do. Saying that I suffered as a child as a result of some of the treatment I received does not qualify as "hate speech". Saying that I worry about the direction in which this country is being taken at the hands of religious extremists does not qualify as "hate speech".

--- The "bombing" to which you are referring was a second-hand recounting of a tasteless joke told to Austrian by an American neighbor. I chose not to comment on it.

"Her comments were greeted with effusive compliments"

--- More like appreciation for having someone with whom to share feelings of being an outcast in an environment where nearly everyone else believes very differently. I offered support and a 'listening ear' because I have had very similar experiences of feeling displaced in an 'alien' culture

March 15, 2011 at 2:13 a.m.
canarysong said...


"I can understand your embarrassment"

--- I said nothing to feel embarrassed about. I very honestly related my experiences, my concerns for my children's future and the future of this country. I did not express hate because I feel none. When I have a need to label my 'beliefs', I call myself a "non-theist" rather than an atheist because atheist sounds negative to me; it connotes an 'anti' position that doesn't reflect how I feel. The only religion that I feel negatively toward is any stripe of religious extremism that seeks to impose its view of private morality on others, break down the separation between church and state, or oppress others in the name of religion.

--- I have been open enough on this forum that I think most 'regulars' know me pretty well by now. They can judge my character based on how I have conducted myself here; I feel comfortable with that.

As for what you think, I really couldn't care less.

Of the many differences between you and I, I actually like people, I really have the impression that you don't.....very sad. And I even like most people that think very differently than I do; I sometimes learn a lot from them. Some of them are in my 'real life' and some of them are on this forum. My life would not be as rich if I closed myself off from all but those who are just like me. But I do draw the line somewhere. I see no virtue in tolerating the intolerant, and those were the type of radical fundamentalists that I was referring to and that austrian was talking about as well. If that offends you, then so be it.

March 15, 2011 at 2:15 a.m.
canarysong said...

Wwwtw; This will inevitably be followed by you tiresomely nitpicking, twisting, and misrepresenting everything that ikiethlu and I said in a attempt to make us look bad. If that is the only way you can bolster your flagging ego, knock yourself out. It simply makes you look pathetic.

Maybe you should get a life!

March 15, 2011 at 2:29 a.m.
canarysong said...


"I admire your loyalty but with all due respect your party sucks as bad as the other"

I don't entirely disagree with you, I'm very sorry to say. I think the progressive movement lost its passion and focus long ago and I am disappointed with the Democratic party and often with Obama (but for very different reasons than you, I suspect). However, I still think that it is better than the alternatives that I am seeing right now, so I will be giving them my less-than-enthusiastic support. That being said, I intend to work harder than I have in decades to help ensure that the presidency and more congressional seats do not fall into the hands of the far right come the next election. The reasons are oh too many to list.

BTW, I have, on a few occasions, voted for individual Republican candidates that I happened to admire. However, I haven't seen any for a while now that impressed me.

March 15, 2011 at 2:57 a.m.
fairmon said...


I am not sure I know what a progressive agenda would be? I may agree if the term didn't have so many different descriptions. I really think you are a soft hearted, kind and gentle person to the point of being gullible in some ways which is better than those that are cruel and uncaring.

I do wonder if you see how the debt both parties are allowing to develop will devastate and destroy this country. I will be looking for capable independents to support and lacking those I don't see anything or anyone that will make the difficult and unpopular decisions necessary. The federal government is too big and unmanageable but the states and local governments are not meeting the needs of people needing it most. Protecting and supporting laziness and incompetence will never work. Assisting, educating, opportunities and allowing people to earn what they get will work.

When I see things like arbitrarily dictating the lowering of test scores instead of evaluating the test to assure it is valid and without bias and educating and better preparing candidates I can't support the AG's direction. The local president of the NAACP did not agree with the action. Policemen, firemen, EMT's that can't score higher than an F will now be hired, where is the wisdom and fairness to citizens in that? Lowering the bar is not the answer. We are already way down the list in education and to off set that failure we require employers to accept less than the best, if that is progressive count me out.

60 minutes had a report on a school this past Sunday that seemed to be getting it right. Teachers were recurited and paid well ($125,000 and up) and those not delivering were terminated. The admin cost was the principle without assistance with the facility being adequate but not elaborate. The money was being spent wisely. Kids previously failing or falling behind were learning, happy, liked the school and teachers. This is necessary for those children that don't have strong parental support and involvement.

March 15, 2011 at 6:10 a.m.
delmar said...

Okay, to help out wwwtw I read his/her posts very carefully and this is what I could glean from them.

