published Sunday, February 26th, 2012

Political Science

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 ...

215
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.
John_Proctor said...

Outstanding, Clay! The Rethuglican Uterus Police are on the march.

And the howling of the unmedicated monkeys will start in . . .

February 26, 2012 at 12:13 a.m.
librul said...

Right on, Clay. One wonders if those right wing cranks in the VA legislature are aware that their idiotic war on women has prompted more public sex education over the past couple of weeks than at any other time in America's history - at least since the first couple of weeks after Viagra commercials started running.

February 26, 2012 at 12:22 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

ALL DEMOCRATS PRAY

Please, dear god, let Rick Santorum become the republican nominee for president in 2012. Please, please, pretty please? (but don't ever google his name)

February 26, 2012 at 1:37 a.m.
sage1 said...

There is a light up ahead and it's heading our way at a very fast pace. It's called the restitution of all things.

Personally, I can't wait.

February 26, 2012 at 2:40 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Perhaps Santorum has a place for Basil Marceaux in his administration. I noticed he was pressing the flesh at Abbas House. Has anyone seen basil's signs around town? Classic. http://www.nooga.com/153582/basil-marceaux-signs-are-one-of-a-kind/

February 26, 2012 at 3:39 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Tu quoque , I arrived shortly before 1 and couldn't past 1, I noticed about 60 people protesting. There were other areas too, in front of Abba's entrance to parking lot. Most of my friends went into the event, naturally he wouldn't take questions.

Here are some of the signs, I noticed:

*Fighting for Women's Rights, Again!

Google Santorum, Ewwwww!!!!

Which Corporation Owns YOU?

What Bible are you reading, Rick?

Abba's House of Hate

Santorum: Taliban Approved

February 26, 2012 at 6:28 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Twenty years from now, our kids and grandkids will look upon this political era and question why we put up with such an affront to women. Women fought for the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70's, it didn't pass. I remember hearing guys tell me "Don't you like having someone hold the door open for you?'' That was the lame excuse I heard for not passing a fairness law.

Instead of our culture becoming more enlightened, we stooped to even lower levels: Congress passed a bill "Protect Life (unless you are a woman)" which said doctors could be criminally charged if they perform an abortion even if a woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy. RIck Santorum's wife had such a procedure, and she is alive today. Funny, how he doesn't see the hypocrisy?

This focus and obsession on a woman's uterus needs to get out of politics. Why aren't these men focusing on a man's penis instead? Why aren't they interested in controlling a man's sex life? Because they know men would never put up with this insult, rather than wisely think, it is stupid to do so for women, too; they opt to go after women. They don't care about women or how we think. It is blatant misogyny taking place in politics. It needs to stop right now.

February 26, 2012 at 6:46 a.m.
EaTn said...

Women may tolerate men's opinion on the length of their hair, skirt and shoe heels but I doubt they will tolerate presidential candidate men telling them how to practice birth control. I don't think we men want to go through the bedroom drought of another women's suffrage movement.

February 26, 2012 at 6:48 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Another noteworthy sign from yesterday's protest:

My rape is a not a gift from God.

February 26, 2012 at 7:22 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

sandyonsignal = daily penis envy

February 26, 2012 at 7:40 a.m.
rogerdodger said...

Hey Ea Tn, how soon you forgot it was Obama that started this whole birth control issue. I find it amazing when he does do just a little something how quickly it is forgotten then that blame put on everyone else. Guess all his sheep are use to the results of him doing nothing except campaigning.

February 26, 2012 at 7:42 a.m.
Momus said...

it was Obama that started this whole birth control issue. - Rogerdoger

You are correct, Obama did give them the rope. And they did with it exactly what he thought they would.

February 26, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.
MTJohn said...

sandyonsignal said...Twenty years from now, our kids and grandkids will look upon this political era and question why we put up with such an affront to women.

We can only hope, Sandy. Given the economic and social direction in which the religious-in-name-only-right would like to take this country, we might be competing with Somalia for global status in 20 years.

February 26, 2012 at 8:09 a.m.

SPERM DONORS OF THE USA UNITE!!!

We will NOT STAND for this infringement of our right to manipulate women into believing that our right to their bodies takes precedence over their right to conceive a child or the child’s right to life.

Up until now, we haven’t had to work very hard to convince the women’s movement to, under the guise of promoting their own rights, make our case for us. Any change in this arrangement is a threat to liberty itself.

If Santorum wants to care for his own children, that’s HIS business. He has no right ask other men to take responsibility for our own sexual dalliances. The nerve! BUTT OUT of MY domain.

Women, don’t let them do this to us. Our rights to toss you aside are your responsibility to protect. Keep marching to the beat of our drum. Our rights must be preserved.

We all know that babies are no more than blobs of tissue. If allowed to make it beyond the birth canal, they will magically become simply more mouths to feed. Those kids have no hope of living meaningful lives or of making valuable contributions to society.

