published Saturday, May 26th, 2012

Bennett Archive: Justice

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 ...

159
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.
Easy123 said...

Great cartoon Clay!

May 26, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.
joneses said...

Just another biased stupid cartoon from Clay's fantasy land of lies and misinformation.

May 26, 2012 at 6:51 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Simple. Not a very good toon.

May 26, 2012 at 7:23 a.m.
MTJohn said...

This cartoon should read equal justice under the law for wealthy male heterosexuals for northern European descent.

May 26, 2012 at 7:32 a.m.
SICKofBS said...

Joneses, it's not from a fantasy land of lies and misinformation. It's the truth. As a gay man, I know first hand the inequities that are subject to gays and lesbians. First and foremost, we have no right of survivorship, even if the deceased has stipulated in an official last will and testament. If the deceased's family/next of kin so desires, they can contest a will or any other legal document giving survivorship or power of attorney, etc and have it overturned in a court of law. And yes, it does happens. Next of kin has and sometimes does prohibit the the surviving partner from access to the dying just because they don't agree with the patient's/deceased relationship. That is first and foremost why we want the right to marry. A gay and lesbian couple can be in a relationship for many years, even decades. But if the sick or deceased patients next of kin decide they want to bar the life partner from accessing them or having any decisions regarding estate or right of survivorship or care, the courts decide on the side of the family most of the time. Regardless what the patient/deceased may have officially put in a living will/power of attorney/last will and testament. So yes, we are NOT afforded the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. And before you go claiming it is a choice, don't even. I would give anything if I had not had these feelings MY WHOLE LIFE for the same sex. I tried many times to be straight, but it never felt normal to me. Some may choose to be gay, as well as some gays/lesbians may choose to live straight but for a vast majority of us, it is not a choice at all.

May 26, 2012 at 7:34 a.m.
sunnydelight said...

I am definately not gay / lesbian and I agree with SICKofBS. Here we have a know nothing about the subject Joneses spouting out BS. Then we have a person who lives the life everyday and knows first hand the real truth . The same principal applies to a lot of post in this column . It seems the same posters do this everyday. We should be intelligent enough to listen to those who have been there done that . I guess the key word here is intellgent. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT SEX .

May 26, 2012 at 8:35 a.m.
Easy123 said...

SickofBS,

Things are going to change, maybe not in my or your lifetime, but they will. There are many people in the world including myself that support gay and lesbian rights and are willing to fight this great injustice. It is a shame on the human race that gays and lesbians are treated the way they are.

May 26, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Seems ol gay Clay got his rainbow brite panties all in a twist again.

May 26, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

TOES: Clay123 has a great agent, no doubt.

May 26, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

SICKofBS, thanks for sharing your thoughts. If that doesn't open some people's eyes, nothing will. Unfortunately there are many who post on here, like joneses and his narrow minded self-righteous brethren, whose eyes, not to mention their minds, seem to be glued permanently shut.

Anyone who thinks that being gay is nothing but a lifestyle "choice" truly has their heads buried in the sand. It doesn't take years of exhaustive scientific or psychological research to realize this. All anyone needs to do is stop looking at gays as some weird species from another planet and get to know them firsthand. It will become readily obvious to them that being gay is not a choice but a genetic, biological predisposition. They did not reach puberty and then "decide" to lust after their own sex, just as I and other heterosexuals did not make the "choice" to lust after girls at the age of 12 or 13. I think that many of the gay bashers realize this but they want to cling to the notion that gays "choose" their lifestyle because to sustain that belief helps to justify their righteous indignation. It allows the christians to keep on viewing homosexuality as a "sin," and nothing is more important to them than looking at the world in terms of saints and sinners, God and Satan, good an evil. Indeed they know of no other way of looking at the world. They don't know how to deal with the vast grey area that much of life is comprised of. It's sad, really. Plus, they make life a bitch for people who just want nothing more than to get along and live in peace, with the same rights as everybody else.

May 26, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes and Jack,

I hope that you both will finally remove your respective heads from your respective rectums in the near future. But, for you two at least, I think your ignorance and blatant stupidity is, in fact, "a choice".

May 26, 2012 at 11:09 a.m.

That damn Constitution, getting in the way of the right of the Catholic Church to control things. If only they could get back to anointing our leaders!

I wonder if the Pope has threatened to excommunicate John Roberts if he rules against the church.

May 26, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

So Easy123. Because I think Clay123 ain't the greatest cartoonist, you think I'm blatantly stupid?

May 26, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.
Easy123 said...

No. I've read your posts before! You're trying to stir the pot. This cartoon is very accurate despite your dislike for Clay Bennett. If you don't believe that then your stupidity is even more apparent.

May 26, 2012 at 11:20 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy, despite your name calling, I'm not stirring the pot. My sense of Bennett's mediocre talent has nothing to do with the point of this cartoon. It's not subtle, not witty, not edgy...just blah. Perhaps, Easy, you should stop trying to paint everyone into a box.

May 26, 2012 at 11:26 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The Wart sure does like to obsess over gay rights. I think he must have about a half dozen brain cells rattling around in that gourd he uses for a head.

May 26, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Most people do fit nicely in boxes.

Exhibit A: BigRidgePatriot

May 26, 2012 at 11:31 a.m.
songbird said...

Rickaroo, so when child molesters lust after a little child, is that a genetic, biological predisposition too? Be careful before you answer because we wouldn't want you justifying your righteous indignation.

May 26, 2012 at 11:41 a.m.
prairie_dog said...

This is really funny. There is no "equal justice" for anyone. Everybody involved in the civil and criminal justice systems lies for a profit, and the people who go there seeking justice and protection are on their first trip . . . they quickly learn it's not worth a second trip.

It's a lot easier to draw cartoons, etc., than to do the hard work necessary to qualify for public service in the courts and justice systems. If you don't like the fact that the system doesn't support your ideas of equality and fairness, then you need to get a million of your friends to drop the art classes and study law so they can spend the next 30 years taking over the system and change things for the better.

May 26, 2012 at 11:51 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Songbird,

Lust is genetic. The type of person you lust after is also something decided in your subconscious. I know for a fact that when my grandmother got married at 16 in the late 1940's that her 21 year old husband was not a child molester. And that is likely the case for most of the older generation in our country. People got married younger back then and had children younger as well. Being attracted to young looking men or women is not unnatural. However, the actions of molestation and rape of these minors are separate from simple animal attraction. Those actions are universally immoral.

May 26, 2012 at 11:52 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Rickaroo, so when child molesters lust after a little child, is that a genetic, biological predisposition too?

It most likely is. However, unlike two consenting adults, child molesters have a victim, who cannot give consent, so sex with children is illegal and immoral. DO NOT try to equate homosexual relationships between ADULTS to pedophilia.

May 26, 2012 at 11:53 a.m.
rick1 said...

Easy123, you have no problem calling TOES and Jack stupid and ignorant because they do not have the same views on gay marriage as you do. Would you tell a Muslim who practices Islam that they are stupid and ignorant? Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed. Those who post on here condem Christians who are against gay marriage, but never say a word about Islam. If you are going to fight for the rights of gays you better start taking on those who practice Islam, as they are much more dangerous to gays then the Christians in this country and throughout the world.

May 26, 2012 at 11:53 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Is it true that Obama's SAT scores were lower than that of George W? How hilarious! The leftist god is not the mental giant the MSM would have us believe? His performance as president certainly bears this out.

If GW was stupid, what does that make Obama?

May 26, 2012 at 11:55 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick1,

I am in total agreement about Islam. And if there were Islamic posters on this site then I would be the first to oppose their views. I assure you of that. I am just trying to address the vast majority of the posters on here and the nearly 80% of Americans that label themselves "Christian". I oppose any religion that would deny the rights of others.

May 26, 2012 at 12:01 p.m.
rick1 said...

BRP, another great vetting job by the liberal media just like this clip where Tom Blowchow and Charlie Rose admit they know very little asbout Obama one week before the election.

May 26, 2012 at 12:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Please explain how Obama is Marxist? And please tell me how being "Progressive" is negative? I also sense a little racism in your last sentence.

May 26, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Songbird, lkeithlu said it perfectly. I don't know how I could elaborate on it any better. I don't see how anyone can even remotely equate child molestation with two consenting adults doing what they wish behind closed doors. There is both hetero- and homosexual child molestation. They are both equally heinous and aberrant, involving a helpless victim.

May 26, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

I didn't vote for Obama. I didn't vote at all actually. I don't support him because he is black. By the way, he is only half African American. Guess what the other half is? Yep, you guessed it, Caucasian. I think he has done some good and some bad. He could have done more good, in my opinion, but I think he deserves a second term. And he is infinitely better for the job than Willard Mitt Romney.

Who "qualifies" to be a president? Mitt Romney? Or maybe G. W. Bush?

