published Sunday, December 18th, 2011

The Christmas Card

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 ...

83
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.
onetinsoldier said...

Carefull, it probably contains anthrax.

December 18, 2011 at 12:12 a.m.
lumpy said...

Bennett is a sad, little Democrat party foot soldier.

How about a cartoon about "fast and furious". It's much worse than watergate. At least no one was killed because of watergate. I guess Obama and Holder will get away with it because they're Democrats and black.

December 18, 2011 at 1:12 a.m.
rolando said...

For a number of years, I received unwanted and unsolicited material from US Senator Ted Kennedy's office. The return address on the front was "US Senate" but it had Kennedy's name on the back. Postage-free, of course.

I wrote Kennedy's office -- as printed on the envelope -- innumerable times objecting to their USPS mailings and gave the the reason...all to no avail. Their junk mail kept coming.

Then I hit on a tactic that worked, using US Postal Service regulations and federal law: I told them I found their mailings offensive, obscene, and pornographic and if they again mailed material to me that I found offensive under the law, I would report it to the USPS for prosecution. [The law provides that the individual, not the sender, determines the meaning of "offensive, obscene, or pornographic." The penalties for violation are substantial.]

That worked; they haven't mailed any of their propaganda to me since.

Luckily for U.N.-Approved Bennett and the unapproved TFP, I did not receive the above drawing through the USPS...otherwise they would receive written notice from me that I find the above offensive, obscene, and pornographic under tha law and advise them of the federal law they had broken.

This is not the first drawing of his I find personally offensive, UN approval or not.

December 18, 2011 at 5:37 a.m.
woody said...

Ordinarily I would likely borrow a quote, "...me thinks he doth protest too much...." And then I remembered it was Rolando.

Merry Christmas.. Happy Chanuka..Seasons Greetings..Happy Holidays..Bah Humbug..(pick one) buddy..Woody

December 18, 2011 at 6:47 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "For a number of years, I received unwanted and unsolicited material from US Senator Ted Kennedy's office. The return address on the front was "US Senate" but it had Kennedy's name on the back. Postage-free, of course."

Oh my.

"I wrote Kennedy's office -- as printed on the envelope -- innumerable times objecting to their USPS mailings and gave the the reason...all to no avail. Their junk mail kept coming."

Oh my. What was the reason by the way?

"Then I hit on a tactic that worked, using US Postal Service regulations and federal law: I told them I found their mailings offensive, obscene, and pornographic and if they again mailed material to me that I found offensive under the law, I would report it to the USPS for prosecution."

Do tell. I'm sure you shook them up with that.

"[The law provides that the individual, not the sender, determines the meaning of "offensive, obscene, or pornographic." The penalties for violation are substantial.]"

What particular law are you referring to? No such law exists. Especially not one that allows a recipient of mail to determine what is, "offensive, obscene, or pornographic."

"That worked; they haven't mailed any of their propaganda to me since."

You're full of crap. Even the office of a United States Senator is well aware of U.S. Postal Regulation 13.10 and USC Title 39, 3001(L) requiring the removal of names from mailing lists upon written request by any recipient of unwanted mail, for a period of no less than five years.

You never wrote them the first time requesting them to not send you any mailings from his office, if indeed you were ever on a mailing list from Senator Ted Kennedy to begin with.

"Luckily for U.N.-Approved Bennett and the unapproved TFP, I did not receive the above drawing through the USPS...otherwise they would receive written notice from me that I find the above offensive, obscene, and pornographic under tha law and advise them of the federal law they had broken."

What a man you are. I'm sure that the staff of the TFP are all quaking in their tennis shoes at the mere threat that you would serve them notice that they would be breaking some fictitious law if they had mailed you a copy of their newspaper with a Clay Bennett 'toon in it that you find offensive.

"This is not the first drawing of his I find personally offensive, UN approval or not."

It's a shame that there isn't a law on the books to prevent people from posting unfettered B.S. into public forums, for you would be in violation of such a law at least several times per week.

Take a bow. You just took B.S. to a new, higher, yet totally incredible level.

December 18, 2011 at 6:54 a.m.
dude_abides said...

"For a number of years, I received unwanted and unsolicited material from US Senator Ted Kennedy's office... blah, blah, blah... That worked; they haven't mailed any of their propaganda to me since." -rolando

I think he died, buddy. Just sayin'. LOL

December 18, 2011 at 8:25 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Would Ron Paul remove the asterisk?

December 18, 2011 at 9:34 a.m.
shoe_chucker said...

Jesus would.

December 18, 2011 at 9:40 a.m.
MTJohn said...

AndrewLohr said...

Would Ron Paul remove the asterisk?

No. He'd just operate with a different set of restrictions.

December 18, 2011 at 9:45 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

How about a cartoon about "fast and furious". It's much worse than watergate. At least no one was killed because of watergate. I guess Obama and Holder will get away with it because they're Democrats and black.

What happened to "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Why should we hold Holder/Obama responsible and not the gun store owner, manufactures, etc. Is it because they are black.

Happy Holidays (which includes Merry Chistmas, Hanika, and New Years) - Proper Etiquette

December 18, 2011 at 9:49 a.m.
aidehua said...