Same same same same, same. Samesame same same. Same, samesame same same,,,,,,,,,(yawn)

March 15, 2011 at 6:47 a.m.

delmar said...

Okay, to help out wwwtw I read his/her posts very carefully and this is what I could glean from them.

Same same same same, same. Samesame same same. Same, samesame same same,,,,,,,,,(yawn)

If by your assessment, you mean that I am relatively consistent in my views, or that I am persistent in rooting out what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil," I gladly welcome the compliment.

If, however, you are simply joining others in their irrational fear of criticism, all I can offer is my sympathy and concern.

March 15, 2011 at 1:56 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

So, you are suggesting that liberals are evil, at the same level as Nazis and the final solution? Quite a stretch there, 'Pardner'. I'd like to see you connect ANYTHING I have written on this site to the Holocaust.

March 15, 2011 at 2:12 p.m.
canarysong said...


I'm afraid that you show definite signs of a delusional disorder (paranoia). It would be in your best interest to seek treatment, at least counseling, although medication may be more effective. Sorry to be so blunt, but someone needs to tell you (although I suspect that you've heard this before). Please get the help you need. No one here is your enemy.

March 15, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.

I appreciate the diagnoses, but I'm not going away. Dream on.

Part of what prompted my comments was the rank hypocrisy of those who get absolutely giddy about the hypocrisy of conservatives. When you get THAT exuberant about people getting knocked off their perches, it is usually because it was getting crowded, and you needed a little more breathing room up on the perch. (Conservatives were doing the same thing last week over the NPR thing.)

I’m not sure how to respond to canarysong. If I provide more evidence, you’ll say it’s nitpicking. I guess I’ll leave it to the reader to check out the comments for themselves. (Hurry, though, before they are restricted under the security features.) I’m not sure how a reasonably intelligent person could avoid the impression that America would be better off without conservatives who take their faith seriously. That is neither liberal nor fair.

As I’ve said before, I empathize with your frustrations dealing with obnoxious fundamentalists. But you respond by painting with a very broad brush and react by going to the other intolerant extreme.

As far as the sources of anti-intellectualism in America, I think your understanding is significantly misdirected. I agree that Americans, especially Southerners, do not value education highly enough, but if you look at declining standards over the past several decades, you would have to notice the corresponding influence of those who push the secularist agenda of entitlement and lowering the bar so everyone can effortlessly hop over. It’s the leveling effect that harp mentioned.

More later.

March 15, 2011 at 2:39 p.m.

Unlike you guys, I have never said anything negative about anyone's religion or lack thereof. I'm not being overly sensitive when I call attention to your inconsistency. Count on it.

March 15, 2011 at 2:41 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

" secularist agenda of entitlement" How is entitlement secular?

March 15, 2011 at 3:02 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"Unlike you guys, I have never said anything negative about anyone's religion or lack thereof"

The only criticism I have regarding anyone's religion is when they believe stuff that doesn't square with physical evidence. Even then, I have no problem with it as long as they are not running for office. In my mind that makes them unqualified. However, they are in a minority (except in neocon politics) In addition, I have a problem with anyone's religious believes getting in the way of my privacy and my rights as a citizen. Finally, I have a problem with someone whose moral claims as a politician does not square with their private lives when their stated goal is to impose their version of morality on the citizens of this nation. I have a great deal of respect for other's religious beliefs, even though I do not share them. Try not to make accusations that are false.

March 15, 2011 at 3:32 p.m.
canarysong said...


It's impossible to reason with someone suffering from a delusional disorder, so I'm not going to waste too much of my time trying (I've had more experience than I really care to remember dealing with people who had it), but I would like to mention two things....

First, I reject the notion that religious belief should be off limits for critical discussion, especially in regards to its effect on public policy, education, and as a cultural phenomenon (which is exactly the context in which lkeithlu, Austrian, and I were discussing it). Conservative Christians certainly don't hesitate to voice criticisms of secularism or of Islam's effect on culture; why should radical right-wing Christianity be exempt from similar scrutiny?

BTW; you will never find ANY example of me demonizing anyone for their personal faith.

Second, you quickly jump to take offense anytime anyone on this forum is even slightly critical of the religious right, shouting "insensitivity!", "bigotry!", "hypocrisy!", and yet you are completely blind (or maybe just completely uncaring) to how offensive your reference (in its hyperbolic context) to Hannah Arendt's 'banality of evil' is to Jews. To get a good look at hypocrisy, look in the mirror.

March 15, 2011 at 3:36 p.m.
canarysong said...

BTW, WhatsWrong, if you were capable of listening and of logical thought, you would realize that lkeithlu and I are among the very last people to advocate for a 'lowering of the bar'.

