published Sunday, July 7th, 2013

Choice

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 ...

199
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.
fairmon said...

Choices are being limited with each new bill. The vending of choices machine is being emptied by both parties. This is another abort or no abortion debate invitation. I don't personally condone abortion except in rare cases such as rape, incest or the mother's life is in peril. However, I resent even more government intervention in the choice. Economically and for society in general over 80% of abortions are a good thing. Alprova, and others I am sure, detest my opinion that if the government pays for the abortion sterilization should be part of the process. Government involvement should be limited to appropriate safety and health regulations.

July 7, 2013 at 12:36 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

A quarter billion baby girls (250,000,000) have been murdered in the womb for being girls rather than boys (mostly in Asia). Hoo-ray for womens' right to choose, eh? Can you draw a graveyard, Clay?

Repent! It works for us sinners.

July 7, 2013 at 12:46 a.m.
fairmon said...

Those totally pro-choice denies the fetus any rights until after birth. However if the woman opts to give birth most are willing to heap free stuff on the mother and kid for life. Conservatives object to abortion for any reason but are unwilling to support the mother or kid with welfare programs.

July 7, 2013 at 12:48 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon, elective taxpayer funding of abortions, have been a myth since 1976. The Hyde Amendment established Federal law requiring that states cover abortions with Federal Medicaid dollars only in the event of rape, incest, and life endangerment, and it has been renewed every year since 1976.

The average cost of an abortion performed within the first trimester is $430. The average cost of an abortion during the second trimester is $1,260.

32 states and DC fund abortions through Medicaid only in the cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. SD covers abortions only in the cases of life endangerment. IN, UT and WI have expanded coverage to women whose physical health is jeopardized, and IA, MS, UT and VA also include fetal abnormality cases.

17 states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA, WV) use their own funds to cover all or most "medically necessary" abortions sought by low-income women under Medicaid.

U.S. laws also ban federal funding of abortions for federal employees and their dependents.

Federal contributions to Planned Parenthood, which account for a third of all funding it receives, are only used for the provision of health services, exams, mammograms, sex education, public policy work, management expenses, fund-raising, and international family planning programs.

By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for elective abortions at any planned Parenthood provider.

Planned Parenthood is also funded by private donors, with a membership base of over 700,000 active donors whose contributions account for approximately one quarter of the organization's revenue, and each and every donor is allowed to opt for or against their donations being used to assist patrons with the cost of elective abortions.

All this boils down to the simple fact that taxpayer funds are not being used for elective abortion. They are being used to fund abortions in the case of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.

Your sterilization stance is quite misplaced and utterly cruel in its intent, when a spotlight is focused on those who do receive federal funds for abortion.

And before anyone brings it up, it is also a total myth that ObamaCare provides a penny of funding for elective abortion as well.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/mar/17/matt-gaetz/taxpayer-funded-abortions-federal-health-care-bill/

July 7, 2013 at 5:16 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

Your sterilization stance is quite misplaced and utterly cruel in its intent, when a spotlight is focused on those who do receive federal funds for abortion.

Call it cruel, hard hearted or whatever but the focus group you allude to is why it would reduce a cycle of dependence.

July 7, 2013 at 5:30 a.m.
alprova said...

Les wrote: "You Progressives believe it is perfectly fine to kill a baby for any reason, just as long as the mother has the "choice"."

No one I know personally or who hangs out in this forum, and is known as a progressive, has expressed that "killing a baby for any reason" is a-okay.

I can't represent the opinions of others, but I refuse to pass judgment of any woman who makes a personal choice to abort a fetus, nor do I feel that I am owed any explanation for her decision. I equally believe that no one else, especially those not associated in the conception of that fetus, are entitled to an explanation, nor do they have any right to prevent her from making the decision either.

Personally, I believe that abortion should be a last resort option, only after exploring any and other avenues to assure that a child that is born will be cared for and raised in love.

"If a genetic test can show that a baby will be gay and the mother doesn't like gays it is fine to kill the gay baby ? Correct ? It is the mother's choice ?"

I'm more interested in learning what you would do if you such a test revealed that a woman carrying your child would grow up to be homosexual. What would you advise her to do?

July 7, 2013 at 5:34 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said..

And before anyone brings it up, it is also a total myth that ObamaCare provides a penny of funding for elective abortion as well.

Does that mean an insurer can omit abortion being covered?

July 7, 2013 at 5:38 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Clay,

Has anyone ever stood in front of you with a swinging pendulum repeating over & over, "You're getting sleepy?"

July 7, 2013 at 5:48 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Call it cruel, hard hearted or whatever but the focus group you allude to is why it would reduce a cycle of dependence."

So let me ss if I have a full understanding of your position.

I have proven that there is no such thing as taxpayer funding for so much as one "oopsie" pregnancy, and taxcpayer dollars are ONLY used to fund abortions for victims of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.

You claim to condone abortion for victims of rape, incest, and to save the life of a mother.

Then you go on to call for the sterilization of those who receive taxpayer funded abortions.

Do you see the absurd quandary in your position?

The victim of a rape, incest, or a woman who has to abort a fetus because it endangers her life, who are the only women who receive taxpayer funded abortions in this nation, and in your opinion, they should be sterilized, because it will "reduce a cycle of dependence?"

Do I have that right? Would you care to amend that opinion, or drop it altogether because there is no such thing as taxpayer funding for abortions of those you would like to see sterilized?

July 7, 2013 at 5:54 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Does that mean an insurer can omit abortion being covered?"

ObamCare contains a provision that all 50 states have to offer at least one health plan on their insurance exchanges that doesn't cover abortion services at all.

If a state decides it DOES want to have health plans that cover abortion services on its exchange, and if a woman chooses one of those plans, then she has to pay a separate fee of at least $1 to a separate account for that coverage in order to make sure no federal dollars are used to support abortion services.

Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, has addressed the issue clearly;

*"Under the AHA, federal funds continue not to be used for abortion services, except those in cases of rape or incest or where the life of the woman is endangered. No one will be required to choose a plan that covers these services and no taxpayer dollars will be spent on them. Before choosing a health plan, consumers will know whether the plan covers these services. And if it does, payments will be made into a separate account to ensure no federal dollars fund these services."

July 7, 2013 at 6:07 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

The victim of a rape, incest, or a woman who has to abort a fetus because it endangers her life, who are the only women who receive taxpayer funded abortions in this nation, and in your opinion, they should be sterilized, because it will "reduce a cycle of dependence?"

I made it clear earlier that there were legitimate reasons for abortion and there should be no consequences for the individual. Are you sure that planned parenthood never provides funding for an elective abortion? Accounting for expenditures from different funds does not mean tax payer money doesn't contribute to or enable the ability for them to pay for elective abortions.

Assuming you are correct and not one dime of tax money is spent for an abortion I like that. However, it doesn't change my opinion that tax payer funded elective abortions should include sterilization. Contrary to what you might think that is not an opinion that is not supported by a significant number of people.

I do think it may be prudent to encourage abortions with the sterilization provision for those unable to pay for one.

July 7, 2013 at 6:25 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Are you sure that planned parenthood never provides funding for an elective abortion?"

Yes. They provide accounting disclosures to the public to account for every dime that is provided to them from the various sources that funds them.

"Accounting for expenditures from different funds does not mean tax payer money doesn't contribute to or enable the ability for them to pay for elective abortions."

They have enough funding from donors who do provide the funding for elective abortions provided to those who seek them and who cannot pay for them. Not one dollar of taxpayer funds is used for that purpose. It is Federally prohibited for them to do so, and it has been since 1976.

"Assuming you are correct and not one dime of tax money is spent for an abortion I like that. However, it doesn't change my opinion that tax payer funded elective abortions should include sterilization."

Yes, and as I have told you in the past, your idea will never take flight.

"Contrary to what you might think that is not an opinion that is not supported by a significant number of people."

Be that as it may, not enough people support such an idea, that it will ever come to fruition.

"I do think it may be prudent to encourage abortions with the sterilization provision for those unable to pay for one."

It will never happen in this country, I assure you.

No offense, but the kind of thinking that you represent on this and other issues, is way too much like that of Nazi Germans.

I'm appalled by the very notion of you, the more you write.

July 7, 2013 at 7:13 a.m.
fairmon said...

Alprova said...

No offense, but the kind of thinking that you represent on this and other issues, is way too much like that of Nazi Germans.

I resent the Nazi comparison just because I disagree with your bleeding heart mentality. In fact I promote smaller, in fact much smaller government, and less government intervention and involvement in peoples lives. My position on abortion applies only if government is involved in providing such which I obviously don't think they should do. The fact is your insisting on a large central government that shows favor, manipulates and redistributes is more European and Nazi like than I ever thought about being.

July 7, 2013 at 8:22 a.m.
rick1 said...

JonRoss posted "I have asked this question before but you Progressives ignore. If a genetic test can show that a baby will be gay and the mother doesn't like gays it is fine to kill the gay baby ? Correct ? It is the mother's choice?"

Al posted "I'm more interested in learning what you would do if you such a test revealed that a woman carrying your child would grow up to be homosexual. What would you advise her to do?"

JonRoss, you have been ignored again. By not answering your question Al is in fact saying he has no problem with a women slaughtering her baby if the mother learns the baby will be gay.

Al be thank full they did not have testing in the late 1950"s when you were born like they do today. If they had maybe they would have known you were going to have all of the health issues you are having today and your mother might have may the decision to abort you.

July 7, 2013 at 8:57 a.m.
conservative said...