Of course, Happy Holiday Greetings from the Demonrats only go to union members, government employees, trial lawyers and abortionists. Clay is a Podesta/Soros-funded hack who only finds fault with Republicans. What has Obama given to the common, everyday American? A bag of coal and a larger debt!

December 18, 2011 at 10:10 a.m.

I find it almost comical that the same people get on here every day and say over and over again how they hate Clay Bennett and his comics. But the key phrase is "every day" if it bothers you so bad then simply do not look at it.

December 18, 2011 at 10:43 a.m.
memphisexile said...

Unfortunately this is true. Unless you are a Christian and heterosexual, you are not welcome in the Republican party's America. It is a shame that a party that probably has some really smart members gets side tracked by religious intolerance, outdated social ideas and voodoo economics. Why not instead focus on real reforms instead of pandering to the extremists. The simple fact is that every republican politician is so scared of a challenge from a tea party candidate that they cater to extremism and focus on social issues when the economy is going into the toilet. LIke it or not Republicans, the tea party makes it impossible for a Republican to be a moderate, hope you are ready for President Obama's second term.

We need term limits of 2 terms for Senators and 5 terms for Congressman. All campaign donations should have to be anonymously made to a national clearing house and distributed to each politician to avoid undue influence. That is the only way we will see politicians doing what is best for their constituents and what they think is right, rather than what they have been bribed to do by their campaign contributors.

December 18, 2011 at 10:45 a.m.
jesse said...

well bennett dressed obama up like santa so you know he's gonna remake the repubs into the GRINCH!!

December 18, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.
dude_abides said...

jonross... so you run out in the yard, grab the paper, "read it front to back" (interrupted by casting a glancing look at Bennett), then try to go about your business while the vile, evil scratchings of the cartoonist eat at you. Finally, you can take no more and you run for the computer to right his wrongs, right? And this happens every single day, right? mmmkay...

December 18, 2011 at 11:24 a.m.
MTJohn said...

JonRoss said...

Teddy was an immoral scum bag. Bennett is close behind.

Bennett's perspectives might differ from yours. How does that make him an "immoral scum bag"?

December 18, 2011 at 11:24 a.m.
alprova said...

MtJohn asked John Ross: "Bennett's perspectives might differ from yours. How does that make him an "immoral scum bag"?"

John Ross has been proven time and time again that his own personal perspectives are rooted in misinformation and outright lies, especially when it comes to our current President.

But it is Clay who is the "immoral scumbag." What do you call spreading tall tales about others? One can disagree with those who hold differing political viewpoints all day long, but I'll never understand people who wallow in ignorance, when facts and the truth is so easily discovered.

Ted Kennedy, for all that he was or that which he may have done, is dead. Nothing is gained by trashing a man who is no longer on this Earth. The people who elected him year after year to represent them in the Senate thought he was a pretty decent man.

When assessing the soul of another in terms of being immoral, let he or she without sin cast the first stone. The Bible I read tells me that all will have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. Asking forgiveness of God for your sins washes them away.

Therefore Mr. John Ross, you have no proof that Ted Kennedy was an "immoral scum bag" and even less that Clay Bennett "is close behind."

Shame on you.

December 18, 2011 at noon
rolando said...

alprova said...

Oh -- An exclamatory word.

My -- Indicating possession of some sort. [He likes to hold things.]

You never wrote them the first time requesting them to not send you any mailings from his office, if indeed you were ever on a mailing list from Senator Ted Kennedy to begin with.

"You" -- A word indicating another person.

"Never" -- Implies an infinite amount of time. [He loves exaggeration]

"Wrote" Past tense of the verb "write". [He occasionally spells it "roadt" or some such.

And so on.

He must have been dumpster-diving through my trash to discover all that. Hope you enjoyed the baggies of cats==t. To say nothing about violating another federal law regarding the sanctity of First Class US Mail and the penalty for rummaging around in federally protected property -- the mailbox.

Do your own research, nuhmnuhts.

December 18, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.
rolando said...

He was dead when they sent the stuff, dude...politically dead, anyway.

December 18, 2011 at 12:33 p.m.
dadofboys said...

Again, another ad hominum attack against anyone who holds to a republican/conservative viewpoint of government, insinuating that they are heartless and want to impoverish people and be cruel. Mr. Bennett you are a sorry one-trick-pony of a cartoonist.

December 18, 2011 at 12:34 p.m.
alprova said...

John Ross wrote: "...bennett supports the racist and marxist Obama administration. i judge racism and marxism to be immoral."

Since you are judging the President to be a racist and a Marxist, I challenge you to provide examples that prove your assertions.

Unbridled Capitalism is fast approaching a state where it can no longer sustain the living standards of the lower half of the population of this nation, due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social services and satisfying the thirst by some in this nation to pursue military aggression as a furtherance of financial investments by special interests.

A socialist economy is such that it would not base production on the accumulation of capital, but would instead base production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs.

Following World War II, and for much of the thirty years afterward, there was a balance between Capitalism and Marxism, if you will, that allowed everyone in this nation to thrive. A man could be the sole breadwinner for an entire household and most people lived comfortably.

All of that started falling apart when Ronald Reagan was elected.

The Occupy protests are the beginning phase of a class struggle. Under the capitalist mode of production, which the Republican Party sponsors and continues to foster, this struggle between the minority who own the means of production and the vast majority of the population who produce the goods and services, is merely the first step being taken to right the wrongs that exist between different classes within our society that contradict each other.