SAY NO to the offer of pro-lifers to assist you with your “crisis” pregnancy or to adopt your post-natal fetus ("baby"). It’s easier to nip THE PROBLEM in the bud and forget about the whole thing. I have no trouble doing so. TRUST ME, you won’t have that trouble either.

BTW, what are you doing tonight?

February 26, 2012 at 8:11 a.m.
NGAdad said...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SCROLL THIS FREAK SHOW wwwtw ... with the baby killing avatar. hmmm If that was an attempt at hyperbole, you failed miserably. Beyond that ... hoz' about self aborting. Try a bridge, jump!

February 26, 2012 at 8:45 a.m.
jjmez said...

Didn't Santorum's wife live with a doctor for six years who performed abortions? Surely, she didn't keep an aspirin placed between her legs all of those six years. hmmmmm!

February 26, 2012 at 8:51 a.m.

Another good one, Clay. Let the ad hominem's role!!!

February 26, 2012 at 9:09 a.m.
MTJohn said...

whats_wrong_with_the_world said...SAY NO to the offer of pro-lifers to assist you with your “crisis” pregnancy or to adopt your post-natal fetus ("baby").

Wouldn't it be nice if pro-lifers actually did this? Wouldn't it be even better if pro-lifers did this for older children. My observations have been that hardcore pro-lifers are pretty active in trying to talk women in crisis pregnancies out of abortion, but less helpful in connecting those women to adoptive services. In fact, some refuse to support the most effective adoptive services agencies because the agency policies are not "pure" enough (e.g. the agencies are too "liberal" in their requirements for denomination affiliation). And, except to advocate against placements with homosexual couples, pro-lifers are silent in advocating for better services for children in foster care.

February 26, 2012 at 9:10 a.m.

Obama needs the angry vaginas in order to win re-election so Obama uses his tools (Clay Bennett) to keep speading the angry rhetoric.

Otherwise, everyone else moved along weeks ago.

February 26, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

MTJohn: How shallow and narrow your perspective is today.

February 26, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.
conservative said...

What is the point? What is the goal?

The devout atheist, the closet atheist, the practicing atheist, the open sexual perverts, those who claim GOD will welcome sexual pereverts into heaven because he is gracious, those who OK sexual perversion, those who pay no taxes, those who think that those who do, don't pay their fair share, those able bodied on food stamps, avowed Lieberals, practicing Lieberals, drunks, druggies, Socialists,Marxists,Communists, greenies, those who worship the environment, those who want a handout, the haters of free enterprise, the haters of our Constitution, the haters of America, the sorry, and the dirt dumb slobbering stupid, are going to vote for OBAMINATION anyway!

February 26, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Jack_Dennis said...MTJohn: How shallow and narrow your perspective is today.

...and that from the person responsible for the 7:40 post. Yet, I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt. What is your basis for concluding that my perspective is "shallow and narrow"? (Please be specific)

For what it's worth, my first post - perhaps a bit exaggerated - is a reflection, based on personal observations, of the direction in which this country is moving and what I perceive to be the forces driving us that way. It looks to me as though we have a small group of capitalists at the top of the pyramid who are willing to leverage the culture war and the tea party anger to drive this country into the tank for personal gain.

My second was based on personal experience while serving as a member of the board of directors for a faith-based (Christian) adoption services agency.

February 26, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Conservative - "perversions" come in many and varied forms. In my opinion, you failed to list the one which we all embrace and which is the most destructive to our society - selfishness.

And, as a footnote, if we believe what the prophets had to say, loving free enterprise (at least the way that we practice it in this country) also is a perversion.

February 26, 2012 at 9:52 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Bennett always seems to get it right. Good job.

February 26, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
jjmez said...

bookieturnersghost said... Obama needs the angry vaginas in order to win re-election so Obama uses his tools (Clay Bennett) to keep speading the angry rhetoric. Otherwise, everyone else moved along weeks ago

Coming from an obvious right wingnut, the grand marshals of lies, angry rhetoric, bigotry, hate, divisionism, stuck somewhere in darkage lynch mob America who can't move on?You right wingers pimpin' out God and religion like a cheap *(&^! You should be ashamed of yourselves. You should also be afraid of God for taking His name in vain and when He sends down that great big lightening bolt in disgust, striking yours right in y'alls arases. Gosh darn!! But you did say a mouthful though. ;)

February 26, 2012 at 9:55 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

conservative: still waiting on your definition of a TROO CONSERVATIVE (TM). By the way, in your definition, is Santorum a TROO CONSERVATIVE?

February 26, 2012 at 10:02 a.m.
jjmez said...

bookieturnersghost said... Obama needs the angry vaginas in order to win re-election so Obama uses his tools (Clay Bennett) to keep speading the angry rhetoric

You mean like Santorum, Gingrich, Romney are playing to bigots and diehard segregationists to get their votes? I'll take the angry vaginas over the right wingnut bigots tearing this country apart any day.