How is he destroying the US economy? And please give specifics for all your negative "Progressive" claims.

May 26, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

I don't understand your point on marriage. It's a slippery slope argument that has no basis. Mormons actually do sanction polygamy. Yay Mitt!

May 26, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Here is some proof that he is doing better than his predecessors!

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/05/ideologue-stupidity-federal-spending.html http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html

The economy is bad for sure. But in what way did Obama directly cause it? Please provide specific examples.

And both men have polygamy in their family histories. It just so happens that Mitt Romney still worships at the church that still holds polygamy to be a viable marriage option!

May 26, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Those aren't scenarios? They are statistics presented from pretty reliable sources. Please show how they are false.

P.S. Yes, many Mormons do subscribe to polygamy.

According to the Attorney General of Utah, about 40,000 Fundamentalist Mormons still live according to "the principle" of polygyny as established by Joseph Smith.

According to Principle Voices of Polygamy, a group which promotes plural marriage, there are about 37,000 people live in polygynous families in the western U.S. Of this number, on the order of 10,000 live in the border-straddling twin cities of Hildale, UT, and Colorado City, AZ.

I suppose Fox News failed to mention that. And the fact that Mormonism is not a Christian doctrine, sect or denomination.

May 26, 2012 at 12:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

WOW! I guess choosing ignorance over intelligence is more favorable in your opinion. Well, I'll keep my education. And you can keep your ignorance. By the way, I don't watch CNN or listen to NPR. And this country could only be going downhill because of ignorant people like you.

Give evidence for the inaccuracy of those statistics. You can't just say "They are wrong" and not back it up.

May 26, 2012 at 1:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Yes, education is usually a requirement for intelligence. You still haven't presented any proof of what Obama has done to destroy the economy. Or proof that he is Marxist.

May 26, 2012 at 1:11 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

The southpaws on here love to talk about Mormanism. Yet another red herring to deflect attention away from BHO's abysmal record.

May 26, 2012 at 1:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

It's not a red herring. How can you consciously vote for someone that believes this:

Also, please give examples of Obama's "abysmal record".

May 26, 2012 at 1:26 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Who says Romney believes it? With respect to BHO's record...what's to like? What has he done? Passed unpopular (and maybe unconstitutional health reform...appt a whitehouse full of ex-lobbyist....what else?

May 26, 2012 at 1:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

Romney is a Mormon. That's what Mormons believe. This is probably the reason why Romney won't field questions about his religion. It is a cult.

ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Did you know that?

And I would argue that he has done many things. Bin Laden is dead, saved the US auto industry, supporting gay marriage, struck down Don't Ask, Don't Tell, created and saved millions of jobs, and the list goes on.

May 26, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.
rick1 said...

The report from marketwatch saying Obama has spent less is falling apart. Even Obama's own hometown newspaper has written an article showing the piece from marketwatch is not accurate.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-bc-us--obama-spending-factcheck1stld-writethru,0,1501947.story

May 26, 2012 at 1:47 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Easy, you cannot argue - at least not rationally - with these nitwits who keep whining that Obama is a Marxist. They clearly do not even know what Marxism is all about. If Obama were a Marxist he would be pushing for complete ownership of business. Instead of bailing out the auto and banking industries when they were down, he would have attempted to take them over. If he truly believed in state or collective ownership and administration of all business, which is the basic tenet of socialism, he would be fighting for that. Instead his few lame attempts at regulation have only served to reinforce and perpetuate the capitalist system. He has stated emphatically, many times over, that he is very much a believer in the free enterprise system and he has not done anything that would indicate otherwise.

For all you "Marxist" ranters and whiners: In the days of Eisenhower (Republican) the tax rate on the rich was 90% and Ike continually justified that rate. He also wanted to institute a system of universal health coverage for all Americans before anyone even thought about Medicare. And he is of course well known for his hand in creating our Interstate highway system backed in large part by government funding. If Obama is a closet Marxist, then Ike might as well have been a card-carrying Communist.

It's pointless to even try to argue with the teabagging dumb asses who keep crying "Marxist." They are clueless and filled with nothing but hate. You might as well argue with a brick wall, or worse yet a mangey mutt that's foaming at the mouth.

May 26, 2012 at 1:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick1,

That's the same article by Andrew Taylor from the Associated Press presented by JonRoss. It provides no citation or references. And Andrew Taylor does not write for the Chicago Tribune.

Rickaroo,

I know. I just like a good challenge! It's funny that no one has provided any proofs for anything they say negatively about Obama. Or proof for his Marxism/socialism etc. Gotta keep fighting this ignorance Rickaroo!

May 26, 2012 at 1:51 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: Yes, I heard to Romney-care model deal about 700 times.
BinLaden is dead because the CIA and others finally tracked him down. Obama gets credit for being on duty when it happened. Any president would have made the call. As for supporting gay marriage, that's a good thing only in the eye of the beholder...not a huge accomplishment to run on. Same with DADT. Not exactly a powerful resume'. (no, I have no problem with doing away with DADT in the military)

May 26, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

What accomplishment would be worthy to run on in your opinion? I noticed you ignored the auto industry bailout and the saving and creation of millions of American jobs part.

May 26, 2012 at 1:59 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Easy, I'm glad you are not so cynical, as I usually am. For sure, darkness needs to be dispelled with light, lies need to be exposed with truth. But honestly I think that most of these sheeple will not wake up by words or facts alone but only when it's too late and their comfort zone is completely destroyed, as it soon will be under our present corrupted government and decaying economic system.

May 26, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Gotta go now. I have had all the BS I can stand from the small minded haters for one day.

May 26, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.
shifarobe said...

Homosexuals don't just want equal rights, they want to be recognized and praised for their sexual acts. They want to be thought of as normal. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN, NO HOW, NO WAY. What they do in their private lives is their business, OBVIOUSLY, but that's not good enough for them. A man having sex with another man is repulsive and depraved. IT JUST SIMPLY IS.

May 26, 2012 at 2:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

shifarobe,

Give an example of them wanting to be "praised' for their sexual acts.

You are a bigot. You are repulsive and depraved and ignorant and immoral and backward.

May 26, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy, the money Obama spent in 2009 is being charged to the Bush budget for that same year. It is very simple they are playing with the numbers but you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

As far as Obama and his views on capitialism goes remember he said in his book Dreams From My Father that he felt like a spy behind enemy lines when he worked briefly as a researcher for a consulting house to a multinational corporation. He also promised that the price of electricity, which business and capitalism depend on would skyrocket if the industry used fuel he didn't approve of.

Let us not forget how he attacked Boeing with the NLRB after Boeing built a plant in S.C. which is a right to work State. This was done to only help his union buddies and resulted in delaying production of airlines and costing Boeing over $1 billion dollars and left a thousand workers unemployed during the time producted was halted.

He only bailed out GM and Chrysler to pay back is union buddies. Don't tell me he saved the auto indusrty because GM said they needed a bailoiut to keep from going into bankruptcy and after receiving $60 billion they still filed for bankruptcy and Obama took control and screwed over the creditors. Why couldn't GM have gone into bankruptcy with out the govt, taking over. Also when Obama took over GM (and for those who say he did not run GM do not forget he forced former CEO Rick Waggoner out) Obama closed plants and dealerships with people losing their jobs and plants have opened in other countries. Obama sounds like Private Eqquity Manager like Romney was with Bain Capital.

Obama has also attacked capitialism by doing the following: Trying to put private insurers out of business and taking over one- seventh of the economy through ObamaCare.

Dodd/Frank bill which is going to cripple the bank industry and nationalizing the student loan program.

Blocking the Keystone XL pipeline.

Delayed approval of the South Korea, Colombia and Panama trade deals.

Huge increases in costly regulations.

Wants to take away tax breaks to oil companies but keep these same tax breaks in place for all other industries. This would increase the tax burden on the oil industry which will get passed down to consumers.

Easy123, the recession ended in the summer of 2009 and the unemployment rate has not come down below 8%, and the private sector is adding less then 200,000 new jobs a month. Do you find this acceptable? Say what you want about Bush but take a look at the unemployment rate when he was in office. It never went above 6% until the recession hit which occurred after the democrats took control of both the House and Senate in 2007.

Please tell me what Obama has done, which has been good for the economy.

Obama is no friend of capitialism.

May 26, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
SICKofBS said...

shifarobe said... A man having sex with another man is repulsive and depraved.

Well, that is your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. My opinion is, sex with a woman is repulsive. Almost as repulsive as your hate filled ignorant rants. You might as well be in cahoots with Fred Phelps and his freak sideshow family.

May 26, 2012 at 2:49 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy said Bin Laden is dead, saved the US auto industry, supporting gay marriage, struck down Don't Ask, Don't Tell, created and saved millions of jobs, and the list goes on.