Carl Marx, who wrote about such theories more than 150 years ago, seems to have hit the nail on the head in predicting events that have transpired in 2011. He concluded that out-of-control capitalism oppresses the worker and he predicted the inevitable result being revolution.

And it's not just happening here. Revolution is ongoing all over the World, unless you have not been paying attention.

The fact that President Obama recognizes class warfare is happening and speaks to its existence does not in and of itself make him a Marxist. It merely indicates that he lives in the real world.

Republicans and their continued devotion to only the rich of this nation is tearing it apart at the seams.

Your charge that Obama is a racist is even more perplexing. I have no idea what you are basing that on.

December 18, 2011 at 12:53 p.m.
alprova said...

John Ross wrote: "So alprova we can safely say that you admire and respect George W. Bush ?"

I neither admire nor respect the man. But then I don't spend a great deal of my time demeaning him either. He no longer presents a threat to this nation any longer and can no longer do the citizens of this nation any more harm.

"That the GOP is made up of thoughtful human beings ?"

If you have a six-figure income and above, sure, they think about you all the time. The sad thing is, the extent of their thoughtfulness is limited as to how to avail themselves of some of that money in order to be elected and re-elected.

"That the Tea Party is made up of concerned citizens ?"

I've not seen much from people who consider themselves to be Tea-Partiers lately. Why should I waste my time pondering a tide that seems to be washing itself back out to sea?

December 18, 2011 at 1:09 p.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Peace on Earth... well, we know the Republicans don't want that. They are already gleefully talking about our next war at the never ending debates.

and Good will toward men... means just that: only men not women. Here's proof: the house GOP just passed the "Protect Life Unless You Are a Woman Act" recently. As one of the letters to the editor stated today, Republicans only care about the fetus not the born children nor their mothers.

December 18, 2011 at 1:16 p.m.
dude_abides said...

rolando... just thought it comical that he was under the impr... wait a second! I thought you were never coming back to this site so as to teach Bennett and the TFP a lesson! I guess you saw that life would go on with or without you, and decided to come back, eat your words, and play us some more tunes on your vitriola, your xenophone, and your priccolo. Hey, if that don't make you laugh you need to give up.

December 18, 2011 at 1:25 p.m.
tipper said...

So jonross, you run out and grab the paper. Is that before or after you admire your tatoos and polish your head?

December 18, 2011 at 1:33 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "..."Wrote" Past tense of the verb "write". [He occasionally spells it "roadt" or some such."

The one thing I know for sure is that I rarely make a mistake when I submit a post into this forum. When I do, it is due to my hitting a wrong key and not catching it. I have a superb spell checking program installed on all my computers. You can't begin to back that one up with so much as one reference.

"He must have been dumpster-diving through my trash to discover all that. Hope you enjoyed the baggies of cats==t. To say nothing about violating another federal law regarding the sanctity of First Class US Mail and the penalty for rummaging around in federally protected property -- the mailbox."

Nope. I call B.S. whenever I see it posted. Your reference to some Federal law regarding self-determination as to what can be considered "offensive, obscene, and pornographic" was the most blatant example of pure B.S. that you have offered to date.

To further that by leveling a threat to the TFP and Mr. Bennett was the most laughable thing you have offered to date in this forum.

That, combined with your story to have been repeatedly pestered by the mailing list of a now dead Senator, whom you most certainly had philosophical differences with, tends to cast doubt upon all that you wrote.

Maybe one day, you'll learn to do a little thinking before you start typing. I won't hold my breath however on that.

"Do your own research, nuhmnuhts."

I did and my response was the result of doing so. Your B.S. claim prompted me to conduct a quick seminar to educate myself to the finer points of our U.S. postal laws.

With this latest one, you're not doing well at all in backing up anything you ever offer into this forum. You're zero for several hundred and racking them up.

I would offer my apologies and ordinarily, I might have refrained from addressing your post and let it go, but you seem to wallow in utter ignorance and seething misery, and it filters into every post you offer these days, so I consider it my duty to return the favor with facts.

December 18, 2011 at 1:39 p.m.
shoe_chucker said...

alprova said Since you are judging the President to be a racist and a Marxist, I challenge you to provide examples that prove your assertions.

anyone?anyone?Bueller?Ferris Bueller?anyone?

December 18, 2011 at 2:16 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "I've been away a bit and I didn't get to address your last post on the Reindeer thread. I dare not post it here as the level of verbiage that we are generating would probably get us both banned."

"If you care, read it and weep at the prospect of both the reading and the responding."

I read it and have no further response to any of the issues you find it necessary to continue to challenge. I agree to disagree.

December 18, 2011 at 2:23 p.m.
dude_abides said...

hey tu Kwanzaa! Welcome back! The freeways look nice and clean, by the way.

December 18, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.
lumpy said...

Let me get this straight, Obama attends a church for 20 years, a church which is indisputably racist and anti-american/marxist, and refers to its preacher and founder as his mentor, yet that means nothing? Obama was raised by marxists, or socialists, and spent much of his adult life hanging around anti-Americans and marxist college types, and that means nothing?