February 26, 2012 at 10:02 a.m.

50 million + reasons why the government should stay out of our lives. That's 50 million + abortions for the benefit of the bloodthirsty, control freaks on this site, also known as liberals. Abortion as birth control is evil. Plain and simple.

By the way, Sandy, Rick Santorum is every woman's dream man, and you know it. I mean real women, not and "angry vagina" like you.

February 26, 2012 at 10:10 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Why, pray tell, is Santorum every woman's "dream man"?

February 26, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.
fairmon said...

This must be the most critical issue facing America based on the attention it is getting. There should be no exceptions for any reason to the AHCA. It is either the best thing since ice cream for every citizen or it is not. Of course congress and those they select to show favor are exempt. There needs to be an abortion in Washington D.C. since they seem to only be able to be half pregnant on so many issues.

So much noise over everyone paying their fair share of taxes but many are exempt, some get more back than paid. Now the same approach to health care? Fair is interpreted differently by each person that benefits or is adversely affected. Does the exemption include that those exempt cannot file a claim with those insurers that are required to provide free birth control?

There should be a separate government welfare program that provides free to anyone on the continent of the U.S. free birth control, free abortions, free sterilization for males or females. It may be the only welfare program that has a positive return on investment. The alternative is to pay for prenatal care, the cost of a birth and any post birth related health care cost for the mother and kid, the cost of care for the kid in addition to any other welfare received and education of the rug rat through college if they attend. The kid is provided health care through age 26 or life if the mom is dependent the the kid remains in the dependent sector which is growing exponentially.

February 26, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
MTJohn said...

chattanoogatennesseeusa said...Abortion as birth control is evil. Plain and simple.

I agree and I suspect that most folks whom you would label as "pro-abortion" would also agree.

Interfering in the purely personal and private matters of another person also is evil. Plain and simple.

And, as a footnote, I suspect that a very large majority of Americans would agree that abortion is an inappropriate form of birth control. Given that, and the fact that we know how to prevent unplanned pregnancy without resorting to abortion, I find it curious to the point of frustration that we cannot get more agreement on prevention. However, that is not possible when some folks only understand one method and, for some reason, I suspect most of those folks do not practice abstinence.

February 26, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

President Obama bringing up the birth control issue was an act of pure political genius. What that ended up doing was sparking the GOP's cultural war (on contraception). It is hard to imagine anything that would increase President Obama's chance of being elected more than the GOP alienating a huge majority of the female population.

One very important fact is that women vote in much higher numbers than men. I've read several reports that state that women constituted 55% of the voters in the 2008 presidential election.

Between alienating the Hispanics and the women voters, the GOP is doing more to get President Obama re-elected than anything he could possibly do.

February 26, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

I prefer angry vaginas over conservative dickheads. I guess that makes me straight.

February 26, 2012 at 10:59 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's a link to an article stating that the GOP stance against birth control is inuring to the benefit of the Democrats: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73284.html

February 26, 2012 at 11:11 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Sandyonsignal said: "This focus and obsession on a woman's uterus needs to get out of politics. Why aren't these men focusing on a man's penis instead? . . . They don't care about women or how we think. It is blatant misogyny taking place in politics. It needs to stop."

Without a doubt, Republicans have completely gone over to the dark side. If anyone doubts this, they should check out the activities of the Repubicans serving on the State of Illinois Agriculture Committee – Apparently, Illinois Republicans think women are livestock.

The State of Illinois Agriculture Committee which is suppose to deal with farming and livestock issues have been busily scheming to create an ultrasound bill – Ultrasound Opporutnity Act - in an effort to restrict’s the rights of women in the State of Illiinois.

But one State of Illinois female lawmaker is fighting back. Apparently, she developed a proposed amendment to the Republican Ultrasound Opportunity Act requiring men who ask their doctors for Viagra to sit through a film showing treatment of its most common side effects. . . And from what I’ve heard and read, it’s not a very pretty sight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/illinois-abortion-bills-a_n_1299562.html

February 26, 2012 at 11:49 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

If nothing else, Pavlov was right. The same folks, me included, without a life wait every day for the alpha dog to regurgitate some crap so we can lap it up and make comments. Same old tired responses every day. Clay's puppeteers at TFP must be happy. At least they use our clicks to charge higher ad rates for the web.

February 26, 2012 at 11:50 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's a link to an article saying that the GOP has so alienated the Hispanic voters in Arizona that the reliably red state has now come into play for the 2012 election: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/25/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20120225

February 26, 2012 at 12:09 p.m.
dude_abides said...

The most enjoyable aspect of the Santorum candidacy is his similarity to Dan Quayle. At least Quayle wasn't at the top of the ticket. From what I read, he got there a little early yesterday! There's a phrase for that... anybody remember what that's called? Pre something.