It is truly appalling how the evil left dehumanizes the unborn in order to try to justify the killing of innocent life. They can't.

They are so blind to their evil yet their evil is so obvious to others.

Contempt for life is just one of the traits of those who reject the revelation of God and live as though He does not exist. Some may claim to believe in God but they are really just practicing atheists.

Notice the judgment of God on abortionists and some of their wicked traits:

v28 a reprobate (worthless) mind

v28 God gives them over (removes some of His restraint)

v29 The abortionists murder

v29 the sin of fornication often brings on the pregnancy of the unborn of which they seek to murder

v31 They lack understanding (it is a child, not a blob of tissue)

v31 The abortionists are without natural affection for their unborn

v32 The abortionists know it is wrong and they know they deserve death.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:28-32 KJV

July 7, 2013 at 9:01 a.m.
rick1 said...

Society doesn't accept pregnant women smoking or drinking, what makes abortion different?

July 7, 2013 at 9:06 a.m.
degage said...

So, Al, answer your own question. Had you found out your child would be gay or have downs syndrome or any other defect would you want your wife to abort it?

July 7, 2013 at 9:12 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo has hopefully gone to bed. Nothing worse than a ranting statist. We need to let the gubmint make **ALL our decisions! And the hell with the unborn.

July 7, 2013 at 10:43 a.m.
Yano said...

PlainTruth:

It is the right wing that wants to make personal decisions for Americans: Abortion, birth control, marriage. They want the government to act as morality police imposing their minority religious views on everyone. If that doesn't happen, they cry that they're being persecuted.

As for fetuses, calling them "people" in order to accuse women and doctors of murder is not constructive. A fertilized egg is not a person. An embryo is not a person. A fetus is becoming a person. A born baby is a person. Where to draw the line is a matter for people of good conscience to debate and ultimately decide. The right's irrational absolutism is not a helpful argument.

Quoting the Bible as if our government should enforce all its arcane laws is ridiculous.

July 7, 2013 at 10:55 a.m.
Maximus said...

I don't get it? The Democrats are pushing and winning approval on most every immoral act you can think of. Murdering innocent children via abortion on demand. Legalizing on man corn holing another and then marrying him. Soon half the state of Tennessee will be high on pot due to the wonderful, "choice" efforts of the Democratic party.

One thing for sure, I'm very glad I am not a part of the mindless party of choice......the Femocrats. Any man that would even consider voting for Obama or Hillary Clinton has got to be gay.

July 7, 2013 at 11:08 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Miz Yano: I never once quoted the bible. And I'm pretty sure that you have no idea "when" an embryo becomes a person. I'm not debating abortion here.. That issue has been decided. I am disturbed at late stage abortion. Your ilk seems to have no problem with that either. BTW, I've never been real sure why a woman would wait 22 weeks to decide on abortion. Maybe you can enlighten me there.

July 7, 2013 at 11:08 a.m.
Yano said...

PlainTruth:

Since I'm a man I can't help you with that. I know that late-term abortions are rare and usually for medical reasons. Women who don't want a baby don't carry it for 22 weeks - why would they? You're on the right track if you want to defer to the opinions of women on the issue though.

I was referring to the right wing when I mentioned the Bible at the end of my comment (see conservative above).

A person has a mind. As that mind develops, a person comes into being.

July 7, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.

Yeah, the abortion mill will never eliminated, it's here to stay, I'm sad to say. "Gays" pretty much have their way in this country. The federal government is bloated and has their fingers in all of our lives and it's probably never going to change. So, what's the problem, you lefties? I'll tell you what it is, they will not be happy, and maybe not even then, until there are no disenting opinions. They want everyone to think the same, their way. They even wouldn't mind seeing an opposition outlawed, and individuals punished. They only want the 1st amendment for themselves. You have to, have to, have some screw loose, or have something missing, to be- lieve we're advancing as a civilization if we approve of and promote homosexual behavior and make abortion a sacred cow. Not only that, but that the loss of freedom is actually ok, as long as we get something for it. Sick.

July 7, 2013 at 11:29 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Well hell, Yano. That explains that.

July 7, 2013 at 11:30 a.m.
Yano said...

zabunchaletters:

Pull away from Fox News and stop giving credence to insane lies about Democrats.

And, if you value freedom so much, why do you want to persecute gays? Live and let live.

July 7, 2013 at 11:33 a.m.

Persecute "gays"?? Who said that. There's a big difference between letting people live the way they want live in the USA, and actively pushing it on children, ramming it down everyone's throats and hearing it talked about non-stop in the media. Do what you want in your own life, that's your choice, but the disgraceful campaign to force everyone to accept it is crazy and a waste of time. Declaring anyone a homophobe for not putting their stamp of approval on it is wacked. The insane attempt to equate "gay rights" with blacks struggle for equality says it all. Madness.

July 7, 2013 at 11:44 a.m.
Yano said...

JonRoss:

You will always believe that as long as you think embryos and fetuses are babies. Life begins gradually, which confuses the hell out of right wingers who can only comprehend black and white.

You don't have to participate in Obamacare. But if you expect a hospital not to refuse to save your life if needed some day, it's fair for you to pay for that security just like everyone else has to, if you can afford it, through insurance or a "fine" (tax).

Too many people want to be like the grasshopper not pulling his weight and then mooching off the ants. That has gotten way too expensive for the rest of us.

July 7, 2013 at 11:47 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

What zablee said.

July 7, 2013 at 11:48 a.m.
Yano said...

z...:

I doubt anyone is trying to push anything down your throat. People do have freedom of expression though, just as you do. They can even call you a homophobe, if that's the impression you give them.

July 7, 2013 at 11:56 a.m.
Yano said...

JonRoss said "I don't need maternity, I don't need preventive, but you Progressive are forcing me to pay for that."

Women don't need prostrate exams. What's your point?

The purpose of preventive health care is to make health care less expensive by catching problems early. Hope you never find one.

July 7, 2013 at 12:03 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Yanni: You've fallen in lockstep with the left's mantra. Anyone disagreeing is either a homophobe, racist, misogynist, bigot, hater, etc. (what have I left out?) But hey, with the help of the media, it seems to work for you guys. Do they teach that stuff at Leftist 101?

July 7, 2013 at 12:07 p.m.
moon4kat said...

Thanks, Clay.
The GOP says it wants government out of our lives, but insists on controlling what goes on in women's bodies. If a woman doesn't think she can handle pregnancy, child birth, and/or motherhood, I'll take her word for it. It's not like we need more unfit parents, unwanted children, or more people on this increasingly-crowded planet.
Moreover, you can be absolutely sure that daughters and wives of the 1% will get abortions whenever they want. Plus, don't forget GOP Congressman DesJarlais who urged his mistress to get an abortion.

July 7, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.
Maximus said...

Remember, Snooky from Jersey Shore that great role model for young adults and Obama voter stated recently that she just can't wait to have a gay son. As a Darwinian myself, this is just another example of how the gene pool cleans itself out every now and then. Most Democrats got ripped off in the gene pool......that is why they are liberal, redistribution, Socialists.....they can't make it in the real world as an individual so they join in the big government has the answers for every aspect of your life scam in order to spread their mediocrity. Think of Democrats as helpless serfs living off the success of producers like me. This stuff is so easy I don't even have to use my Vandy MBA. Democrats= Helpless Losers. Republicans= Self Reliant Winners. Class dismissed. I'm driving the 57 Chevy to Honors. Later loser gay retard lefties.

July 7, 2013 at 12:09 p.m.

Yes, they can.

But, it's ridiculous to deny there isn't a campaign going on, or a movement, to promote the homosexual lifestyle, and try and normalize homosexual acts. Just look at the New York City public schools and how they promote or feel the need to "educate" even small children about homosexual acts. Nobody should be persecuted for stating their views, that includes those of us who are perfectly willing to let people do what they want in this country, but will not say that homosexuality is normal and that we're advancing if we accept it.

July 7, 2013 at 12:09 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Yano: Can you justify 22+ weeks abortions?

July 7, 2013 at 12:17 p.m.
Yano said...

z...:

No one is persecuting you, get over yourself.

Schools promote tolerance because we all have to live together in this country. Some schools might explain the difference between gay and straight to age-appropriate students. I don't know how necessary that is. Your hysteria over promoting "homosexual acts" to small children at school is not reflective of reality. I didn't get any of that in my liberal public school.

July 7, 2013 at 12:21 p.m.
Yano said...

JonRoss:

Obama is a moderate and has done a lot to help producers, including saving the auto industry.

If you have to lie to yourself to support the view of the world in your head, then maybe you need to reexamine your view of the world. Most Democrats are producers. The underclass mostly votes Democratic, but all over the South there are poor people benefiting from government programs voting Republican because Jesus tells them to.

July 7, 2013 at 12:26 p.m.
Yano said...

PlainTruth said "Can you justify 22+ weeks abortions?"

If a fetus has a birth defect condemning it to a life a few weeks long and in constant pain.

If a pregnancy complication threatens the life of the mother.

The law doesn't support elective late-term abortions without cause in most places. I'm not trying to either.

July 7, 2013 at 12:31 p.m.
degage said...

Yano, are you easy123?

July 7, 2013 at 12:36 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Degage: He's not nasty enough to be Easy. (course he could be faking it)...If it's Easy, he must have found a govt. program to pay his fee here.

July 7, 2013 at 12:39 p.m.
Yano said...

Jonni:

From your end of the political spectrum, everyone looks like a radical ideologue.