I did nt know Obama went to Pakistan and personally killed Bin Laden. The intell that was developed to eventally locate Bin Laden came from enhanced interrogation that Obama was against and also was looking at criminal charges at the CIA Agents who conducted those interviews.

Supported Gay Marriage. He was against it until just two weeks ago and then stated it should be a States Rights issue. If he was fully committed why wouldn't he have pushed for gay marriage as a civil rights issue when Dems had full control of the House and Senate. Tell me what jobs Obama created in the private sector. The billions he has given to green energy companies has been a failure since they have laid off or have gone bankrupt after receiving stimulis money. Please tell provide this list you talk about.

May 26, 2012 at 3:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I presented 5 lists above. And I think the private sector job growth is at like 140,000-160,000 per month under Obama.

May 26, 2012 at 3:14 p.m.
conservative said...

Did you ever notice how atheists, sexual perverts, pot heads, fools, Lieberals and Demoncrats agree on so much?

May 26, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy, and 140,000 to 160,000 per month is not going to get the unemployment level down to where it was prior to the recession. Is that acceptable to you, to have European style type unemployment rates. When you look at the job recovery after previous recessions since the Great Depression, this proves Obama's policies are not working.

May 26, 2012 at 3:51 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

I'll give BHO this. He's come a long way from the Choom Gang. And soooooo presidential. Bwahahahaha

May 26, 2012 at 4 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Sexual perverts? You mean gays and lesbians? Did you ever notice how christians, republicans, ignorant people and 2nd century Palestinian zealots agree on so much? Oh yeah, Hitler too! It's pretty wild.

tu_quoque,

That's not self-hatred. It is, if I may speak for SickfoBS, hatred of being hated and contempt for the heterosexuals that hurl the insults at them. Gays and lesbians are not accepted by the majority of our society and, I'm sure, they are distraught over that. Hating people for their nature is a great evil. It's a terribly immoral thing. And your bigotry and immoral beliefs deserve no respect anywhere. You are the sad, pathetic excuse for a human being. People like you are the worst kind of people.

Rick1,

The private sector job growth is about the same under Obama as it was under Bush. And Obama had a worse economy to work with. His policies are working. We were just in a recession. They worked surprisingly well actually.

JackDennis,

I'm sure you ridiculed G. W. Bush for his cocaine addiction and drinking problem, correct? And he soooooo got 2 terms! HAHAHAHA!

May 26, 2012 at 4:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Great observation!? Another nonsensical assertion from you. Give examples of him "endangering" anyone.

May 26, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Who cares? Bush abused harder drugs. Was that a big deal? But how did he "endanger" people?

May 26, 2012 at 4:18 p.m.
alprova said...

John Ross wrote: "Facts are that Barack Hussien Obama, advertised as a "Constitutional law professor" actually taught only one class."

Still spreading your misinformation, I see. The fact of the matter is that the President taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, beginning in 1992 and ending in 2004.

"His employment as a "professor" was simply to provide him income by the U. of C. so he could promote his Progressive/Marxist filth on campus and the surrounding community. Like many colleges the U. of C. has a rather large cadre to lefty/Progressive/Marxist thuggery on the faculty."

Please take note of the fact that you are merely expressing your opinions and nothing rooted in fact. Your opinion based assessments of the man are of no consequence.

"Obama is Marxist because he is intentionally destroying the U.S. economy."

Contrary to your opinion, the economy of this nation has been steadily improving for all but a handful of months since he has been in office. While many people ignorantly look at a President to blame when things are bad, the fact is that the man has done nothing at all to "destroy" the economy. It **is"" improving.

"Being Progressive means that you support stealing, by threat of force, the hard earned posessions of one group of people to be given to a second group, so that second group will support you politically. Simple as that."

I suppose in your simple mind, it is indeed that simple. The fact of the matter is that the President has made some decisions, both good and bad, in every attempt to salvage this nation from slipping into a full-blown recession. Much good has come out of those decisions. Some bad results, which he takes full responsibility for, has also occurred.

It's very easy to sit where you are, and to digest sources of information that you select, and repeat what you read and hear. The only problem is that you are stuck in negative mode and that's all you see.

You're blind and wallowing in ignorance.

May 26, 2012 at 4:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu_quoque,

You do realize that this supports Rickaroo's argument, correct?

May 26, 2012 at 4:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

You have a serious problem of projecting. It's sad. Alprova's post said more in a few paragraphs than you have said in every post you have written on this site.

If Romney wins, I can't wait to see how bad it gets! I'm fairly certain he won't win, but the point remains. And there's nothing you and Jesus can do to stop it!

May 26, 2012 at 4:37 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Did you ever notice how atheists, sexual perverts, pot heads, fools, Lieberals and Demoncrats agree on so much?

Ever notice how SOME conservatives are willing to lie to make their points?

I have no problem with Bush or Obama experimenting with drugs and alcohol. Neither put their families at risk, nor drove under the influence, so there was no victim.

AS far as plural marriage, tu qu has a point: there is no ethical reason to ban plural marriages between consenting adults. The obstacle is that laws of power of attorney, benefits of life insurance and others are written nation wide for ONE beneficiary; changing the laws to determine which spouse had priority would have to happen first. But hey, if we elect our first Mormon prez, that may be sooner than we think!

May 26, 2012 at 4:38 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al said Much good has come out of those decisions. Some bad results, which he takes full responsibility for, has also occurred.

Please tell us what Obama has taken responsibility for.

May 26, 2012 at 4:40 p.m.
davisss13 said...

Republicans have lost their GD minds. I read through half a dozen of these posts from the rightwankers and I must say I've never seen these clowns act so desperate or crazy.

You're blind and wallowing in ignorance.

Not all of them. Some realize what they are doing. They hate the US government and want to tear this country to pieces so they can rebuild it according to their twisted beliefs and so-called moral standards.

May 26, 2012 at 4:42 p.m.
davisss13 said...

Ever notice how SOME conservatives are willing to lie to make their points?

Some?

May 26, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.
davisss13 said...

Makes sense doesn't it.

Only to an amoral rightwanker.

May 26, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "This place really sucks. It seems to be packed with college edubacated clowns who have been spoon fed tripe and limit their information intake to CNN and NPR. No wonder this country is going to hell."

In reading the above, am I to deduce that you are not college educated?

You're wrong about where most of us get our information from. I can only speak for myself, but I begin my news intake every single day of the week by browsing Fox News, then CNN, then Drudge Report, then MSNBC, then ABC News, and then three of the local outlets. I have the TFP delivered to my place of business seven days a week. On occasion, I browse USA Today and other news sources, depending on what is going on in the local area, the State, nationally, or around the world.

"The numbers are simply false. They were structured by the Obama regime and fed for distribution to CNN, NPR, NYT. They bit for a few hours but are now pulling back."

I'm going to assume that you are referring to the President's statement that alludes to the quoted fact that the rate of spending since he has been in office is the lowest in 60 years.

He's right and the justification and proof of that statement can be found at:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

May 26, 2012 at 4:45 p.m.
davisss13 said...

Kind of like the definition of torture.

May 26, 2012 at 4:45 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Republicans,

I think the 2 wars we were in, defense spending, the Bush tax cuts, 2008 stimulus, TARP bailouts etc. were all done on Bush's watch and directly impacted our descent into the recession.

It's funny how you say, Oh just because Bin Laden was killed on Obama's watch doesn't mean he can take credit for it. But then you blast him for blaming Bush for things that Bush actually did. Your logic is flawed.

May 26, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu_qupqtip and JonRoss,

Nothing either of you say has any basis. It's all moronic gibberish. Keep up the good work. Look at your posts and then look at the posts of others. Yours look like they were written by 10 year old children. That is the kind of logic you both use. Adolescent humor, false premises and misinformation. That is all you post. Throw Conservative in that mix too.

May 26, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

Did you read the quote you used?

"Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

Rickaroo said:

"Anyone who thinks that being gay is nothing but a lifestyle "choice" truly has their heads buried in the sand. It doesn't take years of exhaustive scientific or psychological research to realize this...It will become readily obvious to them that being gay is not a choice but a genetic, biological predisposition."

That coincides directly with your article.

May 26, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

But hey, the truthiness of that statement shows that what few brain cells you have are rectal-loaded as your brain stem and colon are one and the same.

And yet you cannot address the content of my post. Color me surprised.

May 26, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.
NGAdad said...

JonRoss ... hello. Coming to court on your felony charges or not buddy? Gonna have to find another public defender, again, broke ass?

Oh, and soooo sorry about that chapter seven finally putting you out of the place you've been squatting in.

But on the bright side with all this time on your hands, you can come here and call everyone else louses!! Projecting master are you. (and very poorly educated)

May 26, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

I'm calling BS on your BS. I am not scared of violent dealings with any opposition. I supported those cartoons and I am opposed to the violence by the Muslims on the cartoonists. I felt the same way about Salman Rushdie. Anyone or any religion that tries to squelch free speech is my enemy.