February 26, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's a link to an article saying that the GOP's culture wars will weaken its support among the younger voters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/us-usa-campaign-youth-idUSTRE81N1FO20120224

February 26, 2012 at 12:28 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Chattanoogatennesseeusa said to Sandyonsignal: "By the way, Sandy, Rick Santorum is every woman's dream man, and you know it. I mean real women, not and "angry vagina" like you."

You can't be serious, CTU. You're talking about a sick self centered politician who has the audacity to tell rape victims they should accept what “God has given to you.” Indeed, the only time that Rick Santorum is going appear in any woman's dreams will be in a nightmare.

February 26, 2012 at 12:37 p.m.
rick1 said...

MT John said Interfering in the purely personal and private matters of another person also is evil. Plain and simple.

Wouldn't this also apply to the government requiring everyone to purchase health insurance?

February 26, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tu_quoque said: "BackWaters did post to "Relax And Enjoy It" yesterday but he's a Libtard so that's O.K. isn't it?"

Sorry, but I was taught not to talk to creepy looking men wearing a sweater vest and tutu.

February 26, 2012 at 1:14 p.m.
hambone said...

There's only one thing alienating voters this year. Well, actually four.

Mitt "I'll tell you what you want to hear" Romney

Rick "The Pope of PA" Santorum

Newt "Moonbeam " Gingrich

Ron " I'm not a Klansman" Paul

When the GOP offers a real canidate maybe they'll do better.

But they won't win!!

February 26, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.
NGAdad said...

JRoss let out into the day room for an hour. How is Bubba?

February 26, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Poll shows that the Republican position on contraception is enlarging President Obama's lead over Romney and Santorum. http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/new-poll-finds-bigger-leads-for-obama-over-santorum-romney?google_editors_picks=true

It is important to note that this was a poll conducted by Rassmussen, which objective studies show consistently (and unfairly) favor Republicans: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

February 26, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.
dude_abides said...

jonross... give up. Your diplomatic opinions are equal to the ignorant, rabid jihadist mentality we're trying to overcome. I don't know you, so I can't cast aspersions, but do you realize how ridiculous it would be for anyone to listen to your critiques of the government's handling of international crises if you were commenting from a jail? Seems like you said you've never been in jail, so maybe I'm off base here. You did deny ever having been in jail, correct?

February 26, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.
jjmez said...

chattanoogatennesseeusa said... 50 million + reasons why the government should stay out of our lives. That's 50 million + abortions for the benefit of the bloodthirsty, control freaks on this site, also known as liberals. Abortion as birth control is evil. Plain and simple.

Are you so naive as to believe that making abortion illegal with stop people from seeking ways to obtain one? Would you really want your daughter going to some back alley shadowy jacklag doctor using a coat hanger and kitchen utensils to perform an abortion? That 50+ million you mention, which I think is highly exaggerated, is only a suggestive accounting and even if true is likely only a fraction of abortions performed when they were illegal. No one really know for sure how many abortions took place when abortions were illegal, or just how many women died from having them and were thrown out in the trash or either had to have emergency hysterectomies. Because there was no way to count them.

If some women are using abortions as a form of birth control, or to get back at their spouse or significant other, don't blame the laws that made having an abortion legal. If the accounting is anywhere near accurate, blame the individuals taking advantage of the law. Making abortions illegal with just drive the individuals seeking abortions and those who are willing to perform them underground again.

February 26, 2012 at 2:16 p.m.
dude_abides said...

tu_quoque said... She probably didn't need any birth control since the old doc. was a Libtard activist and as typical he probably couldn't produce any wood.

Sounds like Santorum's wife is a whore! So Santorum has formed a Holy Union with this tramp, ex post facto? No vestal virgin, she! Was she "bored again"? And again?

February 26, 2012 at 2:27 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

As more than one pundit has mentioned, Rick's surname shares the same root as "sanctimonious." How appropriate.

February 26, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
conservative said...

MTJohn--

Regarding your comment about selfishness, if you will notice most on the list are indeed selfish, voted for Obamination and will do so again.

February 26, 2012 at 2:31 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Journalist Maureen Dowd has proclaimed that the culture wars initiated by the current crop of candidates for the nomination have earned the Republican Party the apt moniker of "Ghastly Outdated Party."

February 26, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Wow! Thanks for the story, folks. Santorum's wife is a true slut! She actually benefited, through cohabitation, from the 1st abortion clinic in Pittsburg! What a hypocrite. That's just crazy. The guy was 40 years older than her! Now she's living in "Holy Matrimony" with the most sanctimonious pig in the whole neocon sty! LMAO for real.

February 26, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
dude_abides said...

JonRoss said... So me and the God King Obama have only one thing in commong. Guess which ?

You both are the most powerful man in the world? You both get a check from the government? I give up.

February 26, 2012 at 2:48 p.m.
macropetala8 said...

