I get your point and agree about large purchases and the sales tax rate, aae. Costco might not be the best example, however, since one is not available here in Chattanooga. I, and a number of friends and relatives, go to Costco because we prefer it to Sam's (better products, better service, etc).
Well FreeTeacher, can you use those excellent reading comprehension skills to show me exactly where I attacked conservative teachers, suggested they should not have an organization that represents their interests, or that union membership should be mandatory? Or could you just admit that you accused me of posting something I didn't?
Financial contributions and endorsements are only one way for an organization to demonstrate their political sway. As I've mentioned, PET's own website shows that they cite numerous conservative sources to support their issue positions, their director is positively promoted on a number of sites as a solid conservative, and they take a largely conservative view on a number of issues. There is nothing wrong with that, but why pretend to be neutral when they are clearly not? And before you respond, please remember that this is an organization you defended by asking me, "Don't we (meaning conservative teachers) have a right to our own organization?"
FreeTeacher, I certainly hope you don't teach reading comprehension because you clearly need to work on yours. Can you point out where I attacked conservative teachers, stated that there shouldn't be a conservative teacher's organization, or suggested that union membership be mandatory? I have no problem with PET as an organization or conservative teachers. I have a problem with PET and this editorial painting it as politically neutral when it, by your own admission, is not.
The insurance isn't a better deal as GeometryGil explained. And it is political when PET is advocating positions from a highly conservative standpoint while falsely claiming neutrality. There's also the matter of how much, if any, of their money is being spent for Mr. Bowman to go on mostly conservative speaking engagements all around Tennessee. Of course, that's a matter for their membership.
I'm attempting to make this a partisan issue? Did you read the editorial?
PET's advocacy bulletins reference primarily conservative organizations, Mr. Bowman's editorials do have a conservative spin, furthermore a Google search shows numerous articles and organizations which promote him as a "strong" or "outspoken conservative." PET is neither independent nor non-partisan. They are a conservative teachers organization. That's not making the issue political, that's being honest.
PET is independent and non-partisan? Who are you trying to fool with that nonsense? Most of the advocacy papers on their website exclusively provide supporting "evidence" from right-wing sources. The posts from executive director J.C. Bowman read like they are coming straight from this side of the newspaper - which is probably why he was invited to speak at a meeting of the the Chattanooga Tea Party last year.
Shame on the liar who wrote this piece!
An advanced search on Google with the words "CNN" and "Jeremiah Wright" showed 3,000+ hits. I'd say that means it was fairly well covered. I imagine the results would be the same for most other news stations, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince some hyper-partisan joker who just believes what he wants to believe.
One question though: How does Obama's connection to Jeremiah Wright absolve Scott DesJarlias of his inappropriate and hypocritical behavior?
Umm, I'm not sure what you're so confused about, Jon. The fact that Obama attended Wright's church was well-covered in the press and videos of some of Wright's more controversial statements were shown over all the major news stations repeatedly four years ago when the story broke.
The information about DesJarlais broke more recently which is why it's being covered now.
Your need to turn everything into an anti-Obama rant is really pretty sad.
Do living in the Lord's way include referring to people with whom you don't agree as LIBTARDS? Wow, my church is way off on that one, I suppose.
I am with riverman on this one (although I think the Hitler analogy was a bit much). I, too, live in the county, and would like to see a metro government, but I don't agree that people should be forced into it without a vote. Metro government makes sense, but the people being asked to be part of it should have a choice in the matter.