PinkSalmon's comment history

PinkSalmon said...

According to several online media outlets, Akin didn't get his advice on rape from a certified medical doctor. The wacko "legitimate rape" idea is actually said to have come from a spiritual mentor, and a wacko one at that who is well known and preaches on national TV. The Anti-Defamation League has declared this wacky dude a religious supremacist.

This "spiritual mentor" is said to have claimed 1. women sometimes invite rape. 2. women who do become pregnant after a rape and seek an abortion are hysterical. 3. Some women can be responsible for their own rape. Need we go on?

These people actually have followers?

August 22, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
PinkSalmon said...

whats_wrong_with_the_world said... "What's wrong for one person may not be wrong for others. Who are we to judge?"

This is what kids have been programmed to believe and tragedies like this are the result. Of course, relativists won't accept responsibility for the effects of their irrational and dehumanizing teaching about ethics. They will stubbornly turn a blind eye and plant their heads securely back in the sand. Wake up, people

wwwtw, I totally agree! Is America aiding and abetting future hardcore criminals with such beliefs? Some people don't think it's wrong to cheat, steal, murder, and rape. Is the individual who made that state "what's wrong for one person blah blah blah" saying it's OK for a person to commit wrongs, even crimes, based on their belief system of right and wrong? When people make such ignorant assertions I honestly don't think they take time to fully realize what they're saying. disturbing

"What's wrong for one person may not be wrong for others. Who are we to judge?"

Who said the above, by the way? I didn't see it in the article, nor any prior postings.

June 28, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.
PinkSalmon said...

Awwwh shucks! these little brats are just budding little limbaughs, hannitys, becks and quite a few local adults we sometimes encounter in our everyday lives. Who would have thought?! Y'all should be so proud of what you've created in your children.

June 28, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
PinkSalmon said...

It doesn't stop there, pudgyponderer. Wherever teens get together and drink, there's usually other risky behavior taking place. Such as drug abuse, sexual promiscuity; sometimes group sharing which often leads to the transmission of sexually diseases. Some of those diseases can be fatal or can cause an individual to become sterile and unable to conceive later in life. Then there's the potential that certain cancer cells are sexually transmitted. Not to mention the potential for rape when inhibitions are lowered through the use of alcohol.

Many women who are unable to conceive later in life often contracted a sexually transmitted disease earlier in life that went untreated. A startling large precentage of those women are white middle classed and above. Women don't always recognize the potential signs that they may have contracted an STD; cramps, heavy or prolonged menstrual cycles. Since women repropductive organs are internal, and women can naturally discharge anyway, they're not going to pay much attention to something unnatural dripping from an opening the way men will, or may not experience the burning urnination men often have when they've contracted something. Then there's always the potential for developing into full blown alcoholics when earlier age the individual starts to drink.

Alcohol is a gateway drug. Just because alcohol is legal that doesn't lessen its powerful effects. Most all drug addicts started out either consuming alcohol or take their drugs in combination with alcohol.

The law is the law. We can't have one law for one set of indivdiuals because they seemingly come from a better community or class, then severely enforce and punish others using those same laws because their paychecks are smaller and their communities are poorer.

June 6, 2012 at 3:02 p.m.
PinkSalmon said...

Miss? Mrs. Eidson? Weren't you were one of the primary individuals originally against busing inner city students to those better schools. Did you suddenly find religion or something? Grow a heart?

May 28, 2012 at 11:23 p.m.
PinkSalmon said...

I've found the right side of tfp always harp on stories of this nature on a pretense of concern, when it's a sly way of showing bigotry, hate and attempts to overall demean and insult targeted group. Then they claim their christian values. Surely, there are likely just as many similar stories of this kind in rural appalachia America, along with the inbreeding from being too closely related that goes on.

May 25, 2012 at 8:21 p.m.
PinkSalmon said...

AndrewLohr said...

Constitution, Amendment 5: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." How does the prosecutress proceed without a Grand Jury indictment of Mr Zimmerman?

You really are confused, aren't you sweety? Let us try and help you out a little. 1. The charge is neither capitol nor infamous. Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder. That's a far cry from a capitol murder charge nor has he yet been declared infamous (meaning incompetent to be a witness). If you're going to quote the Constitution at the very least first try to understand it.

  1. It's also those states rights you ringwingers have been in favor of for so long.

Andrew said...