Other moderate Obama positions: Support for fracking, drone strikes, bank bail-outs, the Manning prosecution, the NSA, some tax cuts (part of the stimulus), private insurance in Obamacare instead of single-payer, North Korea policy, Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, support for Israel (according to Netanyahu). He's got progressive policies too, but he's not a radical.

July 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

fairmon, you'll have to have patience. alkarma is out hugging all the trees. He thinks he used to be one of them, you know.

July 7, 2013 at 12:45 p.m.
Maximus said...

Yano said...Obama is a moderate. Yo Yano, you are not only probably on welfare but smoking crack if you think Barry The Gay Loving Muslim Brotherhood Gangster Obama Pimp is a moderate. Obama has spread more leftist mediocrity than any U.S. President ever! No most Democrats are not producers....they are moochers, serfs feeding off redistribution like I said! Yano if you are a Democrat you are either a serf or making your living off of big government lets say for instance.....TVA or UTC. As long as Big Government (City, State, and Federal) is the largest employer in Chattanooga the city will continue to be a haven for low expectations. Atlanta on the other hand is driven by the private sector not government. Can you say....Delta Airlines, Coca Cola, TBS, and IBM?

July 7, 2013 at 12:48 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

Of course if Bennett's vending machine had a jackass painted on it, it would be loaded with condoms and sex toys.

July 7, 2013 at 12:52 p.m.
Yano said...

Maximus:

Wrong on every point. Calling the president silly names isn't very elucidating or convincing. Maybe that's not what you're after.

I work for a big private company and pay lots of taxes.

Glad you like Atlanta. How many federal dollars does city-owned Hartsfield-Jackson Airport get? Would Atlanta be successful without it?

July 7, 2013 at 12:58 p.m.
tifosi said...

JonRoss: It is because he is a moderate that he was elected by the American people.

joepulitzer: At least condoms and sex toys provide a choice. It is the way we do it America. Are you new here?

Yano- MaxiFraud is on the socialism teat at VW.

July 7, 2013 at 1 p.m.
tifosi said...

Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing to China and is currently investing in companies that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks. Kind of ironic considering the NSA whiners on here.

July 7, 2013 at 1:05 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"I am disturbed at late stage abortion. Your ilk seems to have no problem with that either. BTW, I've never been real sure why a woman would wait 22 weeks to decide on abortion/" - PT

Eighty eight percent (88%) of all abortions take place in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Of those who wait longer, 1/3 are teenagers who are uncertain as to the early signs of pregnancy or are so fearful of the repercussions of telling their parents that they delay telling them or taking any kind of action. Others who wait longer do so because getting an abortion has become so difficult and so expensive that they have to raise the funds before can they do anything about it. Almost without exception the women who have abortions in the second or third trimester are those who actually want to have a baby but medical complications, either for them or for the fetus/embryo, force them to consider abortion as an option. It is an outright lie perpetrated by the anti-abortion yahoos that late-term abortions are entered into simply because the woman doesn't want to be "inconvenienced" by the responsibility of being a mother.

Furthermore, it is a verifiable fact, as has been stated already by alprova and others, that NO government funding is used for elective abortions, not even by Planned Parenthood. But you reactionary, lie-spewing anti-abortion zealots keep trying to make an issue out of your tax dollars contributing to the "murder" of innocent babies. Shut up already. It ain't happening. Of course, you might want to form a committee to determine once for all that it ain't so. It might be that somewhere somehow one-tenth of one percent of our tax dollars is leaking into abortion provision. I'm sure you won't be able to sleep nights until you find out for sure. So go ahead and spend millions of dollars to form a committee and investigate and then you can pass yet another anti-abortion law (which we need about as much as the Koch brothers need more money) and you can sleep better in your smug self-righteous sleep as your daddy in the sky smiles down upon you, well pleased by the valiant efforts of his good little Christian soldiers.

July 7, 2013 at 1:11 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

LittleRickyRoo: Not about govt funding...about the despicable people that are in favor of late term abortion. No need to bring your disrespectful comments about " Christian soldiers". Not about religion...about right and wrong.

July 7, 2013 at 1:21 p.m.
Yano said...

Jonni:

Benefits to working people amount to a subsidy for big business, because it allows them to pay lower wages. We should hike the minimum wage and not give EBT or welfare to the employed. If we lower taxes using the money we save, the net effect on the economy will be positive (better efficiency), and the distortion of big government subsidies on our economy (helping retailers and hurting manufacturers) will be reduced. Raising minimum wage doesn't grow unemployment in a linear fashion - because it also puts money in the pockets of consumers. Raising it too much would be bad of course.

The poor will always be a burden. We should minimize poverty by investing in education, providing opportunity, raising the minimum wage to make work more attractive and respected, making health care available and affordable for all, and by supporting reproductive choice so women aren't trapped in the poverty cycle.

July 7, 2013 at 1:22 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "I resent the Nazi comparison just because I disagree with your bleeding heart mentality."

You consider me to have a bleeding heart mentality because I do not agree with spaying women as a means by which to deal with poverty?

That's what we're talking about here, isn't it? Sterilize the dirt poor so they can't procreate, right?

Does God ever enter your mind when you think of that? Do you think he would approve?

What you are promoting is very much like selecting which people deserve to live and which people deserve to be extinct.

"In fact I promote smaller, in fact much smaller government, and less government intervention and involvement in peoples lives."

Unless they are poor, of course.

"My position on abortion applies only if government is involved in providing such which I obviously don't think they should do."

Taxpayer funds are ONLY applied to those in need who have been raped, victims of incest, and if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

"The fact is your insisting on a large central government that shows favor, manipulates and redistributes is more European and Nazi like than I ever thought about being."

When have I ever "insisted" on a large central Government? I recognize the need for a Government relative to the number of citizens this country has, but that in no manner rises to the level of insistence.

July 7, 2013 at 1:35 p.m.
rick1 said...

tifosi posted "Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing to China and is currently investing in companies that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks. Kind of ironic considering the NSA whiners on here."

Let's not forget Clinton gave top nuclear secrets to China.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/940025/posts

July 7, 2013 at 1:47 p.m.
Maximus said...

Yano the bottom line is this and then I'm leaving to tee it up. Anyone living in the United States that is healthy, 64 and younger should be out hustling every day to earn their living and achieve the American dream. If you dig ditches, be the best ditch digger. If you make beds at a hotel be the best. Pursue "individual" excellence every day. There are so many in our society that have bought into the comfort zone of low expectations and mediocrity, which the small network of elitist Democrats support for their "special interest group voting blocks", i. e. African Americans and so called poor, that those who pursue excellence will stand out, advance, and be successful. Yano, Delta Airlines built Hartsfield. The private sector has driven the ATL to be a major player in the world and contributed to its amazing growth. The ATL has at least a regional office for every major fortune 500 company and has a population of over 6 million. Chatt not so much....Little Debbie, the Choo Choo and the fat I.B.E.W. members demonstrating on the street corner. No, it's easier than ever to make it in the U.S. because so many want to sit on their ass and let Obama The Welfare Pimp take care of them. Again, if you are 64 and younger, healthy, you should be ashamed of yourself if you are not working. Where is your pride when you let people who are not even U.S. citizens come to this country and outwork you? Dig a ditch, mow yards, roof a house, pour concrete........it builds character and your bank account. Do not listen to the elitist Democrats that want to turn you and your family into helpless guvment serfs with no dream and no future. You can make it on your own if you are willing to work hard and hustle! Be A GO GETTER!

July 7, 2013 at 1:47 p.m.
Yano said...

Maximus,

It's amazing how liberal Atlanta and our other growth centers are. New York, San Francisco, Chicago. Maybe that's because progressive policies enable people to contribute to society, whereas conservative policies keep them down and without opportunity. The private sector benefits from workers and entrepreneurs who have had great educations, clean environments, good health, and aren't held back by prejudice or class, and from smart government investment in airports and other infrastructure.

July 7, 2013 at 1:56 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "JonRoss, you have been ignored again. By not answering your question Al is in fact saying he has no problem with a women slaughtering her baby if the mother learns the baby will be gay."

As a matter of fact, If such a gene was discovered and conclusively proven that a person born with it would result in a child growing up to be gay, I would not advise my wife to abort such a child. I love my children, no matter what they are.

My children did not grow up to be gay, but I do have gay relatives of both sexes in my extended family and I do not treat them any different than I do those who are straight. I have a gay nephew, who has been in a committed relationship for more than a decade, and he and his partner are frequent guests in my home.

But what about you people out there musing about such a possibility? Could you love unconditionally a child that grows up to be Gay?

"Al be thank full they did not have testing in the late 1950"s when you were born like they do today. If they had maybe they would have known you were going to have all of the health issues you are having today and your mother might have may the decision to abort you."

My current health issues would never have been discovered by any DNA test. My current health issues are totally due to the lack of a medical provider to monitor aspects of the effects of high doses of a medication I was taking that it known for attacking vital organs.

By the time it was caught, the damage had been done.

And like myself, my mother would have never in a million years considered aborting a child and chooses to play the cards she is dealt by God.

July 7, 2013 at 1:58 p.m.
rick1 said...

Freedom of Choice

Liberals talk about how the republicans want to control everyone's life but conveniently ignore how they are the ones who love to control our lives.

Take a look at liberal N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomturd who outlaws the eating of trans-fats,salt, and large sodas, and doesn't allow retail cigarette displays, or allows people to listen to loud music, or use Styrofoam, or have guns, because he is looking out for their health and well being. Yet he has no problem with someone eating 69 hotdogs in 10 minutes in the Nathans July 4th Hotdog eating contest.