Alprova, you're just a mouth piece for the Obama administration. You can't be taken seriously any more than a moron like Sharpton or Whoopi Goldberg can.

If a Republican attended a kkk influenced church, would that mean something?

Nothing matters with Obama apparently. He gets away with anything because he's a light skinned black man who is a marxist. The ideal man in the eyes of the lefty media.

Obama and the Democrat Party play the race card like a violin. In fact, MSNBC, or MSLCD, just tried to slap Romney with some kind of KKK crap.

You may not make mistakes in your posts, but you're basically a Democrat Party whore. That's it.

December 18, 2011 at 2:41 p.m.
lumpy said...

Obama is the face of the Democrat Party now. Labeling anyone a racist who criticizes him is part of their strategy.

Only a racist and a Marxist, not to mention an anti-semite would attend such a church for that long.

December 18, 2011 at 2:47 p.m.
NGAdad said...

JonRoss... I'm shocked you were allowed to plead to felony escape and get probation. Round two and three, on the terroristic threats and grand larceny charges, are coming up. We will not be allowing any plea deal or "returning" our property, to drop the charges. Bye bye jerk. Say hello to Bubba, he'll love all the name calling.

December 18, 2011 at 2:57 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "“Federal law 39 U.S.C. 3008 gives you the power to stop offensive material, which is any material you believe to be provocative, from being mailed to you."

39 U.S.C. 3008 does not pertain to correspondence sent from a United States Senator. The exact wording of that law is as follows;

§ 3008. PROHIBITION OF PANDERING ADVERTISEMENTS - "Whoever for himself, or by his agents or assigns, mails or causes to be mailed any pandering advertisement which offers for sale matter which the addressee in his sole discretion believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative shall be subject to an order of the Postal Service to refrain from further mailings of such materials to designated addresses thereof."

"The Supreme Court said you can declare a "dry goods catalog" to be offensive and prohibit its delivery to your home. Rowan v. United States Post Office Department, 397 U.S. 728 (1970). The post office must accept whatever you classify as offensive."

Two points:

1.) 397 U.S. 728 pertains to those who notify the post office of advertising material that the recipient determines to be "offensive." That particular statute provides a procedure whereby any householder may insulate himself from advertisements that offer for sale "matter which the addressee in his sole discretion believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative."

2.) Rolando never stated that he contacted the post office, claiming that the material sent to him by Ted Kennedy's office was determined by himself to be "erotically arousing or sexually provocative."

"http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/854.html"

For sure, the words you cited do appear in that ruling. Context is everything. Now let's put that back into context.

"In operative effect the power of the householder under the statute is unlimited; he may prohibit the mailing of a dry goods catalog because he objects to the contents or indeed the text of the language touting the merchandise." Note the word "merchandise."

"In effect, Congress has erected a wall-or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall-that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence." Note the word "advertiser."

"Nor should the householder have to risk that offensive material come into the hands of his children before it can be stopped."

The two statutes you cite refer to "offensive material" pertains to mailings sent containing advertisements. Correspondence from a United States Senator does not fall into a related category that could be remotely construed as such.

So, try as you may have, mailings from a United States Senator's office are not material that would qualify under either of the laws you cite.

Title 39, 3001(L) is the only law that would begin to address such correspondence and I cited it in my reply to him. Mass mailers who receive a request to be removed from their mail list, must remove the addressee for a period of no less than five years.

December 18, 2011 at 4:49 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "Let me get this straight, Obama attends a church for 20 years, a church which is indisputably racist and anti-american/marxist, and refers to its preacher and founder as his mentor, yet that means nothing?"

Your opinion of those sound bites are meaningless. They were taken out of context each and every time.

"Obama was raised by marxists, or socialists, and spent much of his adult life hanging around anti-Americans and marxist college types, and that means nothing?"

Again, rumor, innuendo, and outright lies. There is no proof whatsoever to anything you state above.

"Alprova, you're just a mouth piece for the Obama administration. You can't be taken seriously any more than a moron like Sharpton or Whoopi Goldberg can."

I'm not bothered in the least by your assessment as to whether or not I am taken seriously. I challenge anyone and everyone to make up their own minds, after seeking credible information on their own.

"If a Republican attended a kkk influenced church, would that mean something?"

It would, if there were ever such a thing as a "KKK influenced church."

To the best of my knowledge, no such thing exists. That's why the KKK held their meetings in fields under a shield of sheets and during nighttime hours.

"Nothing matters with Obama apparently. He gets away with anything because he's a light skinned black man who is a marxist. The ideal man in the eyes of the lefty media."

What does the color of his skin have a thing to do with anything?

"Obama and the Democrat Party play the race card like a violin."

Really? You are the one who brought up his race.

"In fact, MSNBC, or MSLCD, just tried to slap Romney with some kind of KKK crap."

When and what was said? That's news to me.

"You may not make mistakes in your posts, but you're basically a Democrat Party whore. That's it."

And currently, I am a proud one too, and unlikely to change my alliance with the Democrats any time soon.

December 18, 2011 at 5:10 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "OMG … the irony !! You actually wrote "washes them away" in reference to that despicable crime."

You're free to consider what happened to be whatever you desire, but the Bible tells me that if he committed any sin(s) related to it and he asked for God's forgiveness before his Earthly death, he received it.