Words from a former state and U.S. senator on Santorum

"Rick Santorum is possibly the least tolerant person I've ever dealt with. His attitude towards people who are different from himself is shocking." "the presidential hopeful was the "least tolerant" individual he has "ever dealt with."

"Not that America hasn't been given ample indications as to Santorum's extreme views on how or what he believes. He's very anti-gay, totally against same sex marriages, and thinks gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military. He believes that using contraception is wrong (a reflection of his Catholic beliefs) and has stated he would like to see individuals criminally charged for using contraception. He is so adamantly opposed to abortion that he sees no exceptions to providing the medical procedure, even in cases of rape, incest, and in extreme cases where the mother's life is in danger and/or the child has little to no chance of survival. And he recently stated that he believes that females serving in the military should have limited duties, preferably far from the front lines. But, then, Santorum has historically noted that women working outside their homes has been a drain on the traditional American family."

February 26, 2012 at 3:27 p.m.
macropetala8 said...

JR said... .

"That leaves drugs. I never snorted, shot, or dropped anything mind altering. Barry O has, and apparently still does"

You forgot to mention the prior dry drunk and cokehead who served two terms as president. Trashed the economy (the recession was well underway long before he left office). Got us into two unwinnable wars. Broke everyone else toys, picked his up and stomped back home to Crawford Texas, pouting all the way. Look at the mess he left behind the present administration is at least trying to clean up.

February 26, 2012 at 3:32 p.m.
MTJohn said...

rick1 said...

MT John said Interfering in the purely personal and private matters of another person also is evil. Plain and simple.

Wouldn't this also apply to the government requiring everyone to purchase health insurance?

I'm not sure that the analogy goes straight across from abortion to health insurance. But, if that is your concern, the simple solution would be to have a single payer system and allow anyone who prefers to not have insurance to opt out of the system.

February 26, 2012 at 4:28 p.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...MTJohn--Regarding your comment about selfishness, if you will notice most on the list are indeed selfish, voted for Obamination and will do so again.

My point, conservative, was that selfishness is much broader than your list. I also believe that God's grace is deeper and broader than our imagination.

God hates perversion - God loves perverts. We all are perverts. Read your Scriptures. There is plenty in there to condemn everyone, you and I included. But, the story doesn't stop there. And, if God's grace is sufficient for you and me, then it also is sufficient for a lot of people whom you might think do not belong on His list.

February 26, 2012 at 4:35 p.m.
rick1 said...

MT John, a woman has a right to have an abortion without interference from the government. With the individual mandate the government will force you to have insurance or you will be forced to pay a fine. This is the government interfering into my personal and private matters and as you say, and, which I agree with, is pure and evil.

February 26, 2012 at 4:47 p.m.
Legend said...

rick1, you forget that mandate requiring citizens to have medical insurance or risk paying a fine came from the republican side. They claim that was the only way they'd support the Bill. My greatest disappointment in the president was that he caved in to their demand without realizing they'd use it against him as a weapon to attack in order to get elected. He specifically stated he was against that part of the Bill, and actually fought it for at least a while, before caving in.

In fact, the only state(Massachusetts) that presently requires all of its citizens to carry medical insurance or pay a fine was created by a Republican Governor by the name of Mitt Romney. Like requiring everyone to carry car insurance or face a fine, my concern is anything you can be fined for at some point you can also be arrested and thrown in jail or prison for. Can anyone imagine someone being rushed to the emergency room after a traffic accident, and after they're patched up they're arrested and hauled off to jail? Just look at many of the present arrest records and see how many individuals have been arrested for a lack of financial responsibility. That means they didn't have any proof of vehicle inusrance.

Under Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the uninsured are being forced to make deicisions between buying medical insurance, paying a fine or eating and even buying medication.

February 26, 2012 at 5:06 p.m.
rick1 said...

Legend, several republicans did mention the individual mandate in the late 80's and early 90's and I do not agree with them. You are only required to carry auto insurance if you own an automobile so everyone is not required to carry auto insurance. If you do not want to carry insurance you can choose not to purchase an automobile. Also it is the State that requires you to have auto insurance, not the Federal Government. Romney supports the individual mandate in Romneycare because he says it is a State's right. I do not agree with him, as I don't believe the government should be able to force you to purchase any product. I choose to drive a car so I know I will have to have auto insurance. I will not have the right to choose with the individual mandate in the health insurance bill.

February 26, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
conservative said...

MTJohn--

You misunderstood my first comment. It was directed toward the cartoonist. He is trying to stir up the regular Lieberals to oppose Santorum and I implied by my questions - what is the point? what is the goal?, for these regulars were going to vote for Obamination anyway.

You somehow brought up selfishness not me but I agreed with your assessment and wrote " most on the list are indeed selfish, voted for Obamination and will do so again." However, I never inteded to provide a list of selfish people, otherwise I would have stated that and used the word "selfish."