Here are the nutrition facts from the source below: 69 Hotdogs @684mg = 47,196 mg.

Typical liberal hypocrisy.

http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-nathans-famous-hot-dog-i54213

July 7, 2013 at 1:59 p.m.
alprova said...

degage wrote: "So, Al, answer your own question. Had you found out your child would be gay or have downs syndrome or any other defect would you want your wife to abort it?"

Without an ounce of hesitation...NO!!!

That does not mean that I would pass judgment on anyone else who makes such a decision relative to their own life.

July 7, 2013 at 2:02 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "Progressives want to be able to kill a child any time any where with no questions, the mother should have the absolute choice. But if she fails to kill the child then Progressives want to dictate what type of education that child receives."

If it were up to me, which it isn't, I would strike a deal.

You conservatives drop any and all efforts to prohibit abortions in this nation and I'll allow you all the educational vouchers you want so that your rug rats can grow up to be acorns who have fallen from the tree.

Deal?

July 7, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.
alprova said...

Yano wrote: "Obama is a moderate and has done a lot to help producers, including saving the auto industry"

JonRoss worte: "Saying things like this makes you seem either a radical ideologue yourself, or very ignorant."

Say what you will, but you won't find very many auto workers voting for a Republican anytime soon.

I think they know who has worked to save their jobs and who hasn't.

July 7, 2013 at 2:11 p.m.
Yano said...

Jonni,

While he is a politician, Obama is neither sinister nor clever enough to do all that. He is too much of an accommodationist, which limits his effectiveness.

For example, Obamacare is needlessly complicated because it is modeled after a Republican plan and contains countless compromises with Republicans, such as not allowing young people to sign up for a public health option (must be private insurance). For political reasons the Republicans will never be satisfied with it though.

Obama did put his foot down and wouldn't allow the right wing or the Catholic Church to strip reproductive health care completely from the plan. But there is an option for those who don't want it.

As for not having insurance, that's just selfish. You are just begging to be subsidized when you have your first health crisis. Most people do sooner or later, and it's usually worse if they have no access to preventive care.

July 7, 2013 at 2:22 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Not about govt funding...about the despicable people that are in favor of late term abortion." - PT

Nobody on either side of this issue is IN FAVOR of late-term abortion. If you don't want to take my word for it, just do a little research for yourself and you will easily see that very few, if any, women are so indecisive about having a baby that they suddenly decide, late in their pregnancy, that they don't want to be "inconvenienced" by motherhood. The longer a woman waits, the more expensive and risky an abortion becomes. Nobody knows that better than the women who are in the position of having to decide on whether or not to have one. The vast majority of women who have abortions late in their pregnancy are those who actually want a baby but they have medical complications whereby an abortion becomes a viable option. Oh but I know...abortion is NEVER a viable option for you "pro-life" nuts, is it? As far as you're concerned every zygote is our next George Washington/Einstein/Beethoven/Hank Robinson all rolled into one. You care deeply about them as long as they're in the womb but the moment they pop out they are just another drain on society, being born to yet another "moocher" sucking on the government teat.

And if you think this isn't about religion, think again. Sorry if that would inconvenience you - to think, that is. Of course this is about religion! Most of the emotionally laden comments from anti-abortionists are infused with various Biblical quotes and references to God's notion of when life begins. Their ideas of right and wrong come from the Bible, period, not some abstract notion of right and wrong. Christians don't believe in the abstract anyway. Everything to them is ordained by God, in black and white. Or at least they try to make everything black and white. In reality there is no simple black and white but they have to try to make it that way because it's too difficult for them to deal with the gray areas, which pretty much all of life consists of.

As for me being disrespectful....gee, I'm sorry. I certainly don't want to offend any good little Bible thumping Christian soldiers. Lord knows, they should get all the respect that any blind-deaf-and-dumb brain-dead sheeple deserve.

July 7, 2013 at 2:24 p.m.
alprova said...

Les wrote: "So alpo don't you have some meat to beat or something now ?"

Isn't it about time for you to spend a little time maintaining your "rental" property?...you know, the one thing you claim to own after your multi-million dollar venture was ripped right out of your hands?

I know it's not exactly been a cash cow for you, and that your "tenants" have refused to write you any checks, but since you still claim to retain ownership of that certain property, it is your responsibility to personally inspect it to make sure everything is as is should be.

Now be a good boy and go inspect your sewer pipes in Rossville.

July 7, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
alprova said...

Les wrote: "GM received a lot of money from me."

Really? Are you sure that your holdings were not declared on your 2008 bankruptcy and therefore seized and liquidated to partially repay your creditors?

"And GM absorbed in various ways 50 billion dollars through unpaid loans and collapsed stock values that will never be returned to me."

Les the $50 billion dollar man. Who would have ever guessed?

"The auto workers never voted for the GOP anyway."

True...so true...and the Republicans will never understand why.

"So GM is what it is."

It certainly is.

"A house of gay prostitution where the U.S. taxpayers get screwed in the ass."

What short-sighted people like yourself fail to understand is that had GM and all its suppliers had been allowed to fail, the "screwing" that the taxpayers would have received would have been akin to the ramming of a mile long freight train where the sun never shines.

Any losses that result when those shares are finally sold, will have paled in comparison to the the toll on our economy of having another million on unemployment for three years.

Do the math.

July 7, 2013 at 2:39 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Yano, good comments on Obamacare. We needed a whole new model of health care all together and Obama only applied a Band-Aid to a bleeding artery. I'm not necessarily faulting him for that because it would have been impossible for him to have gotten anything more progressive past the recalcitrant Republicans. But he gave way too much concession to the insurance industry. Those who say that Obamacare is like the early stages of Medicare when it was first passed and it will improve over time are mistaken. Medicare was in a position to improve because it was a solid idea in the first place. Obamacare is flawed in its inception and will not improve as long as our health care remains in the hands of private, profit-driven insurance companies.

July 7, 2013 at 2:39 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpy. Why are you bustin chops about landlords? He'll, he could be in the used car bidness. Would that be ok?

July 7, 2013 at 2:41 p.m.
alprova said...

Rickaroo wrote: "...abortion is NEVER a viable option for you "pro-life" nuts, is it? As far as you're concerned every zygote is our next George Washington/Einstein/Beethoven/Hank Robinson all rolled into one. You care deeply about them as long as they're in the womb but the moment they pop out they are just another drain on society, being born to yet another "moocher" sucking on the government teat."

Truer words have never been typewritten.

"Gochy goochy goo...now it's all up to you..."

July 7, 2013 at 2:43 p.m.
rick1 said...

How did Obama save the auto industry? He gave them a government loan and they still went into bankruptcy. The only thing Obama did was screw over the creditors and take care of the UAW.

Why do we still own a portion of GM? If the company is doing so well why can't we sell our stock shares without losing money?

GM will for ever be in the hands of the government and when the time comes that GM needs more money, could luck on getting any creditors to lend GM money. After the way Obama fornicated the last group of creditors, we the tax payers will give end up giving GM even more money and we will always own a portion of GM.

July 7, 2013 at 2:47 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Alpy. Why are you bustin chops about landlords?"

I'm not about to get into the specifics, but JonRoss is quite known to me and many others in this forum. He is not a landlord of any description.

"He'll, he could be in the used car bidness. Would that be ok?"

Nope. With his record, the State of Georgia would never grant him a license.

July 7, 2013 at 2:48 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Rick1: It was a sell- out to the UAW. Plain y simple.

July 7, 2013 at 2:51 p.m.
tifosi said...

Is history repeating itself?

Are the Republicans still just as obstinate?

"Several groups offered a spirited resistance to the program. Alf Landon, the Republican candidate for President in 1936, offered strong opposition to Social Security based on its burden on employers and employees as well as the possibility that the money coming into the Treasury would not be put away for later liabilities."

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/8128/

July 7, 2013 at 3 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Irrelevant as usual, Toffie.

July 7, 2013 at 3:03 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "How did Obama save the auto industry? He gave them a government loan and they still went into bankruptcy. The only thing Obama did was screw over the creditors and take care of the UAW."

GM is thriving and is poised to be in business for years to come. A million plus jobs manufacturing were retained in this nation.

Any argument to the contrary is of no consequence.

"Why do we still own a portion of GM? If the company is doing so well why can't we sell our stock shares without losing money?"

Because the economy has not fully recovered to the point that selling the shares at the optimum price will at the very least, minimize any losses.

"GM will for ever be in the hands of the government and when the time comes that GM needs more money, could luck on getting any creditors to lend GM money."

The shares will be sold at the right time.

"After the way Obama fornicated the last group of creditors, we the tax payers will give end up giving GM even more money and we will always own a portion of GM."

The creditors were going to be "fornicated" no matter how it played out. A million good paying American jobs would have went with it.

Some of you people simply cannot see past the end of your own noses, or don't care. It wasn't your call. It wasn't your job that was in jeopardy. It's very easy to understand the depth of your criticism.

July 7, 2013 at 3:03 p.m.
tifosi said...

The Republicans were the party of "No" in 1965 when it came to Medicare too.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally65.html

July 7, 2013 at 3:09 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

Here's a deal for you. For every "choice" that results in the death of a fetus, the people get to vote on a criminal to be put to death, immediately. Seems fair to me.

July 7, 2013 at 3:10 p.m.
tifosi said...

PlainTruth said... Irrelevant as usual, Toffie.