May 26, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al said "I'm going to assume that you are referring to the President's statement that alludes to the quoted fact that the rate of spending since he has been in office is the lowest in 60 years."

"He's right and the justification and proof of that statement can be found at:"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

Al, if you are an accountant as you say you are then you would have to agree after reading the below article that the numbers being used are bogus. Be truthful on this Al, as you tell everyone you only report the truth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html#pagebreak

May 26, 2012 at 5:17 p.m.

tu_quoque, it's certainly been disappointing for the American Taliban. Like in Oklahoma where they were all for banning Sharia. I think they were afraid of it being imported from Texas.

Apparently their religious freedom is important, but not that of others.

And just post a cartoon that ridicules Jesus, if you want to see sputtering outrage and violent threats.

May 26, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

You can't read can you?

"No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any PARTICULAR factor or factors.”

Therefore, scientists can attribute it to MANY factors within the realms of NATURE and NURTURE. When it says "Many think", it is referring to the SCIENTISTS.

It is baffling that you can't understand that.

Imbecile!

May 26, 2012 at 5:25 p.m.
rick1 said...

Blubs, are you in favor of Sharia law being used in this country?

May 26, 2012 at 5:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

Many Mormons do approve of and practice polygamy.

According to the Attorney General of Utah, about 40,000 Fundamentalist Mormons still live according to "the principle" of polygyny as established by Joseph Smith.

According to Principle Voices of Polygamy, a group which promotes plural marriage, there are about 37,000 people living in polygynous families in the western U.S. Of this number, on the order of 10,000 live in the border-straddling twin cities of Hildale, UT, and Colorado City, AZ.

May 26, 2012 at 5:37 p.m.
conservative said...

When sexual perverts "marry" how can one sodomite claim he got aids from the other sodomite?

May 26, 2012 at 5:45 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"Sodomite"? A little second century jargon, ehh? Can I start using the word "coitus"? I've always wanted to.

How can one coitus participating individual claim he/she got herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, HIV, genital warts, trichomoniasis, chlamydia, HPV and hepatitis from another coitus participating individual?

May 26, 2012 at 5:54 p.m.
potcat said...

There are four same-sex marriage lawsuits making their way toward the Supreme Court now. Perry v. Brown, the challenge to California's Proposition 8, is the most ambitious and, perhaps, the least likely to succeed-at least, in its boardest aim, of establishing a national right to marry for Gay couples. Gill v. Office of Personnel Management- three challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act,the badly discriminatory statute that the Obama Administration has instructed its justice Department to stop defending- have a stronger chance. These cases seek fair treatment for the hundred thousand same-sex couples who are legally married in their own states but whose marriages are not recognized by the federal goverment. As a result, they face the loss of insurance benefits for spouses of federal employees and menbers of the armed services, tax and Social Security disadvantages, and so on- in addition to the insult of being defined as second- class citizens for reasons that it would be hard to classify as anything other than prejudice.

Manufactured cowboy Bush was arrested in Maine on DUI, and the famous fight with Poppy,he had his little brother with him when he took out a street of trash cans. Big Bar wrote about it in her book, and he was drunk.

May 26, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

You can't read can you?

"No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any PARTICULAR factor or factors.”

Therefore, scientists can attribute it to MANY factors within the realms of NATURE and NURTURE. When it says "Many think", it is referring to the SCIENTISTS. It is baffling that you can't understand that.

Imbecile! Dimwit!

May 26, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I'll capitalize the parts that you need to read sweetheart.

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is DETERMINED BY ANY PARTICULAR FACTOR OR FACTORS. MANY THINK (replace this phrase with SCIENTISTS) THAT NATURE AND NURTURE BOTH PLAY COMPLEX ROLES; MOST PEOPLE EXPERIENCE LITTLE OR NO SENSE OF CHOICE ABOUT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Rickaroo said that it wasn't a choice. Your article supports that.

Rickaroo said that homosexuality was genetic and biological. Genetic and biological are NATURE. NURTURE is how you are raised. So Rickaroo included half of the given explanations for homosexuality.

Rickaroo's assertions about choice and genetic/biological factors are correct. And it is proved by your quote.

May 26, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Lots of typical leftist hypocrisy here. Ever broadminded except when it isn't convenient. All for any religion, or NO religion, EXCEPT for Romney's Mormonism. Curious.

May 26, 2012 at 6:37 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

Please give examples.

May 26, 2012 at 6:38 p.m.
conservative said...

You watch, one day homosexuals will argue that if they are allowed to "marry", there won't be a toilet lid problem.

May 26, 2012 at 6:50 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: Examples? Half the southpaws on here are bustin his chops about being a Mormon, polygamy, and so forth.

May 26, 2012 at 6:58 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Your joke fails to address the lesbian homosexual couples.

May 26, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

I don't think it's a much busting his chops as it is exposing his beliefs. And exposing the fact that Mormonism is not Christian despite what many people apparently think.

May 26, 2012 at 7:01 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: What's to expose? If he was a Mormon, the left would have no problem with him. Right? Tell the truth?

May 26, 2012 at 7:05 p.m.
conservative said...

Easy...

You might want to rethink that.

May 26, 2012 at 7:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

He is Mormon. And the left has a problem with him because he is a right winger. I don't understand your reasoning.

Conservative,

Have you ever heard of a transsexual, hermaphrodite, or sex changes? And I could postulate that some gay men urinate sitting down.

May 26, 2012 at 7:20 p.m.

Rick1, I'm not the one calling for the freedom of any religion to trump the laws of the state.

The people who want us to kowtow to their religion in our laws are the ones paving that road.

At least, as long as it is their religion. They're quite fine with suppressing other religions for some reason.

Can you figure out what it is?

Jack_Dennis, don't even pretend you wouldn't be making a huge issue if it were the situation reversed. The right-wing's fabricated accusations of being a Muslim against President Obama are evidence to discredit that. For me, pointing out how you go silent and pretend to be hands off is a demonstration of IOKIYAR in action.

May 26, 2012 at 7:26 p.m.
conservative said...

So the joke or point is not valid bcause because you can think of an exception. Are you an exception?

May 26, 2012 at 7:38 p.m.

conservative, you should try out for standup. Seriously, go to New York City RIGHT NOW. Don't stop, don't wait, just go.

You're wasting your life here. You're comedy gold.

May 26, 2012 at 7:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...

If by exception you mean homosexual, then no. But it's thoughtful for you to ask.

May 26, 2012 at 7:45 p.m.
conservative said...

No I don't mean by exception homosexual, lesbians are already homosexual. You brought up exceptions to lesbians,transsexual, hermaphrodite, or sex changes.

Exception would be a very small minority to lesbians in general. You either still don't get it or you are trying to cover the fact you were trying to be a smart aleck and I caught you.

May 26, 2012 at 7:59 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "He also promised that the price of electricity, which business and capitalism depend on would skyrocket if the industry used fuel he didn't approve of."

That is a complete distortion of what the man said. It's not about "fuel that he approves of." He is unapologetic in his endeavor to wisely convert this nation from a dependency of polluting fossil fuels strictly for the sake of saving money. The time to make conversions from fossil fuels to clean sources of energy occurred thirty years ago.

"Let us not forget how he attacked Boeing with the NLRB after Boeing built a plant in S.C. which is a right to work State. This was done to only help his union buddies and resulted in delaying production of airlines and costing Boeing over $1 billion dollars and left a thousand workers unemployed during the time producted was halted."

Hogwash. You do realize that the President was never personally involved in that dispute, do you not? Second, the dispute was settled and the NLRB dropped its complaint once Boeing renewed its contracts in Washington State with the Machinist's Union there. Jobs in both states were preserved.

"He only bailed out GM and Chrysler to pay back is union buddies. (snipped)"

First of all, the President did not "take over" GM. His involvement consisted of requiring the GM to rework its business plan, accelerate its operational restructuring and make far greater reductions in its outstanding liabilities. The President made clear that every one of the Company’s stakeholders would be expected to sacrifice, and that none would receive special treatment because of the involvement of the government. The resulting agreement was tough but fair, and it garnered broad support from GM’s major stakeholders, the workers, and GM management.

Rick Wagoner was asked to step down by Steven Rattner, the investment banker picked by the Obama Administration to lead the **Treasury Department's auto-industry task force." Wagoner was asked to step down for not playing ball to do enough to slash debt and cut costs as part of the giant automaker's agreement with the government.

You present all the above as if the President was making the decisions. That's pure bunk. The management at GM made all the ultimate decisions, as was required and set forth by the Treasury Department's auto industry's task force...period.

Had the Government not stepped in at the time, the company would have ceased operations, it would have been liquidated to satisfy the creditors, and hundreds of thousands of jobs would have been lost forever. Instead, creditors were paid, the company was kept in operation and it was salvaged.