Are you going to nit-pick that point too?

December 18, 2011 at 5:15 p.m.
MTJohn said...

alprova - you seem to have forgotten that if folks like tu-quoque et al. are quoting information generated by the Australian Reichminister of Propaganda, it must be true.

December 18, 2011 at 5:43 p.m.
fairmon said...

Something to think about.....

What would really happen if on 1/1/12 all federal spending other than for defense stopped? All business and personal tax exemptions, subsidies, grants etc. ceased. Businesses, without exception, paid 10% of revenue and zero on profits. Obama may be right. Americans are lazy, spoiled and coddled. This includes congressman used to spending whatever they desire for their pet cause or project. Towns and communities would have to decide if they were going to provide for themselves and those unable to care for themselves or watch them die. It would be painful for a while but probably not as painful and not for as long as people think. In fact, other than government employees, the majority may see little difference in their lives unless they are actually better off.

December 18, 2011 at 5:55 p.m.
alprova said...

MtJohn wrote: "alprova - you seem to have forgotten that if folks like tu-quoque et al. are quoting information generated by the Australian Reichminister of Propaganda, it must be true."

Goodness only knows where they get their information. I shouldn't be shocked, but I find myself with my mouth hanging wide open at some of the stuff I read coming from otherwise intelligent people.

December 18, 2011 at 5:58 p.m.
Johnnie5000 said...

I do love how everyone gets butthurt over a cartoon EVERYDAY. Never fails. They make a lotion for that down at Chatem guys.

December 18, 2011 at 6:12 p.m.
chickontheright said...

Clay Bennett strikes again. In his cartoon on 12/18 he cannot even let the Christmas season have a rest from his poison crayons. Apparently he believes that Republicans don't want peace on earth. Because, as we all know, Republicans are vile, evil, wretched people who want to kill Granny and wax the steps at the old folks' home. While democrats are the saviors of mankind and the arbitors of all virtues. A chicken in every pot and a "program" for all of societies' ills at the expense of the taxpayer. All Hail Clay Bennett, knower of all, seer of all men's hearts. Maybe one day the TFP can find someone to contribute who actually has a tiny bit less bias. Finding someone with less bias should be easy. I suggest checking the phone book and selecting ANY name.

December 18, 2011 at 6:16 p.m.
Johnnie5000 said...

Yes YES LET THE BUTTHURT FLOW THROUGH YOU

December 18, 2011 at 6:17 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Maybe one day the TFP can find someone to contribute who actually has a tiny bit less bias.

How about somebody biased in your direction? Like Barrett?

December 18, 2011 at 9:24 p.m.
Lr103 said...

lumpy said... Bennett is a sad, little Democrat party foot soldier.

How about a cartoon about "fast and furious". It's much worse than watergate. At least no one was killed because of watergate

Are you 100% suuuurrrrreee no one died because of watergate?

December 18, 2011 at 9:52 p.m.
auntsam said...

SandyonSignal said Republicans 'don't care about born children or their Mothers'. How exactly does one arrive at the blissful state of being a born child or a Mother without surviving being a fetus?

Those wacky Republicans, caring about the fetus! What a dreadful thing to do.

December 18, 2011 at 10:48 p.m.
MTJohn said...

Lr103 said...

lumpy said... Bennett is a sad, little Democrat party foot soldier.

How about a cartoon about "fast and furious". It's much worse than

watergate. At least no one was killed because of watergate

Are you 100% suuuurrrrreee no one died because of watergate?

...and 100% sure that Kennedy was driving Mary Jo Kopechne's car??

December 18, 2011 at 11:42 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "What would really happen if on 1/1/12 all federal spending other than for defense stopped?"

Actually, had Obama not signed the stop-gap bill yesterday, spending for defense would have come to a screeching halt too.

That's not going to happen, as a final bill passed both houses on Friday, funding the Government through September 2012.

"All business and personal tax exemptions, subsidies, grants etc. ceased. Businesses, without exception, paid 10% of revenue and zero on profits."

Huh? Budget bills do not affect the status of income and business taxes already in effect, that is unless a change in the tax rates is part of the means in which to offset spending.

The proposal to up the tax rates on high income earners was not part of either the stop-gap or the $1 trillion full term spending bill

"Obama may be right. Americans are lazy, spoiled and coddled. This includes congressman used to spending whatever they desire for their pet cause or project."

'Tis the season to give until it hurts.

"Towns and communities would have to decide if they were going to provide for themselves and those unable to care for themselves or watch them die."

It's all a moot thought now. Uncle Sam is still going to be writing checks.

"It would be painful for a while but probably not as painful and not for as long as people think."

You're as controversial as Ron Paul, and with about the same regard for your fellow humans as well.

"In fact, other than government employees, the majority may see little difference in their lives unless they are actually better off."

The minority of people that would be directly affected are living human beings too. It's a shame that you can't see past the end of your own nose.

December 19, 2011 at 12:33 a.m.
alprova said...

auntsam wrote: "Those wacky Republicans, caring about the fetus! What a dreadful thing to do."

What's dreadful is the fact, as sandyonsignal pointed out, that once a fetus is downloaded, anti-abortionists feel as if their job is done.

There is little to no concern for the outcome of that fetus once it takes its first breath of air.