Looks to be completely relevant. Very systematic path that shows the Republicans are puppets to the wealthy. Everyone else be damned.

July 7, 2013 at 3:11 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Al, your post about Obama and the auto industry is spot on. Anybody who refuses to see the success of his handling it is either too dense to waste time debating or they are simply so bound to their anti-government ideology they won't let themselves acknowledge that it's possible for government to actually do something right sometimes.

July 7, 2013 at 3:14 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Here's a deal for you. For every 'choice' that results in the death of a fetus, the people get to vote on a criminal to be put to death, immediately. Seems fair to me." - prairie_dog

Great idea! But it would be really hard deciding which criminals should go first: Bush, Cheney, and their entire gang of neo-con thugs? Or the Koch brothers and every other corporate, greed-driven, tax evading pig? Or all the hedge fund managers, Wall St./ big bank tycoons? Or the defense contractors and the mad dogs of war in the military-industrial-corporatist complex? Ah...decisions, decisions.

July 7, 2013 at 3:33 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Rickaroo, no I would start with SEIU, UAW leaders, Planned Parenthood leaders, and all Dem politicians from CA....maybe throw in everyone from MSNBC. I would even throw in a few R Senators. A start.

July 7, 2013 at 3:42 p.m.
rick1 said...

tosfi posted "The Republicans were the party of "No" in 1965 when it came to Medicare too."

The Democrats were the party of "No in the 1960's when it came to civil rights.

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions

July 7, 2013 at 3:50 p.m.
tifosi said...

The interesting thing is the Democrats were able to change. They now champion civil rights. Big difference.

July 7, 2013 at 3:51 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, the government should not have been involved with bailing out GM. It is not the governments job to pick winners and losers and GM should have went into bankruptcy on their own.

Al at what point does the government decide, which companies should fail or should be saved? You are a business owner with employees that have families to provide for. If your company is going under shouldn't you get a loan from the government to keep operating? Why are the UAW workers more important than your workers? How many employees does a company have to have before our government bails them out and who makes that decision?

Al posted "Because the economy has not fully recovered to the point that selling the shares at the optimum price will at the very least, minimize any losses."

The recession ended in the summer of 2009. You don't think any of Obama's economic polices including increased regulations and ObamaCare are having a direct impact on the economy? I know you will defend Obama but Al part time jobs are increasing while full time jobs are decreasing Obama has been a complete failure on his economic polices.

July 7, 2013 at 3:59 p.m.
rick1 said...

tifosi, yeah by keeping minorities on the government plantation by giving them more entitlement programs and continuing affirmative action and having lower standards for civil service entrance and promotional exams, and lower standards for college admission that Democrats always fight to keep sure shows they have changed.

July 7, 2013 at 4:07 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Toffie, No, the Dems learned how to buy votes with entitlement.

July 7, 2013 at 4:09 p.m.
tifosi said...

It's called a democracy for a reason PlainTruth. A candidate finds out what voters want and then creates a plan to deliver. Been that way for 237 years. Is that strange to you?

The Republicans pandered to the Christians for years, until the majority said too much religion in politics. President Ronald Reagan (the greatest in my lifetime) would not recognize the GOP today.

July 7, 2013 at 4:20 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

So pandering to voter blocs with taxpayer money is cool with you, Toff? Yeah, it's a rhetorical question.

July 7, 2013 at 4:26 p.m.
tifosi said...

Bob Dole is even disappointed with the GOP.

'They ought to put a sign on the National Committee doors that says "closed for repairs,"' he says.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bob-dole-today-gop-dismiss-reagan-nixon-article-1.1355137

July 7, 2013 at 4:29 p.m.
tifosi said...

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is widely expected to run for president in 2016, called on party leadership earlier this year to reject identity politics and "stop being the stupid party and stop insulting the intelligence of voters."

"We will not win elections by simply pointing out the failures of the other side," he said. "We must boldly paint the picture of … how incredibly bright America's future can be," he said

But even before the Romney-Ryan ticket party suffered its blowout November loss, the party had come under fire from within its own ranks for drifting too far to the right.

July 7, 2013 at 4:35 p.m.
tifosi said...

"Ronald Reagan would have - based on his record of finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad - they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party … as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground," Bush said.

July 7, 2013 at 4:38 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Al, the government should not have been involved with bailing out GM. It is not the governments job to pick winners and losers and GM should have went into bankruptcy on their own."

If the situation had been different, that would have been just fine, but there was a problem. No one wanted to buy GM to keep it running. Several people were only interested in picking over its bones.

"Al at what point does the government decide, which companies should fail or should be saved?"

When a million jobs are on the line at a time when the nation is shedding 800,000 jobs a month. That's when.

"You are a business owner with employees that have families to provide for. If your company is going under shouldn't you get a loan from the government to keep operating?"

You really shouldn't ask me that question. 1.) I only have three employees; 2.) My business is debt free, and; 3.) I have access to vast amounts of credit should the need ever arise.

"Why are the UAW workers more important than your workers?"

Not every job saved was those of union members.

"How many employees does a company have to have before our government bails them out and who makes that decision?"

Since the Government, in recent history anyway, has not attempted to bail out any other business, I would hazard a guess that at least a million jobs would be the minimum in jeopardy before it would be considered.

"Al posted "Because the economy has not fully recovered to the point that selling the shares at the optimum price will at the very least, minimize any losses."

"The recession ended in the summer of 2009."

Technically yes, but that only means that the decline in the economy was reversed and that the recovery began. As we all know, the recovery is far from complete.

It did not mean that the depression was over and that everything was good.

"You don't think any of Obama's economic polices including increased regulations and ObamaCare are having a direct impact on the economy?"

Nope.

"I know you will defend Obama but Al part time jobs are increasing while full time jobs are decreasing Obama has been a complete failure on his economic polices."

Clearly, the economy has a lot of healing to do. The progress has been very slow, but we are headed in the right direction.

No one, including the President can wave a magic wand and make it all good overnight.

July 7, 2013 at 4:39 p.m.
tifosi said...

So many posters here are following this same modus operandi of name calling and destructiveness that has become the norm for Republican politics. You guys just don't get it and the GOP is dying a slow and self-destructive death. Get the Tea Party out of your closet! Get the racists and bigots out of your shorts GOP. They are destroying you.

July 7, 2013 at 4:40 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Toffie: You're a good one to be talking about name-calling. Jeez.

On another note, ABC ABC News Political Director: Obamacare Now A “Slow-Motion” Train Wreck… That's AB frikken C, folks.

July 7, 2013 at 4:44 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Toffie is challenging Alpo as the greatest Dem hack since Chris Matthews.

July 7, 2013 at 4:55 p.m.
tifosi said...

"Toffie: You're a good one to be talking about name-calling. Jeez."

The difference is you are the losing party. Your own party leaders are the ones saying the "blame-game" has to stop.

July 7, 2013 at 4:57 p.m.
tifosi said...

PT: I voted for President Reagan twice, Dole once and President Bush, Sr. I would have voted for McCain, until the GOP pulled Palin out of the closet. Far from being a Democrat. You will find no party handcuffs on these hands.

As I said before, President Reagan was the greatest in my lifetime. Chris Matthews, nor Alprova would likely say that.

Keep up the "blame game" and GOP will die. Start using your brain and learn what "articulate" means.

Stupid and meaningless statements like: "Obama is truly a filthy individual." only hurt the GOP cause.

July 7, 2013 at 5 p.m.

A person’s freedom to choose is significantly curtailed when he or she is denied the right to life. The inalienable right to life.

“We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.” – Ronald Reagan

July 7, 2013 at 5:07 p.m.

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." – Mother Theresa

July 7, 2013 at 5:07 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Articulate Toffie: Dole & Jindal are not party leaders.

July 7, 2013 at 5:08 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al posted "When a million jobs are on the line at a time when the nation is shedding 800,000 jobs a month. That's when."

So you are saying if the nation wasn't shedding 800,000 jobs a month then the government should not have bailed out GM or any other company that would impact a million jobs.

Al posted "Since the Government, in recent history anyway, has not attempted to bail out any other business, I would hazard a guess that at least a million jobs would be the minimum in jeopardy before it would be considered."

So 500,000, 100,000, 1,000, 100 jobs being in jeopardy would not rise to the level of government intervention. This is the problem Al if someone happens to work for a big corporation where a million or more jobs maybe at risk you would be willing to save those but anything less is not worth saving? The government should not be picking winners and losers left the free market work it out.

Al please look at this with an open mind. I know you support the stimulus plan and FDR's New deal which consisted of a lot of federal spending. Now take a look when the stock market crashed in 1987 and Reagan did not get involved and let the free market work it out. Which economy came back faster and stronger the ones under FDR and Obama or the one under Reagan? Know wants to admit it but it came back faster and stronger under Reagan with no meddling from the government.

Why is it when government policies cause a recession people buy into the government is the only one to fix it when that is not true at all. The recession ended in the summer of 2009 and Obama has kept meddling and meddling and this is the slowest recovery in modern times.

July 7, 2013 at 5:09 p.m.
tifosi said...

See previous posts dumbass.

July 7, 2013 at 5:10 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Yano said...

A person has a mind. As that mind develops, a person comes into being.


So a severely mentally handicapped person, from birth on, has no complete being and as such can not claim the the same protection, under the law, as those that have normal mental function?

July 7, 2013 at 5:29 p.m.
Yano said...