Now if you still cling to the belief that practicing homosexuals will inherit eternal life, that is, go to heaven, you are entirely wrong. God's grace delivers a believer FROM a lifestyle of sin but not to continue in a lifestyle of sin. Paul wrote in Romans chapter 6:1 - "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"

You seriously need to read the entire chapter. You are seriously in error if you believe one can pervert the grace of God to continue in a life of sin.

February 26, 2012 at 5:46 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Why should you care, conservative, whether gays will go to your heaven? Wouldn't you rather they didn't so that you won't have to spend eternity with people you hate?

February 26, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

As usual, loud-mouth Rick Santorum has the actual facts backwards:

“Rick Santorum has lamented in recent public appearances that Americans are losing their religion by going to college. . .

. . . Santorum repeated the claim Sunday on ABC’s This Week, declaring that “62 percent of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it.” He’s invoked the same figure before.

A slight problem: multiple studies have found that the opposite is true — including the one that Santorum has reportedly been referring to.

A study published 2007 in the journal Social Forces . . . finds that Americans who don’t go to college experience a steeper decline in their religiosity than those who do.”

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/studies-refute-santorums-claim-that-attending-college-reduces-religiosity.php?ref=fpa

February 26, 2012 at 6:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Maybe you should have done that as well and then you wouldn't have a grandchild with a dog collar.

I still say that if your father had only taken a thing into his own hands we would all be better off. If you know what I mean and I highly doubt that you do.

Curious: where did you learn to be so nice? If I was a stereotyping kind of person I'd say this is typical of a conservative. But most conservatives that post here don't say such awful things.

Like Job, perhaps you need a wake up call. A child who is gay. A daughter that gets pregnant at 16. Life can throw curveballs and it's hard to be so, well, absolute when people you love are hurting.

February 26, 2012 at 6:13 p.m.
conservative said...

"Why should you care, conservative, whether gays will go to your heaven? Wouldn't you rather they didn't so that you won't have to spend eternity with people you hate?"

Ike,The fact that I do care is proof that I don' t hate homosexuals. Surely you have heard the expression "hate the sin, not the sinner." There will be no hate in heaven. When you realize that fact you might reconsider your atheist position.

February 26, 2012 at 6:15 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

RESENT YOU SINNERS

Right TQ? Apparentally your puritanical nature and maternal instincts are overly stimulated. Relax. Put an aspirin between your knees and listen to Rush in the morning.

Mencken wrote that people like yourself are haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. Sorry love. No time for the old in out. I'm just here to read the meter.

But keep on trolling.

February 26, 2012 at 6:23 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Naaaa. Don't believe in heaven. Or hell. When I die, I will just cease to be. If there is a heaven, I'm not sure I'd like the company, as one has to deny so much of what makes them human to get there.

If a god makes people gay, he/she/it must have had a reason. Since living gay hurts no one, I have to assume that it must be okay with him/her/it.

February 26, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
Jemmy said...

An article in today's Times/Free Press indicates that Santorum is leading comfortably in Tennessee among likely Republican voters. What does this say about Tennessee, where Republicans are an overwhelming majority? Time for those who reject a medieval worldview or who oppose a theocratic state that oppresses women in the name of 'true religion' to get out?

February 26, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

BTW .. I really must have hurt you bad with that Atheist deal.

Nope. Not hurt at all. Perfectly happy in my atheism, thank you! But nice of you to ask.

February 26, 2012 at 6:31 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Conservative and well-known conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer believes that the odds that President Obama will be re-elected are greater than two to one. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/feb/20/conservative-columnist-says-obama-probably-will/

February 26, 2012 at 6:44 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

tu_quoque:

If you read the entire article, rather than just the heading, you would have seen that it directly supported the proposition for which I cited the article.

February 26, 2012 at 6:49 p.m.

lkeithlu said... “Life can throw curveballs and it's hard to be so, well, absolute when people you love are hurting.”


Right on, lkeithlu. These absolute judgments from the right should not be allowed to interfere with our constitutional right, as sperm donors, to throw curveballs at women. What happens after the ball leaves the pitcher’s mound is nobody else’s business. If society REALLY loves us sperm donors as they should, they will just keep telling the batter to bandage her bruises and to allow us to keep pitching curveballs. It's OUR right to privacy that's at stake here.

February 26, 2012 at 6:50 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Seems like I've seen or heard that unattributed grandchild/dog collar reference before. Oh yeah, it's in a Direct TV advertisement. Seems like I've heard or seen a poster on this page take another to task for pasting phrases and or articles without attribution. Oh yeah, it was tu_mescence.

February 26, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...Now if you still cling to the belief that practicing homosexuals will inherit eternal life, that is, go to heaven, you are entirely wrong. God's grace delivers a believer FROM a lifestyle of sin but not to continue in a lifestyle of sin.