March 15, 2011 at 4:05 p.m.
fairmon said...


What did you think of our liberal AG arbitrarily requiring a police and fire department to reduce the passing criteria to a level of about 58% which had been an F but will now result in hiring of those unqualified but applying? There was no violation of any law I guess it is just the luck of the tax paying citizens in that town.

How do you conclude that tenure and the educational processes that have evolved over time is not lowering the bar? I reiterate that public employees should not need a union and should be compensated in the upper half of the upper fourth for like work in their labor supply area. There should be a 360 degree review process to determine who is retained and an appeal process using an arbitrator for those terminated for performance. The key test would be individual student progress not the entire school as a whole. If a teacher can move a student significantly from point A to point B during the school year as demonstrated by an independent testing process that is a good teacher.

Is it not lowering of the bar when people that are in good health and capable are given freebies with nothing ask of them including perhaps assisting others. I am confident anything free is seldom if ever cared for and appreciated.

March 15, 2011 at 6:05 p.m.

Scrutinize away at conservative ideas and policies. I'm just saying we should all get a little nervous when you guys start dreaming of bombing churches, diagnosing a prominent religious group as a cancer, and accusing your political opponents of being delusional. Those sorts of extremist sentiments have some very disconcerting implications.

In my earlier post on the lowering of educational standards, strike “secularist” and insert “progressive.” That is term more often used to describe the movement to dumb down the curriculum, subvert parental values, and allow students to call the shots. I hesitated to use the term progressive since, like “liberal,” it is such a misnomer.

As I have said before, I am truly sorry for the treatment that some of you have been subjected to in this part of the country. I’m glad your new insularity is more comfortable than the last one. It’s just that none of my Buddhist, agnostic, or atheist friends go anywhere near the hateful language and extremist remedies that some of you folks air in this forum. To say that there is no hope for America and that everyone here is stupid – “it must be in the water,” or to suggest that Europeans cannot relate to the South’s racism and religious intolerance … Again, I’m at a loss.

March 15, 2011 at 9:57 p.m.
eel said...

Personally, I would be happy with bumper sticker that had at least one female outline on it.

March 15, 2011 at 10:12 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"... hateful language and extremist remedies..." Please show me where I used hateful language or proposed extremist remedies. Otherwise, direct your comments to those who do rather than making blanket statements. And yes, young earth creationists are delusional, and should not be elected president. I have no problem saying that. Thankfully, most Christians are not YEC. But to believe in an 8000 year old earth in the 21st century shows a serious disconnect with reality. The information is out there for anyone to discover, so it is either due to laziness or religious delusion that one would still think that the earth was young and that god created it as is. Either way, it does not instill confidence in those who one governs.

March 15, 2011 at 10:18 p.m.

lkeithlu,I couldn't agree more.

March 15, 2011 at 10:59 p.m.

eel, Good point.

March 15, 2011 at 11:04 p.m.


I pushed it over the 100 mark for the first time this month. I want a cut of your bonus.

March 15, 2011 at 11:09 p.m.
canarysong said...


"hateful language and extremist remedies"

Give specific examples of something hateful or extremist that either I or lkeithlu said or go talk to the person that said it instead and stop putting other people's words into our mouths.

Wow, that German to English translation must have taken you all evening; btw, you didn't do such a great job. And look what 'evil' you unearthed!!! I made a joke that something in the water must be responsible for making some voters stupid enough to put tea party candidates into office.......oooohh! How extremist! Call homeland security! Call the FBI (oh, scratch that, that would be 'big government', wouldn't it?) I guess that most late-night talk show hosts and comedians should be hauled away as well, they make jokes that are much more 'extreme'. It's a good thing this great country has you acting as its censor!

"...accusing your political opponents of being delusional..."

I don't call my political opponents delusional; I treat most of them with a great deal of respect, as is evidenced by my interactions with Harp. I call delusional people delusional, but only when they become so abusively manipulative and dishonest that I can no longer bite my tongue.

btw; I haven't seen you take responsibility for that tasteless reference to Hannah Arendt.

March 15, 2011 at 11:18 p.m.
canarysong said...

Www wrote;


I pushed it over the 100 mark for the first time this month. I want a cut of your bonus."

Yes, by all means, pat yourself on the back for playing games baiting people, lying about what they say, and engaging in a pathetic bid for attention. Unbelievable!

March 15, 2011 at 11:28 p.m.

Fear mongering about the participation of religious people in the political process is a desperate diversion from the more serious internal problems facing the west. The elephant in the room is the pervasive normalizing of evil, as Hannah Arendt insightfully described in her writings. I will elaborate more in coming days. It’s bedtime.