J:

A person dies when the mind dies; they are brain dead even if the heart keeps beating. Human cells can reproduce indefinitely in a petri dish, but that's hardly a person.

Mentally handicapped people are not mindless, just different. From some of us.

July 7, 2013 at 5:36 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Yano said...

A born baby is a person.


A fetus is not a person and deserves no legal protection until it is born, no matter it’s viability?

July 7, 2013 at 5:37 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Yano said...

The purpose of preventive health care is to make health care less expensive by catching problems early.


Unhappily for you it doesn’t work that way.

July 7, 2013 at 5:39 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Yano said ...

Mentally handicapped people are not mindless, just different. From some of us.


But they never come into being ... Right?

July 7, 2013 at 5:41 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing to China and is currently investing in companies that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks. Kind of ironic considering the NSA whiners on here.


Don’t you work for a foreign company that takes its profits out of our economy?

July 7, 2013 at 5:44 p.m.
Yano said...

J:

Preventive health care does lessen costs. That's why my insurance company presses me to have checkups.

Yes of course mentally handicapped people are people, as I said above: "Mentally handicapped people are not mindless, just different."

July 7, 2013 at 5:46 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Yano said...

It's amazing how liberal Atlanta and our other growth centers are. New York, San Francisco, Chicago. Maybe that's because progressive policies enable people to contribute to society, whereas conservative policies keep them down and without opportunity.


Isn’t it odd that prior to the prevalence of progressive policies in our governmental agencies that the U.S. created the greatest economic engine ever on the face of the Earth. It is a fact that since several decades after the mid century point of the 20th century our economic status has slide downward at an increasing rate. It is also a fact progressive policies have greatly increased during that same period.

BTW - many of the supposed “growth” centers are the most dysfunctional governmental systems in the country. In a few more years Detroit will be prime pasture land again.

July 7, 2013 at 5:59 p.m.
Yano said...

Oh, J,

Detroit was the victim of racist white flight and crooked crony government, not progressive politics.

Our government has been pretty progressive since the beginning. Democracy. Increasing suffrage. Abolition of slavery. Federal subsidy of railroads. Construction of canals, bridges, highways, airports. Public education. Space exploration. The government provides the infrastructure, equal opportunity, and rule of law businesses need to thrive.

More recently it created the Internet. Look how many companies are thriving because of that.

We are not sliding downhill. Our pro-democracy and free trade policies are helping the world catch up, which is a good thing for humanity.

July 7, 2013 at 6:09 p.m.
tifosi said...

Jt6gR3hM said... "Don’t you work for a foreign company that takes its profits out of our economy?"

Yep. The same company that invested $1,000,000,000 in Tennessee.

The same company that was given $500,000,000 in Tennessee incentives by a Republican administration.

And, according to UTK, the same company that:

•created 12,400 full-time jobs at Volkswagen, at suppliers and in the economy

•are responsible for $643.1 million in annual income

•increase state and local tax revenue by $53.5 million annually.

AND IT SUPPORTS MAXIFRAUD!

July 7, 2013 at 6:11 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Yano said...

Preventive health care does lessen costs.

(No it does not)

Yes of course mentally handicapped people are people, as I said above: "Mentally handicapped people are not mindless, just different."

(So your implication, that since the viable fetus’ brain hasn’t developed to that of a normal person they are without being or in need for legal protection, is no longer in effect. Wasn’t that you implication when you wrote ”A person has a mind. As that mind develops, a person comes into being.”)

July 7, 2013 at 6:12 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

Jt6gR3hM said... "Don’t you work for a foreign company that takes its profits out of our economy?"

Yep.


But if you really loved this country and wanted it to grow economically wouldn’t you work for an American company that would receive those subsidies and keep their profits here. That way those profits would remain here to benefit your fellow citizens instead of foreign ones.

Aren’t you doing the same as Romney by giving support to foreigners at the expense of you own friends and neighbors in your supposedly home country?

That just appears to be selfishness on your part as you get your share but tough luck on the rest of us ... Right?

July 7, 2013 at 6:24 p.m.
Yano said...

J:

Life develops gradually, and our laws reflect that. A very large percentage of fertilized eggs die naturally. So what? They aren't people.

I never said someone had to be normal to be a person.

An embryo doesn't have a mind and a fetus begins to develop one. Personhood clearly exists after birth, clearly does not exist at the embryo stage, and in between there is no magic moment, just gradual development, during which abortion becomes increasingly restricted by law.

July 7, 2013 at 6:24 p.m.
tifosi said...

Jt6gR3hM said... "That just appears to be selfishness on your part as you get your share but tough luck on the rest of us ... Right?"

Did I mention that when the American economy was tanking and ALL of the American car manufacturers were shedding jobs by the thousands, my employer didn't blink an eye and invested in America like no one else would. They were the ones that kept unemployment from hitting Chattanooga like the rest of the country. You are enjoying the benefits of that massive effort. Remember that Republican belief in "trickle down economics"?

A lot of former GM employees work there too.

What was Romney investing in?

July 7, 2013 at 6:32 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Yano said...

Obama did put his foot down and wouldn't allow the right wing or the Catholic Church to strip reproductive health care completely from the plan. But there is an option for those who don't want it.

(The Catholic Church is not trying to “strip reproductive health care completely from the plan” but only from their plans. What is that option?)

As for not having insurance, that's just selfish. You are just begging to be subsidized when you have your first health crisis.

(You seem to be taking the same position as people that say the able bodied unemployed are just being selfish by not being employed or in active pursuit of same. They are “ just begging to be subsidized” when they need , food, shelter, and clothing. Maybe if we didn’t subsidize either they may get a job and health care coverage?)

July 7, 2013 at 6:38 p.m.
tifosi said...

Interesting trivia Jt6gR3hM: The VW site used to be the Volunteer Ammunition Plant. They produced TNT for bombs... bombs that were dropped on Germany in World War II. Pretty remarkable that VW came here.

Oh yeah... it was Republicans that largely recruited VW to come here. Names like Corker, Bredesen, Wamp and Ramsey. DOH!!!

July 7, 2013 at 6:39 p.m.
Yano said...

J: You skipped my 1:22 post didn't you?

And don't tell me the Catholic Church is okay with birth control and abortion as long as it's only the heathens doing it. They oppose those things being in anybody's health insurance, or being legal at all.

July 7, 2013 at 6:50 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Yano said...

A very large percentage of fertilized eggs die naturally. So what? They aren't people.

(Did I address that point? ... Why the diversion?)

I never said someone had to be normal to be a person.

(I didn’t say you did but you did say they have “no being” until their mind has developed to some normal status)

An embryo doesn't have a mind and a fetus begins to develop one. Personhood clearly exists after birth, clearly does not exist at the embryo stage, and in between there is no magic moment, just gradual development, during which abortion becomes increasingly restricted by law.

(If a fetus has no personhood (or being?) until the actual birth then why do they have legal protection after viability?)

July 7, 2013 at 6:50 p.m.
rick1 said...

Yano said "Detroit was the victim of racist white flight and crooked crony government, not progressive politics."

So now whites are racists because they fled the city.

Coleman Young, Detroit's first black mayor and mayor for five terms, who engaged in political favoritism to blacks and tax policies against higher income mostly white people is the main reason people fled Detroit.

Last I checked we still lived in a some what free country and if you do not like the taxes where you live you can move. But in your world you are a racists if you are white and move from a corrupted liberal government.

Does playing the race card ever end for you people?

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/12/19/a-hundred-percent-of-nothing-n1468870/page/full

July 7, 2013 at 6:58 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Yano said...

You skipped my 1:22 post didn't you?

(No I didn’t but you are welcome to make the connection)

And don't tell me the Catholic Church is okay with birth control and abortion as long as it's only the heathens doing it.

They oppose those things being in anybody's health insurance, or being legal at all.

(I made no argument as to their general philosophy but only what they are attempting to accomplish with their current legal attempts to exempt themselves from this part of the law.)

July 7, 2013 at 7 p.m.
degage said...

tifosi, you say you voted for republicans, I say you are full of you know what! Anyone as anti republican as you, would never think of voting for the other party. You are as progressive as they come and JT is right about you.

July 7, 2013 at 7:02 p.m.
tifosi said...

I am sure no white Detroit mayor ever engaged in political favoritism for tax policies against higher income mostly white people.

The reason people fled Detroit is because jobs dried up. Particularly because the automotive industry was dragged down by the UAW.

July 7, 2013 at 7:03 p.m.
Yano said...

J, the answers to your questions seem to be contained in the posts you are citing. Zero in on the word "gradual."

July 7, 2013 at 7:03 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

Oh yeah... it was Republicans that largely recruited VW to come here. Names like Corker, Bredesen, Wamp and Ramsey. DOH!!!


I have no problem with their efforts as they are not trying to demonize others, versus your position on Romney, for freely making their business decisions.

Your problem is that on a much lower scale you are doing the same as Romney while condemning him. You claim he is taking capital out of this country, for his personal profit, that we could greatly use here. You on the other hand are assisting a foreign corporation in removing large amounts of capital from our country and returning it to theirs country for their benefit.

You're simply being a hypocrite.

July 7, 2013 at 7:13 p.m.
Yano said...

tifosi,

The jobs were still there, in Warren, Dearborn, and other suburbs. White flight was a real phenomenon in Detroit, Queens, Newark, and many other cities. Detroit started shrinking in the 50s while the US auto industry was still growing and the suburbs expanding. Punitive taxes by stupid governments hurt too. A Mayor Washington (Chicago) or Young (Atlanta) could have saved Detroit.