Criticize what happened all you want. The fact is that the Government saved GM and it is paying off in spades. For sure, union jobs were saved, but so were many non-union positions, and nobody on the planet has a legitimate gripe to offer today in regard to what was done.

May 26, 2012 at 8:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Lol. I guess you discriminate against the minority members of minority groups too. Those are groups within gay and lesbians. "Caught me"? I was just making sure everyone was included in your stupid joke.

May 26, 2012 at 8:08 p.m.
moonpie said...

I thought conservative's joke was kind of funny.


As for nature vs nurture, it is doubtful that an explanation of homosexuality is simply genetic. It may be developmental as well. The more we learn about reproductive biology, it is becoming more and more apparent that the hormonal environment that children are exposed to in utero has effects on health and adult tendencies even in behavior. Androgenization of the brain can occur in female animals including humans. Neural function can also be modified after birth. In significant ways, the human brain does not complete development until the twenties.

We have not identified the genes that make people uniquely black, asian, etc. So, if there is a gene, or genes, which predispose indiduals to be homosexual it is no wonder that we have not found it. It may actually be the regulation of a gene influenced by environment that is responsible.

Our understanding of nature vs nurture in homosexuality is beyond our current scientific understanding. That does not disprove a biologic basis, as tu quoque seems to believe.

For now, I think we need to rely on the best evidence we have, which is the personal experience of people who are homosexual. I, for one, trust those who say they were always gay.

I do believe that ultimately we will understand the functional differences in the brain between straight and gay people. Functional MRI and PET scan studies, while in their infancy, are leading us closer to unraveling this mystery, at least in seeing real biologic differences.

May 26, 2012 at 8:19 p.m.
potcat said...

Toliet problems, nah. How about humans born with a vagina and a penis or people who are Asexual. Interracial marriage would not had been approved by ballot measure,either.Because majorities do not VOTE to protect the rights of minorites,the South will never, its up to elected representatives,"not the south", and more important the courts-to insure those rights, civil rights.Its not a state issue but a Federal one. Thats why marriage equality is a historical inevitability.

The devide is a matter not of life stages but but of generations: people generally do not become more conservative on this issue as they get older. The era they grow up in shapes them permanently.If you are under 35, you are more likely to have come of age knowing people who are openly gay and are more educated and understand genetics. One day, not long from now, it will be hard to remenber what worried people so much about gay and lesbian couples committing themselves to marriage.

We Will Evolve!!!

May 26, 2012 at 8:20 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "Obama has also attacked capitialism by doing the following: Trying to put private insurers out of business and taking over one- seventh of the economy through ObamaCare."

More utter hogwash, given that insurers are focally involved and considered in every facet of Obamacare. In fact, the requirements set forth in it call for insurers to reap immense rewards with its full implementation. Requiring everyone to have health insurance in place, regardless of one's health status, will result in an easing of the current system where only those at risk for health related expenses being the only ones paying into the system.

"Blocking the Keystone XL pipeline."

On April 17, 2012, the President stated, "There are politicians who say that if we just drilled more, then gas prices would come down right away. What they don’t say is that we have been drilling more. Under my administration, America is producing more oil than at any time in the last eight years. We’ve opened up new areas for exploration. We've quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some."

The United States has added enough oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth at the Equator since Obama took office. In March of this year, he signed an executive order streamlining the permitting and construction process of a new crude oil pipeline to Gulf Coast refineries. No less than 29,604 additional miles of pipeline has been built since he took office.

As you can clearly see, there's more to the story than just one pipeline that has yet to be fast-tacked for Republican political purposes.

"Delayed approval of the South Korea, Colombia and Panama trade deals."

You can blame Congressional Democrats for holding up those deals, but not the President. He was the one to ultimately send them to Congress, in October of 2011, with his full endorsement and urgency to pass them.

"Huge increases in costly regulations."

I'll challenge you like I have everyone else who repeats this garbage. Cite any "costly regulation" that the President himself has had a direct hand in imposing.

"Wants to take away tax breaks to oil companies but keep these same tax breaks in place for all other industries. This would increase the tax burden on the oil industry which will get passed down to consumers."

Have you looked at the balance sheets of all the oil companies lately? They are reporting massive and record profits, all while receiving tax breaks. You offer this as if the oil companies do not routinely look for any reason under the sun to stick it to consumers as things stand now.

The last time crude prices are what they are now, the price of gasoline was at least 40 cents cheaper per gallon. Welfare awarded oil companies needed to end a decade ago.

May 26, 2012 at 8:33 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

conservative, it would be a minor miracle if you actually posted something without lies in it.

Tuqu, you did not address the content of my post-you just went off on a rant. Wanna try again, or admit you have nothing to say?

May 26, 2012 at 8:45 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "The recession ended in the summer of 2009 and the unemployment rate has not come down below 8%, and the private sector is adding less then 200,000 new jobs a month."

Here's a news flash for you. Although the economy has slowly but steadily improved, the recession is STILL ongoing. The nation has not recovered yet and any expectation that it should have by now, is just plain asinine. Every recession recorded over the past century has taken at least eight years to rebound to comfortable levels.

"Do you find this acceptable?"

Given where we were three and a half years ago, you bet your sweet bippy that I find the progress extremely acceptable.

"Say what you want about Bush but take a look at the unemployment rate when he was in office. It never went above 6% until the recession hit which occurred after the democrats took control of both the House and Senate in 2007."

Okay...you feel that the Democrats are totally responsible for what happened. Then I'm sure that you can cite exactly what they did that triggered the collapse of our nation's economy.

Cite them.

"Please tell me what Obama has done, which has been good for the economy."

Your first mistake is in your assumption that ANY President has it within his power to wave a magic wand to rectify this nation's economy in three and a half years. It has never been done in the history of this nation.

It took nearly twenty years after the Great Depression to upright the economy of the United States, and had World War II not come along, it might have taken another twenty years more.

"Obama is no friend of capitialism."

Your opinion is duly noted, but like so many other people who express similar notions, it will never be rooted in truth or fact.

May 26, 2012 at 8:47 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al,please explain to me why American Airlines had to go under a normal Chapter 11 bankruptcy and follow the rule of established law last year and GM and Chrysler did not have to follow the same rule of law? As I said in my earlier post Obama's objectiuve was to take care of the UAW.

American Airlines has valuable assets, trademarks, airport gates, routes, and skilled employees. Either a more competitive new American Airlines will emerge from bankruptcy, or it will be acquired by another owner. GM should have gone through the same process.

The Obama Adminstration forced Waggoner out so yes Obama was involved in Waggoner being forced out. If you believe for one second Obama was not calling the shots to take care of his union buddies then explain how UAW members left their jobs with a $25,000 new car and $20,000 cash? You really believe GM made that decision?

Please read the two links I provided and try to do so with an open mind. As an accountant I'm sure you are some what familiar with bankruptcy laws and this was not following the rule of law for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/02/06/american-airlines-shows-the-corruption-of-obamas-gm-bailout/

http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/21/bailout-autoworkers-unions.html

May 26, 2012 at 9 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

@ bulbs: Where is the proof that Obama is NOT a Muslim! C'mon man!...BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA....the name alone sure doesn't ring South Beach now does it? The fact that he lies about it says that he's trying to hide it. It kind of reminds me of when Clinton used to walk into church with his bible. A complete sham and photo op.

You don't care what happens to this country, as long as the republicans don't win you're happy!

May 26, 2012 at 9:04 p.m.
mymy said...

A movie is coming out in June based on NY Time best seller by Dinesh D’Souza. He is an Author, Speaker, President of King’s College in NY City.

First watch the short trailer and then D’Souza’s talk to CPAC about it. Could not say it better myself. His points re foreign policy is exactly my similar thoughts for some time. Why is he doing this and not doing that. He also has put many of the pieces of Obama together: Who is Obama? We all need to know especially his blind vigorous supporters.

http://2016themovie.com/

May 26, 2012 at 9:08 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, Obama's healthcare law will put private insurance companies out of business. A majority of companies that currently offer health insurance have said they will stop offering this benefit and will pay the fine instead. This will force these people to go medicaid which the govt insurance will be.

Drilling has increased on private land andd not on federal land Al. Obama know this and still wants to take credit for this as well ahich is dishonest.

Al remember in January 2011 when Obama said he had a new get tough policy on overregulation. Obama said "rules have gotten out of balance” and “have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs,” Obama pledged a comprehensive review of regulations imposed by the federal government. He Obama has admitted to over regulation. Please see the below link for more information. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/red-tape-rising-obama-era-regulation-at-the-three-year-mark

With the trade agreements you can not blame the democrats or republicans as these agreements were sitting on Obama's desk while he was out traveling around the country blaming the republicans.