March 15, 2011 at 11:46 p.m.
trburrows said...

can, bw, etc, i have seen no respect from any of yous to any of us ever.

March 16, 2011 at 3:20 a.m.
fairmon said...


Do you consider us political opponents? I didn't know you viewed me as a delusional opponent although I had concluded that about you on some issues. You keep insisting I am conservative because I don't endorse every idiotic plan or agenda your party supports. But, neither do I support the agenda of stupidity of the other party. I think we may be in agreement on more issues than you think but we disagree to an extreme on the process for achieving them.

I wonder why when people post one source and copy one article it is called plagiarism but when multiple articles with similar bogus or skewed statistics and opinions are used it is called research.

People do tend to reach a conclusion then search for articles and information that supports their conclusion while ignoring or rejecting opposing views as not valid.

March 16, 2011 at 6:13 a.m.
canarysong said...


I do consider you a political opponent because, as you correctly pointed out, we usually see very different ways of reaching the same goal. But I have never seen you, or any other serious, thoughtful, and rational opponent as delusional. Despite your many strengths, you do have a couple of shortcomings (as we all do), one is that you sometimes don't read carefully enough. PLEASE go back and carefully reread the last part of my 11:18pm post; I really don't want you to be left with the wrong impression. If it still looks the same to you, let me know; maybe I was unclear in my wording.

I agree with you far more often than you think I do, but often only up to a certain point, and then our perspectives diverge. I do think that we (and most people, for that matter) want essentially the same things, and I think that you have a compassionate heart, something that seems to be in increasingly short supply these days.

You see me as being idealistic and naive about some things, and I sometimes also see you as naive in another way. You see issues primarily from a financial and business-oriented perspective, based upon your training and life experience. Sometimes I feel that you place too much trust in business to do what is right, or at least you feel that if what they do isn't working things will eventually shake out and equilibrium will be restored.

I see things from the perspective of someone who has paid an extremely high personal price for the lax regulation of businesses that have a high potential to damage human lives. I have also spent years trying to help others who have been similarly harmed. You simply could not believe the suffering that I have seen good people, often whole families endure. Some have died, others are among the 'walking wounded' who struggle with every day. All in the name of the 'bottom line'. We tend to forget that in that 'cost vs. benefit' analysis, the cost is sometimes human life. Human beings are too often treated as a disposable commodity; try asking the children of any of the victims if their mommy or daddy is 'disposable'. My small children spent too many days by my bedside over the years scared that I was going to die.

The fact is that society needs both our perspectives in order to provide balance and help avoid costly error. Dialogue can be difficult, but it is vital that we keep trying to pursue it with respect and with an open mind. The issues we face today are too important to allow it to become stalled by those who are more interested in pointless bickering than in working together to find real solutions.

March 16, 2011 at 5:02 p.m.
canarysong said...

BTW harp,

I appreciate the fact that you are one of those that can engage in in respectful dialogue. (I didn't want you to misunderstand and think that I was accusing you of 'pointless bickering'!)

March 16, 2011 at 5:42 p.m.


I'll get right to the point. I'll buy you a beer and a cheeseburger if you'll stay away from canarysong's koolaid.

She's nice (unless you criticize her), but the push for more state control of the economy has sapped us of our productivity and our freedom. Private associations and intermediary institutions are far more effective at addressing the needs of the poor than is the heavy, clumsy hand of the state.

I agree that strict adherance to a party or an ideology is a bad thing. It leads people to putting their ideology above human interests. Ideologues don't want to hear more than one point of view, so they marginalize their opponents by insulting them or calling them names.

Disagreeing with Obama isn't a sign of someone's independence. It's a sign that they won't tolerate the compromises and moderation that every president eventually has to make, especially when his party loses power in Congress. It basically means that he's not as extreme as he promised them he would be. It's an example of uncompromising ideology. Many of the newly elected Republicans in Congress act the same way with their party's leadership.

It seems like you're committed to maintaining your independence. I'm glad. I hope you'll resist the allure of the "liberal" label. The ideas that are now called "liberal" have very little to do with the views of the advocates of liberty who founded this country. Their liberalism emphasized free market principles, individual liberty, and traditional morality. The term was hijacked a century or so ago by proponents of the radical agenda of wealth redistribution.

Progressives are often nice. It's great to have access to their enlightenment. But their policies are wrecking our schools and businesses and exacerbating the problems of the poor. I know first-hand.

It's your decision. I just wanted to chime in with the offer of a cheeseburger, a beer, and nonexclusive common sense. Keep posting.

March 17, 2011 at 2:15 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


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.