Unions didn't bring down GM. GM's German competitors have even stronger unions. Maybe anti-efficiency union rules hurt though.

Health care and pension costs hurt GM more than anything. GM's German competitors benefit from their government's health care and safety net.

I go to Detroit a couple times a year, I know what it's like.

July 7, 2013 at 7:17 p.m.
tifosi said...

degage: From 1978-80 I served in the 2nd Armored Cavalry/2nd Squadron based in Bamberg, Germany. We ran border operations along the Iron Curtain out of our border camp in Hof during the Carter administration. I was an M60-A1 tank crew member and we were the first thing the Soviets would contact if they came across the border. According to Tom Clancy, the border Cav units had an expected lifetime of 20 minutes if the Soviets came across. I was on the border in Hof when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. We were scrambled on alert and deployed into the German countryside in our hide positions ready for what had the potential to be largest tank battle since Kursk in WWII. My unit would later fight with great distinction in the most significant tank battle of the Iraqi wars at the Battle of 73 Easting. No, I was not there.

In 1978, our defense budget had been substantially reduced by President Carter and the Democrats. We were not always able to get the training that was needed to be prepared for our crucial task. The Energy Crisis, meant we did not have the fuel needed for field exercises. Soldiers were not very highly regarded in America at that time. Moral was low. Pride in America was at an all time low. I never dreamed that the Iron Curtain would come down in my lifetime.

President Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and everything changed. I was a young tank commander at Ft. Knox when the first M1 Abrams tanks were delivered in 1982. We knew it was a game-changer. For the first time soldiers didn't try to hide their profession in the post-Vietnam era. I thought President Reagan walked on water.

America's pride went through the roof.

When President Reagan revealed his Star Wars initiative I was in awe. When he fooled the Soviets into capitulating without firing a shot and the Iron Curtain came down, I sat in front of the television in shock.

When he died, I was on vacation and sat in front of the television for six days watching almost every minute of his casket in the Rotunda, taken down Pennsylvania Ave and later buried in California. I cried.

President Reagan secured America's future from a Soviet nuclear threat that I had always lived with. It was because of him that I voted Republican for his presidency and the next five elections.

Whether you want to believe my story or not is up to you. More importantly, I think you should start to ask yourself why the GOP has lost the base that President Reagan built. I think the GOP needs to start asking itself why it has lost so many supporters and I am a classic example of one of those supporters. America needs a strong GOP that is in touch with America... just like during President Reagan's years.

July 7, 2013 at 7:36 p.m.
tifosi said...

Yano- I have had several bad experiences with the UAW and their resistance to progress and change. I am about as anti-UAW as they come. IMO, bringing the UAW into Chattanooga is the equivalent of injecting ourselves with Syphilis.

July 7, 2013 at 8:05 p.m.
degage said...

You tifosi, can protest all you want, I still don't believe you. A Reagan supporter would never be as hate filled as you are to those that don't fall into line with Obama's agenda.

July 7, 2013 at 8:16 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "So you are saying if the nation wasn't shedding 800,000 jobs a month then the government should not have bailed out GM or any other company that would impact a million jobs."

I doubt that it would have been considered. We really don't have any way of knowing for sure.

"So 500,000, 100,000, 1,000, 100 jobs being in jeopardy would not rise to the level of government intervention."

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

"This is the problem Al if someone happens to work for a big corporation where a million or more jobs maybe at risk you would be willing to save those but anything less is not worth saving?"

Jobs come and jobs go. Businesses come and businesses go. But companies the size of GM and Chrysler along with their suppliers are not easily absorbed when they fail.

"The government should not be picking winners and losers left the free market work it out."

Again...a million plus jobs were on the line, at a time when tens of millions of others were already out of work. The cost to the taxpayers, had GM been liquidated, which is where it was headed, as no buyer was willing to save the company, would have cost this nation $27.3 billion, minimum per year, for unemployment benefits alone.

Whatever the loss may be when the GM shares are sold, it will pale in comparison to what it would have cost the taxpayers had GM went under completely.

"Al please look at this with an open mind."

I ask you to do the same thing. Set aside your distaste for union workers. Look at the money.

"I know you support the stimulus plan and FDR's New deal which consisted of a lot of federal spending. Now take a look when the stock market crashed in 1987 and Reagan did not get involved and let the free market work it out."

Sir, in 1987, the only issue on the table was a severe stock market crash. The economy was not in play at the time. Of course, everything rebounded quickly. Rumors, speculation, and nervousness over an extreme bullish market caused the plunge, NOT actual economic factors involved that were a part of the latest depression that lasted nearly a year.

"Why is it when government policies cause a recession people buy into the government is the only one to fix it when that is not true at all. The recession ended in the summer of 2009 and Obama has kept meddling and meddling and this is the slowest recovery in modern times."

Obama hasn't meddled in anything. This is what you people always get wrong. There are an untold number of economists on staff with the Federal Reserve, headed by a Chairman, currently Ben Bernanke. who are pulling all the strings.

You people give way too much credit and blame to one man. Washington is a body of people, most with the expertise at what they do, who advise and council the President.

Any President is the highest hired and elected representative of this nation, but he is hardly the man in charge of all things.

July 7, 2013 at 8:18 p.m.
alprova said...

tifosi, a compelling post for sure at 7:36.

Thanks for sharing it.

Every single Republican or former full-fledged Republican like myself, should read it. I may print that one out and hang it on my wall.

I was never behind a Republican more than I was Ronald Reagan. But then, most of the nation was as well.

July 7, 2013 at 8:30 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Tiffy 7:36post seems familiar...under a different name

July 7, 2013 at 9:20 p.m.
tifosi said...

Nope. One and only. I may have mentioned the border before.

degage- I don't expect you to fall into line with President Obama's agenda. I certainly did not fall into line with President Carter's agenda in 1978. I do think it is important to respect him and not make outrageous accusations with no intention but to discredit him with obviously erroneous information. There is no denying that racism and bigotry have occurred during these postings.

I all for learning and hearing opposing points of view that are based on some degree of intelligence. Getting all of your information from Fox TV and other right-wing websites will certainly lead you in only one direction. The same can be said of many left-wing sites. I don't knowingly go to either. I am also old enough to recognize fluff and BS from either side. All I seek is the truth and to keep an open mind. Sometimes I just don't know.

There is no denying I have been attacked viciously for expressing my point of view and I can get just as nasty in return. I will not tolerate racism and I will attack.

Alprova maintains a lot of decorum in the face of ridiculous and offensive attacks. We all could learn a little bit from Alprova's sense of just and desire to find the truth. Well informed. More than I am. We do not agree on the Middle East and probably not on the issue of unions, but I do respect Alprova.

July 7, 2013 at 9:38 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, the difference between the stock market crash of 1929 and 1987 were government policies by Herbert Hoover that caused the country to go into a recession. FDR compounded the problem with his big government programs and spending. It was the government that caused the 1929 recession after the stock market crash. Just like Bush and Obama are to blame for the most recent recession we just went through and have not recovered from.

What the crash mainly precipitated was a raft of wrongheaded policies that did major damage to the economy -- beginning with the disastrous retreat into protectionism marked by the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which passed the House in May 1929 and the Senate in March 1930, and was signed into law by Hoover in June 1930. As prices fell, Smoot-Hawley doubled the effective tariff duties on a wide range of manufactures and agricultural products. It triggered the beggar-thy-neighbor policies of countervailing tariffs that caused the international economy to collapse. Some have argued that the increasing likelihood that the Smoot-Hawley tariff would pass was a major contributing factor to the stock-market collapse in the fall of 1929.

What the crash mainly precipitated was a raft of wrongheaded policies that did major damage to the economy -- beginning with the disastrous retreat into protectionism marked by the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which passed the House in May 1929 and the Senate in March 1930, and was signed into law by Hoover in June 1930. As prices fell, Smoot-Hawley doubled the effective tariff duties on a wide range of manufactures and agricultural products. It triggered the beggar-thy-neighbor policies of countervailing tariffs that caused the international economy to collapse. Some have argued that the increasing likelihood that the Smoot-Hawley tariff would pass was a major contributing factor to the stock-market collapse in the fall of 1929.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/another_great_depression.html

July 7, 2013 at 9:43 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

tiffy: You are a little quick to use the R word. Make that a lot quick.

July 7, 2013 at 10:06 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "tiffy: You are a little quick to use the R word. Make that a lot quick."

So am I, and as the saying goes...."If the shoe fits...."

July 7, 2013 at 10:48 p.m.
alprova said...

tofosi wrote: "Alprova maintains a lot of decorum in the face of ridiculous and offensive attacks. We all could learn a little bit from Alprova's sense of just and desire to find the truth. Well informed. More than I am."

Thanks for the flowers. You do a great job yourself.

"We do not agree on the Middle East and probably not on the issue of unions, but I do respect Alprova."

I think we may agree more on the subject of unions than you think.

I don't want to see all unions disappear entirely, but I blame them, in part, for the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs from the United States.

I don't care very much for mob mentality, especially when it is used to place a choke hold on the throats of any business.

As for the Middle East, I'm a work in progress on that subject. It wasn't too long ago that I had zero interest in the region. I'm learning more every day.

July 7, 2013 at 10:56 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

you 2 should get a room

July 7, 2013 at 11:17 p.m.

News of the GOP’s untimely demise is greatly exaggerated. For at least another year, pundits will continue chanting the mantra (mostly unfounded) of the past nine months: Republicans are in panic mode; they face a horrible identity crisis; they’re clawing one another to pieces over party control; and they are desperately seeking an extreme makeover.