So, if a company makes a profit we should take their tax break away? Is that what you are saying? Or we should just take them away from big oil, banks and the insurance industry because they are evil?

May 26, 2012 at 9:19 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote of the President's change of mind regarding same-sex marriage: "Supported Gay Marriage. He was against it until just two weeks ago and then stated it should be a States Rights issue."

He's not alone in changing his mind on the issue. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken earlier this month, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal. Thirty-nine percent, a new low, say gay marriage should be illegal. Six years ago, 36 percent thought it should be legal.

59 percent of African Americans now say they support same-sex marriage, up from 41 percent six years ago.

People, including the President of the United States, are free to change their minds at any time they so choose to do so.

"If he was fully committed why wouldn't he have pushed for gay marriage as a civil rights issue when Dems had full control of the House and Senate."

For one simple reason: Marriage has always been controlled and regulated by the states.

"Tell me what jobs Obama created in the private sector."

No President has the power to create any jobs in the private sector.

"The billions he has given to green energy companies has been a failure since they have laid off or have gone bankrupt after receiving stimulis money."

Do you know why that is true? Americans are selfish, spoiled, and apathetic when it comes to renewable energy, and thus, are not ready to begin to make the sacrifices necessary to convert to renewable sources. The rest of the world is kicking us in our collective butts on this issue.

That isn't going to stop a good portion of people in this nation from moving in that direction in spite of an all-out effort by those who make their living selling fossil fuels to this nation from doing what will eventually become urgent the longer it is ignored.

Oil companies have bought and paid for our politicians in Washington to resist such a conversion. One day, it will be too late to make an easy or planned conversion to renewable sources of energy.

Do you think that these people now making and banking profits from fossil fuels care one whit about you, once their sources of income are all pumped from the ground?

Not on your life. They, unlike most Americans, will have the monetary resources at their disposal to convert, leaving most of America twisting in the wind.

It's a shame that you and others with your mindset cannot comprehend this.

May 26, 2012 at 9:32 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al the recession ended in June 2009, though lingering effects such as high unemployment continued to plague the United States well beyond that date.

"In determining that a trough occurred in June 2009, the committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity," the NBER reported in September 2010. "Rather, the committee determined only that the recession ended and a recovery began in that month."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/When-Did-The-Great-Recession-End.htm

recession, I'm sorry I misspoke this started in the 1990's with the policy on home ownership. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/01/bloomberg-to-ows-congress-caused-the-mortgage-crisis-not-the-banks/

Presidents economic policies play a big part on how the economy recovers. After 16 months into the economic recovery under Reagan the nation’s unemployment had already fallen a full three points. After 16 months into the economic recovery under Obama the nation’s unemployment rate is actually .1 points higher.

You mention it took nearly twenty years after the Great Depression to upright the economy of the United States, and had World War II not come along, it might have taken another twenty years more.

Do you see a pattern here with FDR's and Obama's policies. More government control , spedning and higher taxes do not work.

May 26, 2012 at 9:41 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "ALPROVA, I have read and reread your babble and it really is amusing. There is nothing rational or concrete in your rambling. It is the typical marathon of words that Progressives spew and lap up."

Is that the best you can do? Really...you might as well say, "Nanny nanny poo poo, I know more than you do."

"The God King taught one class, part time."

Source of your ignorant claim? I will be happy to provide dozens of links to back up the fact that he taught for 12 years.

"And the economy is now plunging back into recession because of the God King's intentional mismanagement."

Sorry, for as much as you would like to think so, the simple fact is that the economy has been improving steadily since he has been in office, not that he deserves any or all the credit.

I challenge you to cite evidence to the contrary, as well as any evidence that the man has "intentionally mismanaged" a thing.

"Governor Romney is going to whip the Barry's arse unlike anything we have seen in several decades. And there is nothing you, 123, CNN or NPR can do to stop it."

You most certainly live in Fantasyland, that's for sure. There isn't a poll on the planet that begins to support such a conclusion, and you should know it.

When Romney selects his running mate, it may well be all over from that point on. I read yesterday that Donald Trump is in the running. OMG.

May 26, 2012 at 9:43 p.m.
mymy said...

alprova said...

"People, including the President of the United States, are free to change their minds at any time they so choose to do so."

BUT Republicans can't: they are then called flip floppers. I guess the Democrats just evolve.

The lefties are so brain dead. Excuse me, they have no brain.

May 26, 2012 at 9:46 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

mymy: pretty much

May 26, 2012 at 9:48 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, said "Tell me what jobs Obama created in the private sector."

"No President has the power to create any jobs in the private sector."

Excatly so please tell that to Easy123 as this is what he posted earlier stating Obama created and saved millions of jobs, and the list goes on.

Of course Obama giving close to a billion dollars of taxpayer money to business that were failing to begain with and Obama knew they were in trouble like Solynda and they ended up going bankrupt is our fault. Obama has no responsability in any of this does he? He continues to pick and choose what industries and unions he wants to succeed and who he wants to pay back to and we are paying for it. Of course this is all our fault.

May 26, 2012 at 9:50 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "Please tell us what Obama has taken responsibility for."

I could cite many, but I'll select one such session from 2011.

On July 6, 2011, he categorically stated, "Even I did not realize the magnitude [of the recession], because most economists didn’t realize the magnitude of the recession until fairly far into it," Mr. Obama said. "I think people may not have been prepared for how long this was going to take, and why we were going to have to make some very difficult decisions and choices. I take responsibility for that."

"The economy lost about 8 million jobs during the recession that began in December 2007, and the recovery has been adding jobs at a pace of, at most, 100,000 to 200,000 jobs per month. That’s way too long for a lot of folks who are still out of work."

May 26, 2012 at 9:56 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "My guess alprova is that I probably have more formal education than you."

Maybe, but you'd never know it by reading the purely unsubstantiated, and ignorance that you spew.

"And I source from a variety of places."

Been to NewsMax lately? Your tripe and theirs resembles each other quite frequently.

"Including regime outlets such as CNN and NPR. So don't blow me that arrogant Progressive bullcrap."

Sir, with all due respect, and that would be very little at this point, I am hardly a Progressive. I live in reality and deal only in verifiable facts and truth.

May 26, 2012 at 10:03 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "Al, if you are an accountant as you say you are then you would have to agree after reading the below article that the numbers being used are bogus. Be truthful on this Al, as you tell everyone you only report the truth."

You're free to consider any source you feel that supports the position you agree with, but in my humble estimation, Politifact, which has established a firm record of impartiality, reliability, and works extremely hard not to be refuted, more than trumps the musings of a blogger submitted post on the Washington Times website.

May 26, 2012 at 10:12 p.m.
mymy said...

FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim

Summary:

"So how does Obama measure up?

If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations — an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin — you get the following picture: —A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama. —A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis."

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CbkUcBPaDsADQ7QtDMD

May 26, 2012 at 10:26 p.m.

TOES02800, keep pushing that, your claims are becoming more and more far-fetched. You're upset by his name and diverse background? I thought America was about diversity and being a melting pot. Apparently that is not the case. Who knew?

If Republicans and their mouthpieces such as Donald Trump continue to offer such shams as that, we'll be better off without them being anywhere near any responsibility.

I wouldn't trust them with my plumbing. Probably best Joe never went through on his business plan.

Mymy, now go find the fact-check in that fact-check. And if you want to know why Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper, it's because he doesn't admit changing his mind, he professes to have always held a given position without acknowledging a change. Sometimes he even tries to hold both positions at once.

But you'll never notice, since you can't question him.

May 26, 2012 at 10:45 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al said You're free to consider any source you feel that supports the position you agree with, but in my humble estimation, Politifact, which has established a firm record of impartiality, reliability, and works extremely hard not to be refuted, more than trumps the musings of a blogger submitted post on the Washington Times website.

Al you did not even read the link I proivided because if you had you wopuld have seen it was from the washington post not the washington times. Are ytou afraid to know the truth Al? You claim you are for the truth yet you refuse to read something that will prove you wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html#pagebreak

May 26, 2012 at 11:03 p.m.
mymy said...

Happy: Better get your head out of the bulbs.

Obama's America 2016-the movie: when it comes out in June, I bet it will be a block buster.

I want the latest Obama "Choom Gang" out of the WH.

May 26, 2012 at 11:09 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al when you talk about big oil paying off our politicians are you talking Obama being paid off as well? The New York Times reports: "those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times."

But the most explosive allegation in the news story comes from former Democratic congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Ted Kenney, who calls what the Obama White House is doing "quid pro quo."

Al said "Do you think that these people now making and banking profits from fossil fuels care one whit about you, once their sources of income are all pumped from the ground?"

These people also produce other types of energy besides fossil fuel and oil companies employee hundrerd of thousands of people. I don't care what if they care one whit for me. But since you have such strong feelings about big oil stop purchasing their product. Do you thinbk Solyandra gave a crap about you when the too $500 million of tax payer money knowing they were not going to make it any ways.