December 19, 2011 at 12:41 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

GOOD CARTOON

It reminds me what republican legislators are trying to do in Virginia in particular but in all GOP run state legislators through out the country. For this exercise, let's focus on Virginia. The election last month made all three branches of government in Richmond bright red.

First, the Virginia senate wants to restrict the rights of registered voters. As in other republican state legislatures, targeted voters tend to vote for Democrats. Shouldn't politicians be encouraging ALL citizens to vote? Jury service is mandatory; why not voting?

Why would republicans ban voters who traditionally support Democrats? Don't answer, everybody knows.

Not to be out done, the Virginia house of representatives wants to outlaw both abortion and birth control pills. They also want to limit the kinds of people who can legally adopt children in their State.

If republicans get their way, Virginians will be banned if they're too old, disabled, gay, a Jew, or a registered Democrat.

So much for the 'family values' party. One might think, in the hopes that as many children as possible could be placed in a loving adoptive home, that republicans could put away the partisan bickering just once.

What Virginia legislators are doing, along with their republican accomplices in Arizona, Wisconsin, Maine, Florida, South Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, and so forth, is sinking the chances of the eventual GOP presidential candidate.

To be fair, republicans have a top notch PR machine. Their slogans fit on bumper stickers, they have millions to spend on TV advertising, and their political attacks are devastating. Think about the ads that have been unleashed upon every GOP nominee so far that dared to soar above Romney in the polls.

But residents of all those States mentioned above will not believe the republican propaganda blitz in 2012. They've already seen republicans try to govern in their own states. Besides the recall of Scott Walker in Wisconsin, the popularity of republican governors nation wide has sunk to between 25 and 35%.

A recent poll showed independent voters believe republicans are responsible for Washington gridlock and Democrats are more honest and trustworthy.

Don't yell at me. I'm just the messenger.

Good cartoon, Clay. Thanks for the reminder.

December 19, 2011 at 1:01 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

Looks like things never change. BTW, I'm referring to the cartoon.

December 19, 2011 at 1:07 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Personally I don’t hate my political opponents I only feel sorry for them due to their lack of intelligence and/or their obvious ignorance."

I have no idea who it may be that fits the description of one "lacking intelligence and/or their obvious ignorance," but your attempts thus far to trounce anyone in here have fallen flat.

"When I visit here it is my intention to counter their B.S. ravings so that the politically unsophisticated in this burg won’t be mislead into believing any of their trash."

The only people posting provable B.S. seem to support right-wing points of view, and that has been the case for several years now.

"It’s definitely not with any expectation that they will prove to be worthy except for entertainment value."

What else can you say at this point? You're not going to be able to buffalo people into falling for your silly, pointless arguments, or for your postings containing points that have resulted in flimsy evidence that is so easily controverted.

You are going to have to buckle down and do some real homework if you think you're going to float something over people's heads in this forum.

December 19, 2011 at 1:34 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "When I posted my original response I thought that you may anticipate where I was headed but was hoping that you wouldn’t and you didn’t fail to deliver. You expended a great deal of time and effort to prepare an argument to counter a position that I did not take. If you will notice, I didn’t take a position in defending anyone else’s claims on federal laws governing the USPS. I responded only to your bold statement that there is no law "that allows a recipient of mail to determine what is, "offensive, obscene, or pornographic"."

And their still isn't a law fitting Rolando's description that pertains to mailings from a United States Senator. You seem to make it a habit to attempt to confuse and to construct a challenge to issues not being discussed.

Rolando's claim, twice, was that he had the right to determine that the mailings he received from Senator Kennedy were illegal because he found them "offensive," and that is simply not the case.

"I produced one and in no way represented it in any way other that it was a direct refutation to your statement only. I never claimed that it was any thing other than that but your problem was that you were too quick to respond to the other poster and did not apply the needed qualifying term(s) to place it in the context that was required."

Your refutation falls flat. The only entity that has to accept a determination that an advertisement sent through the mail is personally "offensive" by a private citizen, is the United States Post Office.

Rolando asserted that he offered a threat to prosecute Ted Kennedy's office for sending material that he found to be "offensive," which he then claims resulted in them ceasing to include him on future mailings. He then went on to level a threat to the TFP and Mr. Bennett under the same criteria.

There is no law on the books anywhere that he could cite to begin to back up those threats. In other words, what he claims to have found to be "offensive" coming from Ted Kennedy and the TFP is meaningless, as his determination of what offends him is only valid when filing a complaint with the Post Office, and then only when it pertains to material of a promotional nature.

"I never disputed that but you were so determined to slam me on my supposed error that you jumped to a false conclusion."

Oh please. Your hope was that I would not take the time to read both cites thoroughly to come to an understanding of the facts.

"One last point, you also seem to be operating under the false assumption that I reference two different statutes. If you were in the least bit observant you would see that one is a reference to a section of the U.S. Code and the other is a SCOTUS opinion."

My mistake.

December 19, 2011 at 2:05 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque, I went back and read my initial response to Rolando. I did indeed post a generalized statement without defining the exact terms under which it was being offered;

"What particular law are you referring to? No such law exists. Especially not one that allows a recipient of mail to determine what is, "offensive, obscene, or pornographic."