OK, liberals, if someone knocked you down and was hitting you, and you had a gun, would you shoot him (especially if he was going for your gun)? In that narrow sense, it sounds like self-defense. How it got that way, maybe not--though I haven't heard any rumor that Mr Zimmerman was targeting Mr Martin in particular or blacks in general

If some stranger cased, stalked, chased then confronted you wouldn't you have every right to defend yourself? This is not to say that Martin even had the opportunity to defend himself. There's only Zimmerman's word. However, if Martin was able to get in a few punches he was in his right to do so.

Baxley, the Republican who co-sponsored the stand your ground bill, has gone on record and stated the law doesn't apply in Zimmerman's favor. As it was Martin who had the right to stand his ground. So has Gov. Jeb Bush gone on record and stated the stand your ground law doesn't apply to Zimmerman. As Zimmerman is the one that was the aggressor and Martin had every right to defend himself.

If there had been no charges filed my bet is it would have become open season in many states that have this stand your ground law. That's why so many nazis hate groups, and other conservative right wingers are coming out in droves in Zimmerman's defense. They were actually seeing themselves in his place. Preparing. Salivating at the mouth in anticipation, likely, if the no charge decision had stuck. That's why they're so upset that Zimmerman has been charged. Other Florida cases are being reviewed where the stand your ground defense has been used and the killer got off without being charged.

April 12, 2012 at 5:18 p.m.
PinkSalmon said...

I don't think people on either side of the issue can fully grasp or understand the significants of this tragic event and why so many right ring and nazi groups came out in support of Zimmerman. If you know American history you'd better understand why so many right wing hate groups jumped to Zimmerman's defense. If there had been no arrest. If the state of Florida had agreed with local Sanford, this would have given the green light for anyone everywhere where this bill has been signed into law. This would have basically made it open seasoned on unarmed, defenseless and innocent fellow Americans. In some cases, judges have already ruled in favor of the shooter when the shooter used their fear of another's person race as the reason they shot the individual.

In many states as long as there are not witnesses to the shooting, and the shooter claims self defense and the use the stand your ground law, that suriving person's word was meant to be taken and no charges filed. This is what was meant to happen in the Zimmerman/Martin case. No witnesses. No proof that the shooting was not in self defense. The burden of proof shifts to the victim, who can't speak because he is dead. Just to CYA in case, find a witness who is also a friend to say they witnessed part of the alleged altercation and the perp goes free. No charge, No investigation into a homicide. Nothing. Zip.

We should all be thankful that Zimmerman was taken off the street before he became a police officer. It seems that was his ultimate goal. With his violent criminal history, he should have never been allowed to legally own a gun in the first place.

April 12, 2012 at 4:40 p.m.
PinkSalmon said...

I agree with Mr. Duckworth. And to think the guy who's pushing this saggy pants law is actually a fellow African-American and Democrat, Joe Towns. As an African-American himself he should know this law will only lead to a lot more stereotyping, racial profiling, harrassment and eventualy another tragedy like the one Florida is having to deal with. Why do African-Americans let fellow African-Americans get away with such non-sense just because they're African-Americans? When if a white or some other politician had tried this law they'd be at least expressing concerns over their young males being like targeted.

This a dumb law that likely to have a predictable tragic outcome. When will African-Americans start reaching out to their young people and protecting them from laws they know will serve only to hurt, discriminate and persecute them like other minority groups do?

When Colorado police tried to target white kids expressing themselves with the gothic look because of Harris and Kleibold, parents of those students took a stand and warned them to "back off buster! You're not going to target our children!"**

Go on with your bad selves, AA-community. Keep on digging holes for yourselves and your own. You do the job on one another even KK*K wouldn't even attempt to do.

Some AAs in leadership roles stay too focused on non-issues and that's why others, even recently immigrants, some from African nations, are so far ahead economically and scholastically. While they're running around the school suspending their students for saggy pants or with rulers trying to measure the hem of the skirt to the knee, others are teaching physics, languages and world histories.

April 6, 2012 at 1:10 p.m.
PinkSalmon said...

All I have to say, Mr. Greer, is why are people who call themselvesChristians so mean spiritied and intolerant of others? I've met many people from many different religions around the world, some of no religion at all. Yet I've never met people as mean and filled with hate and condemnation of others than the ones who say they are Christians.

Even when they're performing good deeds and acts of charity, there is some angle to it. Like, Look at me. I'm a good Christian performing God's work, but don't follow us home or back into our neighborhoods. We don't want you there.

April 3, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.

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.