If Romney proved anything, it’s that etch-a-sketch platforms and promises are easily seen for what they are. The GOP does not lose elections because it isn’t enough like Democrats. The political careers of their presidential nominees hardly ever reflect a particularly conservative bent. In 2008 and 2012, facing an attractive, well-scripted, and history-making Democrat nominee, Republicans nominated yet another weak, moderate also-ran as their candidate, and that in the shadow of an unpopular war and a deep recession that, though bi-partisan in origin, reached their respective climaxes on the GOP’s watch. The timing and progress of wars and recessions, and a handful of high-profile, superficial campaign performances do far more to determine national elections than do the ideology of the candidate or the platform of the party.

Republicans need to nominate a bona fide conservative. They need to reach out to conservative Latinos and African-Americans. And they need to clearly communicate their message. They control one of our two houses of Congress. Their ideology is represented by half of the Supreme Court justices. They’re not facing imminent extinction. They simply lost two Presidential elections – something from which they’ve recovered plenty of times (as have Democrats). Americans like divided government. The Constitution was structured to ensure it. We will still unite during times of crisis. In the meantime, we should preserve the freedom to choose between not one, but two distinct parties.

July 7, 2013 at 11:40 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

As for the Middle East, I'm a work in progress on that subject. It wasn't too long ago that I had zero interest in the region. I'm learning more every day.

You are not alone in needing to understand the middle east and north Africa, all of us need to understnad it better. Very complex to say the least. Perhaps if you get to the point it can be explained you can share with those in D.C. since most of them seem to be ignorant about the region and the issues. I can see nothing to be gained for the majority of Americans by being involved in their internal affairs. I do know the press, journalist and politicians have very different views than history books and other books by many so called "experts" on the middle east.

I get irritated when John McCain tries to sound like he knows the issue well, he thinks his time as a POW makes him an expert on conflicts. I am sorry for his time as a POW but think about it, there could be no worse place to know and learn about what is going on in the world or to learn about your own military and country. You know I don't like or agree with Obama without me getting on that soap box again but I don't think McCain would have done any better and possibly gotten us in deeper.

July 7, 2013 at 11:52 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "you 2 should get a room"

You'd jut want to be a fly in that room.

July 8, 2013 at 12:44 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "You know I don't like or agree with Obama without me getting on that soap box again but I don't think McCain would have done any better and possibly gotten us in deeper."

The one thing we do both agree on is that the U.S. needs to take a hands-off approach to the rest of the world.

And the President is basically doing just that where Egypt is concerned. He is not taking sides, which people still refuse to see that he did as well a little over a year ago when Mubarak was forced out.

America needs to support a fair electoral process, whereby the people select their leaders. Morsi was elected. He just let his rise to power go to his head. It's not the first time that has happened.

July 8, 2013 at 1:09 a.m.
Maximus said...

Go to work people! Yano, try not to let the liberals or conservatives "hold you back". :)

July 8, 2013 at 6:59 a.m.
caddy said...
Nowhere does Scripture say that to know all is to forgive all.

Rather it says that on the Day of Wrath, everything secret will be known and everything in darkness will come to light. Nevertheless, Christians get pulled into absolutionism by all sorts of ropes. Ours is a God of mercy. Yes, but He is also a God of judgment. These two qualities are united by the atoning sacrifice of Christ, of which we cannot avail ourselves unless we repent. Christ has commanded us not to judge. Yes, but we are not commanded not to judge acts; we are only commanded not to judge souls. We know which acts are wrong because He has told us; we don't know which souls will repent because He hasn't.

J. Budziszewski

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/BudziszewskiLiberalism.php

July 8, 2013 at 9:46 a.m.
tifosi said...

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

"Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

July 8, 2013 at 10:51 a.m.
caddy said...

...and then Jesus, who did not condemn the woman said, "Go and Sin no more." Please see above response on condemning souls vs. the acts those souls commit, tifosi.

July 8, 2013 at 10:59 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Just my opinion....a time and a place for bible study....this ain't it.

July 8, 2013 at 11:02 a.m.
tifosi said...

I agree.

July 8, 2013 at 11:39 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

So many posters here are following this same modus operandi of name calling and destructiveness that has become the norm for Republican politics.

tifosi said...

See previous posts dumbass.

July 8, 2013 at 2:08 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Yano said...

Benefits to working people amount to a subsidy for big business, because it allows them to pay lower wages. We should hike the minimum wage and not give EBT or welfare to the employed. If we lower taxes using the money we save, the net effect on the economy will be positive (better efficiency), and the distortion of big government subsidies on our economy (helping retailers and hurting manufacturers) will be reduced.

Health care and pension costs hurt GM more than anything. GM's German competitors benefit from their government's health care and safety net. [A subsidy from government to private sector? - Jt]

[Cognitive Dissidence ? - Jt]

July 8, 2013 at 2:11 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

Say what you will, but you won't find very many auto workers voting for a Republican anytime soon.

(Is that UAW or auto workers in general?)

I think they know who has worked to save their jobs and who hasn't.

(I think most people know that those votes were purchased for political purposes with their tax money)

July 8, 2013 at 2:24 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Tiffy said "So many posters here are following this same modus operandi of name calling and destructiveness that has become the norm for Republican politics" Tiffy, you're either a newbie here or you're blinded by the light. Nastiness abounds with Dayton, Nooga, Easy, Dude Abides, et.al....and sometimes by Tiffy and Alpo. Oh yeah.

July 8, 2013 at 3:15 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Rickaroo said...

Furthermore, it is a verifiable fact, as has been stated already by alprova and others, that NO government funding is used for elective abortions, not even by Planned Parenthood. But you reactionary, lie-spewing anti-abortion zealots keep trying to make an issue out of your tax dollars contributing to the "murder" of innocent babies. Shut up already. It ain't happening.


It’s my understanding that under Obamacare some people will be given subsidies to combine with their own funds to purchase healthcare insurance. These insurance policies can cover elective abortions along with other coverage. However the law provides that the abortion coverage is to be paid with the portion of the premium that the covered person provides. This is a common accounting trick that government uses to give the appearance of separation but in fact is a distinction without a difference.

Reasonable people can differ over the details of that part of the law but its just a shame that you hardly fall under that definition by any measure applied to adults.

July 8, 2013 at 5:45 p.m.
tifosi said...

PT... I am ready to stop and begin a useful and intellectual dialogue. Are you?

July 8, 2013 at 6:23 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Sure

July 8, 2013 at 7:05 p.m.
tifosi said...

Anyone else?

July 8, 2013 at 7:32 p.m.
rick1 said...

Unborn babies who have reached at least 20 weeks of age in utero are aborted at a rate of about 30 per day in the United States, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO has also concluded that aborting babies at 20 weeks or later in pregnancy saves money for the government-run federal-state Medicaid system.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-20-week-fetuses-aborted-rate-30-day-saves-money-government-run-health-care

July 8, 2013 at 9:10 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

As a matter of fact, If such a gene was discovered and conclusively proven that a person born with it would result in a child growing up to be gay, I would not advise my wife to abort such a child. I love my children, no matter what they are.


Would you support a law that prevents the abortion of fetuses that have been determined to be gay when they mature? Couldn’t that be determined to be a crime against a protected group?

July 8, 2013 at 10:13 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

PT... I am ready to stop and begin a useful and intellectual dialogue. Are you?


Try to catch up if you can.

July 8, 2013 at 10:16 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Rickaroo said...

Nobody on either side of this issue is IN FAVOR of late-term abortion.

(Not one person in the whole planet? ... Really? And no you weren’t referring to this web site alone.)

You care deeply about them as long as they're in the womb but the moment they pop out they are just another drain on society, being born to yet another "moocher" sucking on the government teat.

(+ 18 years)

And if you think this isn't about religion, think again.

(There are many people, myself included, who are not religious in nature yet feel strongly that abortion after viability is infanticide. The only exception would be for the life of the mother but only if delivering the fetus would further endanger her life.)

As for me being disrespectful....gee, I'm sorry. I certainly don't want to offend any good little Bible thumping Christian soldiers. Lord knows, they should get all the respect that any blind-deaf-and-dumb brain-dead sheeple deserve.

(Personality disorder?)

July 8, 2013 at 10:17 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

The Republicans were the party of "No" in 1965 when it came to Medicare too.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally65.html


Looks like there was bipartisan support and opposition. It is beginning to look like those that were opposed to its operational form may ultimately be recognized as the more perceptive of those involved in its creation.

July 8, 2013 at 10:19 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

It's called a democracy for a reason PlainTruth. A candidate finds out what voters want and then creates a plan to deliver. Been that way for 237 years. Is that strange to you?


If our representatives’ only task is to “give the voters” what they “want” then a plebiscite is a lot less expensive and quicker.

July 8, 2013 at 10:23 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Imagine a Romney victory....then drones, NSA, delaying portions of Obamacare....he would be called Dubya Jr., no?

July 8, 2013 at 10:39 p.m.
caddy said...

Apostate man will become progressively more dialectical in his thinking and more and more given to the absolutizing of the relative, and the deification of his autonomy and his theoretical thought.

Redeemed man, as God's vice-gerent living in terms of "the glorious liberty of the children of God ( Romans 8:21 ), will progressively develop the implications of His image in terms of his mandate to know and use creation in terms of the Word of God. RJR. p.34, "The One and the Many."

July 22, 2013 at 9:35 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.