Had I written it as follows, I would have been totally correct;

What particular law are you referring to? No such law exists. Especially not one that allows a recipient of mail from a U.S. Senator to determine what is, "offensive, obscene, or pornographic."

You wrote that this was the focus of your posted challenge to me, in that I "did not apply the needed qualifying term(s) to place it in the context that was required."

You are right. I did fail to define the qualifying terms correctly.

I'm just as prone to making mistakes as anyone. Unlike a lot of people, I'm also man enough to admit it when I make a mistake.

Please accept my apologies, as it appears that your challenge was indeed in direct response to the exact wording I chose to use. Nothing more, nothing less.

December 19, 2011 at 2:34 a.m.
ibshame said...

"tu_quoque said...

Personally I don’t hate my political opponents I only feel sorry for them due to their lack of intelligence and/or their obvious ignorance. When I visit here it is my intention to counter their B.S. ravings so that the politically unsophisticated in this burg won’t be mislead into believing any of their trash. It’s definitely not with any expectation that they will prove to be worthy except for entertainment value"

So far the only entertainment value has been that of watching you get spanked almost on a daily basis. I certainly do not feel sorry for you. Your psuedo-intellectual arguments have been proven for what they really are: a play on words. You choose to use arguments that are either misleading or full of misinformation. Then when you are correctly challenged, you have the audacity to claim the other person misled and you were merely trying to provide the correct information. No one with any semblance of intelligence who read the response Alprova gave to Rolando concerning how Rolando had used the law to stop mailings from a U.S. Senator could have been misled by the information provided by Alprova to refute Rolando's false claims. Yet your attempt to nit pick using the fact Alprova had left out the words "mailings from a U.S. Senator" was disingenuous at best.
I have always been amazed by people such as yourself and the grandiose view you have of your rantings. What's even more amazing is the fact Clay Bennett can pick up a pen and put a drawing on a piece of paper without writing more than a sentence (sometimes nothing at all) to get a point across. Yet you claim to be a judge of other people's worthiness to debate when you have provided no such evidence of your own other than misleading, questionable and more often than not easily debunked misinformation.

December 19, 2011 at 8:55 a.m.
acerigger said...

"tu_quoque said...

Personally I don’t hate my political opponents I only feel sorry for them due to their lack of intelligence and/or their obvious ignorance. When I visit here it is my intention to counter their B.S. ravings so that the politically unsophisticated in this burg won’t be mislead into believing any of their trash. It’s definitely not with any expectation that they will prove to be worthy except for entertainment value"

HAW,HAW,HAW, you sound like a character in a comic book,"Hark! 'Tis I,tu_quoque, self-anointed king(queen?)of picking the nit and yanking the chain" ! Instead of trying to pick apart others comments and opinions,please enlighten us rubes with your awesome intellect, insight,and opinions. For instance,tell us whether you agree or disagree with the point of the current 'toon? p.s. turn on your spell-check

December 19, 2011 at 9:54 a.m.
potcat said...

Screw spell-check and reach up and adjust those blinders tu-blow, you are truly blinded by FACTS.

December 19, 2011 at 10:17 a.m.
auntsam said...

Alprova, "When a fetus is DOWNLOADED!!!! What an emotionally cold and grotesque thought from an emotioanlly arrested person.

Many millions of Republican woman, mothers and their children would be shocked to learn that despite giving love, sacrificing for the sake of their children, worrying, a lifetime of providing joy and security that they "didn't care".

December 19, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Never knew that only republican women love their children. Won't my kids be surprised!

December 19, 2011 at 11:12 a.m.
klugermann said...

I think that many people posting here didn't understand the point of the cartoon. Generally speaking, Republican candidates are very proud of their political positions against the equal treatment of all people in this country - in particular, gay people and poor people. This is not a whimsical imagination on Clay's part - it's a reality that is revealed in the political rhetoric and in the actions of those who hold the majority in the House of Representatives. Ironically, it is also typically a Republican who will invoke their deep commitment to God Almighty, as if that alone can justify other bad behavior and biases. Merry Christmas!

December 19, 2011 at 11:14 a.m.

klugermann said... Republican candidates are very proud of their political positions against the equal treatment of all people in this country - in particular, gay people

??? Really, have you not heard the fact that Newt's own sister said she would not vote for him because his stance and views of gays? In case you did not know she is gay herself and he wont speak to her.

December 19, 2011 at 11:51 a.m.
klugermann said...

Uh... yeah. That was my point. The operative word in the sentence of mine that you quoted was 'against'.

Cheers!

December 19, 2011 at 12:59 p.m.
auntsam said...

ikeithlu,

read the alprova and the Sandy(SMmayor's wife)onsignal post "They said 'Republicans don't care about the born children and Mothers'

Be a big person and eat your words. Nothing has been mentioned that I can see in this thread that accuses anyone of not caring including Republican Women and their Democrat Friends except for the foul thoughts of SOS and alprova and now you.

December 19, 2011 at 1:04 p.m.

Hey aunts- 1st let me say that I posted what KLU said so you may wont to read that, 2nd it was not directed towards you, 3rd I am more than a big enough person to admit I did make a mistake in my post. But just where are my foul thoughts? So keep your ridiculous and non founded remarks to yourself.