We have salvation by faith in Christ - not by anything that we do to merit God's favor. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. If the homosexual cannot be saved because he has not abandoned his sinful lifestyle, how can you and I be saved? We have not abandoned our sinful lifestyles, either. You might not commit "that" sin, but I have every confidence that you are guilty of others. Likewise myself. I'd suggest that we are called to confess our own sins. I'm content to fellowship with other sinners and let God sort the wheat and tares.

ps. Please accept my apologies if I misunderstood your post and, thus, might have responded incorrectly.

February 26, 2012 at 7:18 p.m.
dude_abides said...

No, tu_mescence, I am simply holding you to your self imposed standard, as is evident in what I wrote. Interesting that you responded to my post, however. Do you identify with that name? Speaking of which, I wonder how many of us have slept with Santorum's slut wife and didn't know it was her?

February 26, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
MTJohn said...

rick1 said...

MT John, a woman has a right to have an abortion without interference from the government. With the individual mandate the government will force you to have insurance or you will be forced to pay a fine. This is the government interfering into my personal and private matters and as you say, and, which I agree with, is pure and evil.

I have already stated that I favor a single payer system with the understanding that anyone who does not want to participate may opt out.

That said, I am less concerned about what government might do to us through mandatory health insurance than what corporate health care is doing to us.

February 26, 2012 at 7:34 p.m.
jjmez said...

T_Q said: Maybe chattanoogatennesseeusa raised his/her daughter to have better judgement than to have sex with anything that had a temperature above ambient which results in unwanted pregnancies and then the need for an abortion.

Unfortunately, a lot of parents think that way. That is until little missy who wouldn't dare sleep around with anything that has a temperature above ambient tries to have children later in life only to realize her insides have been so scarred by having had so many abortions that she's been left sterile.

February 26, 2012 at 7:40 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Clean up on aisle 4. Jon Ross is back.

February 26, 2012 at 7:43 p.m.
dude_abides said...

This is Karen Santorum with her abortion doctor-lover. Six years she lived with him in "sin." Christ the redeemer has his work cut out on this skankopotamus.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/2012/01/15/mrs-santorum-s-abortion-doctor-boyfriend/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage_0.img.jpg/1326575026362.jpg

February 26, 2012 at 7:57 p.m.
fairmon said...

Would you support or agree with the following proposal? Using or not using birth control would be an individual decision so no religious implications.

There should be a separate government welfare program that provides free to anyone in the U.S. free birth control. In addition to the prevention methods the options should also include free abortions, free sterilization for males or females. It may be the only welfare program that has a positive return on investment. The alternative is to pay for prenatal care, the cost of a birth and any post birth related health care cost for the mother and kid, the cost of health care the kid through age 26, education of the rug rat through college.

Administrative cost should be very little. Women could sign up to have them delivered via mail on a timely basis. No reason to miss taking them because of any difficulty getting them.

February 26, 2012 at 8:32 p.m.
conservative said...

MTJohn --

You wrote, "we have not abandoned our sinful lifestyle, either." I do not have the sinful lifestyle I once had, nor does any other Christian. Salvation is not just salvation from the penalty of sin but includes the practice of sin as well through the process of Santification, a Biblical doctrine. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer and he becomes a new creature in Christ and sin does not have dominion over him as plainly taught in romans chapter 6.

In a previous discussion concerning 1Corinthins 6:9-11, the Apostle Paul stated several sins of the unrighteous who would not inherit the kingdom of GOD. Homsexuality was one of those sins. "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

It is plainly stated that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of GOD, but notice the words in verse 11 - "and such were some of you". That is past tense. Yes, Christians do sin but it is not a lifestyle and certainly a homosexuals living together would be a lifestyle. You evidently have a belief in universal salvation - that no one will go to hell. You also are wedded to the belief that practicing homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of GOD and you will not let scripture correct you.

February 26, 2012 at 9:05 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Well, it's obvious Rick Santorum is not going to step up for kids. What a weird creep:

“STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's move on to another controversy you stirred up, the question of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church. . .

You said, in a publication called Catholic On-Line, When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While there's no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm. . .

Do you still stand by that statement?

SANTORUM: Look, the statement I made was that the culture influences people's behavior. I don't think anyone…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Isn't that what conservatives used to say about liberals, when they used to say they were trying to excuse criminals?

SANTORUM: I think what I'm saying is that the culture of liberal sexual freedom and the sexual revolution of the 1960s and '70s had a profound impact on everybody and their sexual mores. It had a profound impact on the church.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you singled out Boston in…

SANTORUM: I singled out Boston in 2002. In July of 2002, that was the epicenter. We did not know…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That is simply not true. I went back and looked at all of these clips. We had stories in 1994, going back all the way to 1984 in Louisiana, in just about every archdiocese in the country.

I just don't understand why you stick by this, because we now know it was widespread. It was in every city in the country.