But seriously Al since you have such strong feelings against big oil then you have a ethical and moral obligation to stop purchasing their products and that includes all oil base products.

May 26, 2012 at 11:23 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "Al,please explain to me why American Airlines had to go under a normal Chapter 11 bankruptcy and follow the rule of established law last year and GM and Chrysler did not have to follow the same rule of law? As I said in my earlier post Obama's objectiuve was to take care of the UAW."

You do realize that American Airlines pilots, flight attendants and transport workers are all union employees, don't you? That dog will not hunt.

I think the more valid explanation is that while the parent company, AMR Corporation, filed for bankruptcy and asked the bankruptcy court to force a reduction in its labor costs and to be allowed to emerge as a stand-alone company, the court thought it best to merge with one of three different airlines interested in taking over the "distressed" carrier.

The unions testified in court that they had all reached an agreement with U.S. Airways, one of the parties interested in purchasing the airline. The court advised AMR Corporation to reach an agreement with the employees or else it would force a merger.

At the time that GM was in trouble, there was no one willing or with enough resources to step up to the plate to purchase GM. Had it not been saved, GM would have foundered.

"The Obama Adminstration forced Waggoner out so yes Obama was involved in Waggoner being forced out."

You have no evidence to prove that he ever had one word to say in that matter. The Treasury Department appointed a panel to oversee the details of the Gov't assisted bankruptcy.

"If you believe for one second Obama was not calling the shots to take care of his union buddies then explain how UAW members left their jobs with a $25,000 new car and $20,000 cash? You really believe GM made that decision?"

Absolutely. Auto companies have offered early buyout packages to line workers routinely over the years when economic forces dictated the trimming labor expenses were necessary. I have two close friends who each worked for Ford and GM in Atlanta, who were laid off in 2006 and 2008 respectfully, both of whom were offered similar deals when those plants were on the chopping block.

"Please read the two links I provided and try to do so with an open mind. As an accountant I'm sure you are some what familiar with bankruptcy laws and this was not following the rule of law for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy."

I never said that there was anything routine in the Gov't assisted bankruptcy of GM. But I do happen to agree that it was a good thing and that it absolutely saved the taxpayers money to do so, even if the end result is that several billion may be lost forever.

What may or will be lost when all is said and done, is going to be a drop in the bucket compared to what would have been paid out in unemployment compensation to what would have been a loss of nearly 2.5 million jobs, by the time that the fallout would have reached the indirect or supplier jobs and the expenditure-induced jobs.

May 26, 2012 at 11:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick1,

Your speech about the private sector jobs is false. Look it up.

May 26, 2012 at 11:43 p.m.

mymy, maybe you should watch the movie about Mitt Romney. It would be a cure for insomnia, except it tends to cause whiplash with the position changing.

rick1, and if you donate enough money, you can have Dinner with Donald Trump and Mitt Romney! Maybe they'll eat Pizza with a fork.

May 26, 2012 at 11:50 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

C'mon bulbs!! I never said Obama wasn't born American!! I do however, believe he's a Muslim! And as a Muslim, he hates the infidels (Americans)! He believes this is an unjust country from it's founding!! And he believes that America only became great off the backs of the rest of the world.

That's why the very first thing he did as president was to go off on his American apology tour of the world. He's as anti-American as one can get! And now he's running his campaign against capitalism.

And why does Obama "evolve" and Romney "flip-flop"?

Rose colored glasses perhaps bulbs?

and one more tid-bit. The liberal news only mentioned John Kerry's wealth three times in the same three month period before the election. So far, the same networks have mentioned Romney's wealth 27 times. Not biased now are we?

May 26, 2012 at 11:54 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

I'd rather eat pizza with Trump than sip champagne with Cloony! Talk about out of touch!!

Remember Obama's quote last week, "I sometimes forget the magnitude of the recession". Now THAT'S out of touch folks!!

May 27, 2012 at 12:04 a.m.

You remarked on his name and his background, that's what I criticized you on using as your far-fetched claims to back your wild theories.

Yeah, keep pushing this Obama is a secret Muslim claim. It'll really show your true colors. Never mind that your story about that is as false as your already refuted claim about an apology tour and about running against capitalism.

But um, if you don't know why Romney is a flip-flopper, again it's because Romney never admits changing his mind.

You're also lying about John Kerry's Wealth mentions. Three times? Based on what metric? You could have produced a source. But you didn't. You just took it as given that I'd believe you on it.

But hey, you know what? John Kerry wasn't running on any business skills. He got that money from his wife. That's why he didn't use that as his platform. He ran on his history in politics. What history is Mitt Romney running on again?

May 27, 2012 at 12:14 a.m.

You mean his actual words of:

"OBAMA: It was a house of cards, and it collapsed in the most destructive worst crisis that we've seen since the Great Depression. And sometimes, people forget the magnitude of it, you know? And you saw some of that I think in the video that was shown. Sometimes, I forget.

In the last six months of 2008, while we were campaigning, nearly 3 million of our neighbors lost their jobs. Eight hundred thousand lost their jobs in the month that I took office. And it was tough. But the American people proved they were tougher."

Wow, kinda twisting his words out of what they really were, huh?

May 27, 2012 at 12:16 a.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "Al, Obama's healthcare law will put private insurance companies out of business. A majority of companies that currently offer health insurance have said they will stop offering this benefit and will pay the fine instead. This will force these people to go medicaid which the govt insurance will be."

Hype and paranoia rules the day. Given that Obamacare provides employers generous tax and other incentives today to employers who provide health insurance to their employees, it would seem that there are many people willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

"Drilling has increased on private land andd not on federal land Al. Obama know this and still wants to take credit for this as well ahich is dishonest."

He never said that he was directly responsible for all the increases in oil production. The market prices have done most of that. U.S. production always skyrockets when the prices at the pump increase.

The fact remains that since he has been in office, the number of miles of oil pipeline that have been built in the U.S. and that are now in operation, would circle the entire Earth at the equator.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/23/barack-obama/obama-says-new-miles-pipeline-could-stretch-around/

"Al remember in January 2011 when Obama said he had a new get tough policy on overregulation. Obama said "rules have gotten out of balance” and “have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs,” Obama pledged a comprehensive review of regulations imposed by the federal government. He Obama has admitted to over regulation."

And? Earlier, you alluded that these over-regulations were directly attributable to the man himself. Let's discuss some of these new burdensome regulations that the article you quote cites.

May 27, 2012 at 1:40 a.m.
alprova said...

"Increased minimum-wage rates for foreign workers employed under the H-2B visa program. The final rule was strongly opposed by employers."

But of course. Employers want every incentive not to be forced to hire Americans and instead to be allowed to hire cheap foreign workers. Do you disagree with that regulation?

"Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Ejection Mitigation." "Requires modification of air bags and window design to reduce the possibility of vehicle occupants being ejected in a crash. New standards will increase the average sticker price of cars and light trucks by $53 to $200."

You love your family members, don't you? What possible disagreement could you have with keeping them safe, should a crash occur? If you can't afford a new car, there will always be a bunch of used ones for you to choose from.

"Securities and Exchange Commission, "Issuer Review of Assets in Offerings of Asset-Backed Securities." Implemented a provision of Dodd–Frank requiring issuers who register the offer and sale of an asset-backed security (ABS) to review the assets underlying the ABS. Critics argued that the new rule will "only cause the market to seize up further, rather than get credit flowing again as intended."

You do realize that tainted and worthless asset based securities sold to unsuspecting investors were what led to a wiping out of up to 40 percent of what many people had in their 401K accounts in 2008, don't you? I lost a bundle that year before I knew what was happening. So did half of America.

Accountability and monitoring of these investments is absolutely necessary, due to the actions of those who were in the know and who still have not been made to pay for what they did.

"Environmental Protection Agency, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters." Established new emissions standards for hundreds of thousands of commercial, institutional, and industrial boilers. The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners pegged the total cost of the regulation at $14.5 billion. The U.S. Small Business Administration warned that the rules would cause "significant new regulatory costs" for businesses, institutions, and municipalities across the country. A Commerce Department analysis reportedly concluded that the rules as originally configured would cause job losses of 40,000 to 60,000—much greater than the EPA had claimed"

You do care about the quality of the air that you and your children will breath for years to come, don't you? I see up there that jobs may be on the line, but we can't be spewing filth into the air that we breath forever. If a company can't afford to scrape up the funds to clean up their act over a period of time, then I'm sorry, but they need to close the doors.

May 27, 2012 at 1:40 a.m.
alprova said...

"Office of the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, "Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service." Required IRS certification of tax preparers."

You may not be aware of the simple fact that the instance of people hired by tax preparers ill informed in how to prepare a tax returns, was rampant. Mistakes, intentional misrepresentations, and outright scams, were out of control. One tax firm right here in Chattanooga ripped off hundreds, if not thousands of customers, causing people to have to fork over mucho dinero to the IRS in penalties and fines.