December 19, 2011 at 1:24 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Be a big person and eat your words

Be a big person and admit that your post was silly and easy to interpret lots of ways.

December 19, 2011 at 1:36 p.m.
ibshame said...

tu_quoque said... Ibeashamed:

I never made the claim that Alprova had left out the words "mailings from a U.S. Senator". However words have meanings and alprova admitted his mistake in how he presented them. (1) Yes you posted your drivel in the hopes that somehow you had proven Alprova incorrect when he refuted Rolando's claim of being able to notify and threaten the Office of a U.S. Senator from sending him what he termed as "obscene, pornographic, mailings" You immediately posted your drivel as a way of challenging what Alprova had printed. Then when he went to the trouble of explaining how incorrect your interpretation of the law was you started to back track and attempt one of your silly, stupid play on words. The difference is the fact Alprova was willing to admit he had left out the words mailings from a U.S. Senator which was obviously the point of his response to begin with but you somehow thought you were going to prove he was wrong. You got spanked when he broke it down for even a moron to understand.

"You on the other hand were standing on the sidelines holding his coat and let him do the heavy lifting. If my argument are so easily refuted why are you not doing so? The answer is you are not properly equipped, in many areas, to do so. You wait until the debate is over and then claim the other side didn't play fair. I'll hazard a guess that is why the other kids in the neighborhood don't play with you" (2) When you came on to this forum using the same stale useless arguments in your attempt to justify Bush sending troops into Iraq I knew you were nothing more than a Neo-con thinking that once again it was safe for you to slither from beneath the rocks you've been hiding for the last four years. I don't have to hold anyone's coat or make any arguments for people like you. You rail against the intellect of someone like Barack Obama but that's only because in reality you can't emulate him. So, you search for forums like this one and set out on attack to make yourself seem as if you are all knowing and the rest are simpletons still willing to buy into your BS. Well, Buddy that no longer works. We had 8 years of a moron in the White House surrounded by more morons and because most ordinary people didn't realize they were being led down a path of destruction for this country, people like you got away with your small-minded attacks. You claim others to be self-righteous then go on a rant about your own intellectual skills at sorting out BS all the while spouting your own brand of BS. The difference of course is the fact that it was your brand of BS that led this country to the brink of destruction and anyone who dares to sit back and not challenge you and your kind again will allow the country to travel that same road again only this time with much dire consequences. I don't need to play with anyone. Least of all Neo-cons.

December 19, 2011 at 2:52 p.m.
potcat said...

I'm right up there with toonboy, cringe away.

December 19, 2011 at 3:24 p.m.
shoe_chucker said...

alprova said Since you are judging the President to be a racist and a Marxist, I challenge you to provide examples that prove your assertions

still waiting......

December 19, 2011 at 3:57 p.m.
auntsam said...

well, no one in these multiple exchanges can be accused of being apathetic.

December 19, 2011 at 4:39 p.m.
auntsam said...

Let's all go out for a beer. I'll buy.

December 19, 2011 at 5:03 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said.... You're as controversial as Ron Paul, and with about the same regard for your fellow humans as well.

Thank you but I can assure you I care about fellow humans truly in need and incapable of providing for themselves clothing, food, shelter and health care. What I don't care about is the over staffed, under worked incompetents in multiple "administrative" hierarchies supported by money confiscated by a bloated government that fails to detect up to 30% waste and fraud. I have and will again insist that allowing any tax payer to "reduce" taxes they are due to pay by up to 20% for verifiable contributions to qualifying charities. I admit there is very little about Ron Paul I don't like. He doesn't fit the republican mold at all and certainly not the European style government pursued by the democrats which is not consistent with their early history.

December 19, 2011 at 9:38 p.m.
fairmon said...

The good thing about extending the pay roll tax reductions only two months is those countries importing the products for which the additional dollars will be spent are just as confused as Americans. Their stock markets reacted about like ours....very poor.

December 19, 2011 at 9:46 p.m.
carlB said...

It is the actions of the Republicans that tell us where/who their interest "lies." Favorite Sayings of the Obama's opponents

The opponents of President Obama keep denying how bad the 2007 deep recession was, what caused it, and it's effects on the US economy before the President Obama was elected. They apparently want to keep evading what the conditions were and what it would take to prevent this Republic from another great depression as if the 2007 deep recession would correct itself without any "Big Governments' help by using the tax payers and borrowed money, with help from the FED's? The "major clue" standing out to everybody should indicate how bad the financial conditions were, from the 2007 deep recession, was when Bush W. needed $700 Billion dollars of unfunded "TARP" money in September 2008, for the purpose, as he has said, "to prevent another world wide great depression." Yet, what are the private sectors, the US consumers and the Republicans doing to help stop the continuing manufacturing job losses and the increasing class warfare in the US?

What the people are saying to blame President Obama from not correcting the crisis issues on His first day as President while preventing this Republic from falling into another great depression. 1. The loss of jobs continued after he has been President. 2.. What has he done to correct our economy? 3. The "stimulus recovery" did not do anything to help. 4. Since He did not correct the crisis issues in his first term, He owns the crisis issues. 5. He has increased the National Debt to by $3 Trillion dollars.


There are factual rebuttals for each of the sayings and this is what the Democrats need to be doing.

December 19, 2011 at 9:47 p.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.