Drennan's comment history

wrdrennan said...

It's good that you have Tea Party followers, Clay. Cruz is a loon. And Lohr apparently knows what political party Jesus belongs to. I wasn't aware He had any political affiliation as His followers are in ALL political parties.

October 12, 2013 at 1:53 a.m.
wrdrennan said...

The right wingers are out tonight! Where is the center? Some people need to remember who won the election, under the delusion that Boehner is "center".

January 22, 2013 at 1:06 a.m.
wrdrennan said...

We hope so, Clay. We hope so.

November 16, 2012 at 1:31 a.m.
wrdrennan said...

Damn, I HOPE it's not that bad if Romney wins.

October 17, 2012 at 1:26 a.m.
wrdrennan said...

Good cartoon, Clay. I get kinda tired of right wingers spouting nonsense about how Obama is all washed up, etc. Romney presented well, but only if you believed what he said. He does seem detached from reality.

October 6, 2012 at 2:33 a.m.
wrdrennan said...

That's excellent.

September 16, 2012 at 1:32 a.m.
wrdrennan said...

The GOP wants to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies, but then screams to high heaven that the Affordable Care Act has too much government control over our bodies. Irony abounds.

August 22, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
wrdrennan said...

Hope you are right, Clay. Repeal would be a big step backwards.

July 12, 2012 at 2:47 a.m.
wrdrennan said...

Shades of Dr. Suess "Goes to War", his political cartoon referring to America's isolationist response to the Nazis prior to Pearl Harbor. Have you seen that cartoon? Global warming is a completely different kind of foe though. We can't just shoot it down and hence it is more than a little frightening.

July 8, 2012 at 3:09 a.m.
wrdrennan said...

The case against him is actually quite weak. There's very little hard evidence against him. This is why the justice department dropped the case: there was no real evidence. There are some 2009 & 2010 blood samples "consistent" with EPO use and blood transfusion. This is years after the TdF victories, it's not clear what "consistent with" means ie how much validity there is to that conclusion. Otherwise, it is almost exclusively "witness" testimony which is always suspect. There was some reference to a urine sample that was covered up in 2001, but again, this is based on witness testimony and is always suspect. So--- is he guilty? Based on what I've seen so far, we're never going to know.

June 17, 2012 at 1:58 a.m.
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.