"Department of Housing and Urban Development, "SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act: Minimum Licensing Standards and Oversight Responsibilities." Set minimum standards for state licensing and registration of residential mortgage loan originators and requirements for operating the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry."

This one is a no-brainer. The mortgage crisis was caused in large part by the influx of unqualified and unregulated mortgage underwriters. This was a direct result of the replacement of the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933 with Gramm-Leach-Blilely Act of 1999.

These tainted mortgages were dumped on Wall Street and when they exploded, half of America lost billions in investments in asset backed securities.

"Federal Reserve Board, "Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing." Imposed price controls on the fees banks may charge to process debit-card transactions, as authorized under Dodd–Frank. Banking industry claims that losses of $6.6 billion annually will force cancellation of rewards programs, higher fees on checking accounts, and annual fees for credit cards."

A mixed bag here. Banks loved people who routinely overdrew their bank accounts. People of limited means were faced with exploding and compounding fees when they made mistakes and tried a transaction with insufficient funds to cover the transaction. Payments made to many banks for credit cards were not applied immediately when received, resulting in complaint after complaint.

The bad apples in the banking industry brought these regulations down on the heads of everyone else.

And on and on and on. The institution of most of the regulations contained on that page were due in large part to strive to save lives, to put dishonest people out of business, or to prevent consumer rip-offs.

In a perfect world, regulations would be unnecessary, but we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a cesspool of people who have little regard for others.

The EPA is and always has been out of control on many issues that they are empowered to regulate. But they are a necessary evil, in that if they did not clamp down much of the time, the instance of death and disease would be totally off the chart.

May 27, 2012 at 1:41 a.m.
alprova said...

"So, if a company makes a profit we should take their tax break away? Is that what you are saying? Or we should just take them away from big oil, banks and the insurance industry because they are evil?"

Please don't put words in my fingers. I never use the word "evil" to describe any business. I am in business to make a profit too.

As a businessman, I know and understand that I must pay gobs of money in the form of taxes to be allowed to operate my business. When it comes to big oil, it has write-offs that I will never be allowed to write-off.

For instance, when an oil company wants to drill a well, it is immediately allowed to deduct costs for labor, drilling and rig time. These are known in the tax code as "intangible drilling costs."

For most businesses, expenses incurred for the intent of producing future income must be written off over time, not right away. Oil companies, depending on the size of the company, are allowed to write-off 70%-100% of these expenses the year they incur them.

The IRS taxes companies on profits earned both inside the United States and in foreign countries under a system known as worldwide taxation. The IRS allows an exemption from dual taxation, where they can claim a tax credit for any taxes paid to a foreign country. The credit reduces the amount they pay the IRS.

Sounds fair...right?

Oil companies receive profits from the foreign countries that they do business in. Oil companies are often subjected to higher corporate tax rates than other domestic corporations doing business in a given country.

The problem is and the criticism involved, is that the higher rates they claim and are allowed to write-off in choosing to do business in these foreign countries, amounts to a royalty for access to the country, not a valid income tax to be credited against U.S. taxes.

Smaller oil companies are allowed to write-off 15 percent a year for the depletion of oil and gas resources in the ground, instead of deducting the decline in the value over time.

Many large U.S. companies, mainly engaged in manufacturing, are allowed to write-off 9 percent of their income from property manufactured, grown, extracted or produced in the United States.

Oil companies are allowed to claim a 6 percent deduction. Oil producers are not engaged in manufacturing. Given the current price of oil, and the price at the pumps, and the massive profits being reported, these deductions for the oil industry need to be suspended, at least until there is justification in allowing such deductions.

"With the trade agreements you can not blame the democrats or republicans as these agreements were sitting on Obama's desk while he was out traveling around the country blaming the republicans."

Huh? Where did you get that idea from? Approval and passage of them had to come from Congress first. Congress, and admittedly the Democrats, were the ones holding up progress on those agreements.

May 27, 2012 at 1:43 a.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "Of course Obama giving close to a billion dollars of taxpayer money to business that were failing to begain with and Obama knew they were in trouble like Solynda and they ended up going bankrupt is our fault."

The negotiations and the approval process concerning the loan to Solyndra began while GWB was in office, during 2005. The people involved with the final approval of that loan worked under both Administrations.

In August 2009, an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, was the person who pushed for a quick and final decision on the loan. According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so that Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a personal appearance at the groundbreaking ceremony.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that President Obama nor Vice-President Joe Biden was ever directly involved at any time in pushing for the decision regarding that loan.

People love to declare that the confirmed campaign contributions to the President helped seal the deal. There have been several investigations started and concluded, and not one of them has found any evidence that the President or the Vice-President had any role whatsoever in the $535 million loan approval for Solyndra.

"Obama has no responsability in any of this does he?"

Not according to any Federal or independent investigation to date. And believe me, there are plenty of people out there who have tried to pin it on him.

There are lots of accusations and unsubstantiated rumors out there.

"He continues to pick and choose what industries and unions he wants to succeed and who he wants to pay back to and we are paying for it. Of course this is all our fault."

Of course. Everything is a conspiracy. Sheesh.

May 27, 2012 at 2:12 a.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "Al you did not even read the link I proivided because if you had you wopuld have seen it was from the washington post not the washington times."

My mistake, but the material written was supplied by a blogger and in no manner was from someone with any record of established credibility.

"Are ytou afraid to know the truth Al?"

Not at all, but you're going to have to supply just a wee bit more credible source than someone writing to the blog page before I will dare to consider it valid.

May 27, 2012 at 2:19 a.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "Al when you talk about big oil paying off our politicians are you talking Obama being paid off as well?"

No. I was referring to members of Congress, and mainly Republicans, who have worked relentlessly on behalf of oil interests.

"The New York Times reports: "those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others."

You know, this crap is dredged up regarding every President that has graced the Oval Office.

So what? If someone wants to waste their money to get an invite to the White House, more power to them.

"These people also produce other types of energy besides fossil fuel and oil companies employee hundrerd of thousands of people. I don't care what if they care one whit for me."

Well, you should, because one day, and no one knows when that will be for sure, the ground is going to run dry. Your once dependable, gas burning motor vehicle will become a glorified yard ornament and quick.

What will you do then?

"But since you have such strong feelings about big oil stop purchasing their product."

You'd be quite surprised at how little gasoline that I purchase in an average month. Unlike most Americans, I don't live in my motor vehicles. I use about a tank of gas per month.

"Do you thinbk Solyandra gave a crap about you when the too $500 million of tax payer money knowing they were not going to make it any ways."

I know I can't read people's minds, especially from 3,000 miles away. I don't think you can either. That being said, we both know that the loan was totally not deserved nor should it have ever been approved by those who did.

I'd like to think that those who were running the company had nothing but good intentions and that they wanted to make a go of the business.

There is little evidence that anyone made off with a bundle of money.

"But seriously Al since you have such strong feelings against big oil then you have a ethical and moral obligation to stop purchasing their products and that includes all oil base products."

Look, I don't have strong feelings against big oil companies, but I do have a realistic outlook when it comes to the fact that they have a vested interest in prolonging a dependency by as many people as possible on their products.

For certain, they do not want to go the way of the buggy whip. Who can blame them? But at some point, logic has to rule the day. Oil is not an infinite resource and the world is consuming it at an astronomical rate. It WILL eventually be depleted.

The time to begin to compensate for that eventuality is long past due. I'll probably be dead and gone when it does happen, but I have many family members who will be left on this Earth. I'm sure you do too.

My concern is for them and their future.

May 27, 2012 at 3:15 a.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "I never said Obama wasn't born American!! I do however, believe he's a Muslim!"

Of course. You probably also believe that the man regularly attended the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for 20 years, just in case he might some day run for President of the United States, and would be in need of a cover to hide his Muslim faith.

48 and a half years ago, several people conspired to insert birth announcements in two Honolulu, Hawaii newspapers, announcing his Hawaiian birth, despite being born in Kenya, because they knew that he would one day run for President and would need to prove that he was born in the United States.

Does that just about cover your belief that the President isn't all that he claims to be?

"And as a Muslim, he hates the infidels (Americans)! He believes this is an unjust country from it's founding!! And he believes that America only became great off the backs of the rest of the world."

Uh huh...

"That's why the very first thing he did as president was to go off on his American apology tour of the world. He's as anti-American as one can get! And now he's running his campaign against capitalism."

Uh Huh...

"The liberal news only mentioned John Kerry's wealth three times in the same three month period before the election. So far, the same networks have mentioned Romney's wealth 27 times. Not biased now are we?"

Oh brother...you're way out there. Everything is a conspiracy, isn't it?

May 27, 2012 at 3:30 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.