SANTORUM: Well, at the time, we did not know it was in every city of the country."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/mitt-romney-rick-santorum-catholic-church_n_1181398.html

February 26, 2012 at 9:19 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I remember Cal Thomas blaming the abuse of children by priests on the "free love movement" in the 60's. As if it started in the 60's! Priests (and others in authority) have been using power to obtain sex for centuries. If anything, the openness of the 60's allowed children a voice and the vocabulary to recognize and report sexual abuse. Only silence and shame give such abuse the environment to persist.

February 26, 2012 at 9:34 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Ikeithlu said: "If anything, the openness of the 60's allowed children a voice and the vocabulary to recognize and report sexual abuse."

I believe you're right about this, Ikeithlu. Apparently, there were no child abuse reporting laws before the mid-1960s:

“In 1962, professional and media interest in child maltreatment was sparked by the publication of C. Henry Kempe and associates' "The battered child syndrome" in JAMA.

By the mid-1960s, in response to public concern that resulted from this article, 49 U.S. states passed child-abuse reporting laws.

In 1974, these efforts by the states culminated in the passage of the federal "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act" (CAPTA; Public Law 93-247) providing federal funding for wide-ranging federal and state child-maltreatment research and services.”

Hmmmm. . . Maybe it was the establishment of these child abuse reporting laws in the 1960's that unsettled creeps like Rick Santorum and Cal Thomas.

Wikipedia Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pr...

February 26, 2012 at 10:06 p.m.
jjmez said...

conservative said.... In a previous discussion concerning 1Corinthins 6:9-11, the Apostle Paul stated several sins of the unrighteous who would not inherit the kingdom of GOD. Homsexuality was one of those sins. "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Wep, the above means a lot o' y'all right wingnuts aren't going to make it through them dar pearly gates. hehe

BTW...the term homosexuality would not have been a term even in existence when the Book of Corinthians was written. So if you actually read that in some Bible that means someone has tampered with verses and rearranged the words. Which, according to the Bible, is a sin. But then again, you harp on homosexual, but totally ignore reference to fornicators and other sins mentioned. Wonder why?

What the verses say:

(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Whew!! That's going to lock out a whoooolllleeee lot of folks from them pearly gates. Especially a lot of those right wingnuts.

February 26, 2012 at 10:16 p.m.
jjmez said...

@lkeithlu &mountainlaurel

I'd like to add: Child abuse laws so varied from state to state in the 1960s and prior that adults would take children who were in foster care, transport them across state lines where child sex abuse laws were lenient or non existing for the sole purpose of having sex with those children. Because of STATES RIGHTS the federal government was powerless and the states where the children were taken from couldn't prosecute the pervs because they had no jurisdiction beyond their own statelines. That's those State Rights the rigt-wingnuts are always arguing in favor of that protected the child molesters and pedophiles in those days.

February 26, 2012 at 10:31 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

tu_quoque said... Junk Sez:

"Conservative and well-known conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer believes that the odds that President Obama will be re-elected are greater than two to one."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/feb/20/conservative-columnist-says-obama-probably-will/

You being a Libtard, an all, I'm sure you're not familiar with Sports Psychology. This is what they refer to as "Poormouthing" i.e. Bear Bryant's and Johnny Majors' pre-game comments.

Read the entire article, he wasn't joking. He repeatedly refers to the Republican candidates as "clowns.

That tells you what a bunch of losers they are when one of the most prominent conservative columnists in the country refers to Romney, et. al. as "clowns."

That's why he (as well as the professional odds makers say that President Obama has a two to one chance of being re-elected. By way of comparison, Romney's chance of winning the election is roughly one in four.

February 26, 2012 at 11:38 p.m.

News Junkie, I think America has had just about enough of the Obamas. Go state by state and Obama is TOAST.

He will not win Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, S.Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arizona,Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, S. Dakota, N.Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Pennsylvania, Maine, Virginia, N. Hampshire, New Jersey, W. Virginia and Massachussetts.

He'll win California, New York, R.I., Illinois, Hawaii, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Vermont, Oregon and Washington. Sorry he won't have the states.

Romney will probably be the nominee, and if he picks a good VP candidate it will even better. High gas, high food costs, impending taxes from Obama's two years, unemployment and his constantly pitting one group against another will doom him. Life was better before he came on the scene, people feel that way. You can insist on here that it's not the case, but reality says otherwise.

You Democraps can't save him. He can make all the flowery speeches he wants, it won't save him. Everyone knows what he's after now.

There's a huge, depressing cloud over this country, it's the Obama's vision for us. It includes a bunch of school nazis poking through little children's homemade lunches, punishment for not buying insurance, citizenship being downgraded, freedom of religion being threatened, freedom of speech disrespected, the Constitution being use for toilet paper and Obama's ugly face being plastered all over the place like some cheap dictators.

In other words, Obama's vision is strikingly similar to North Korea.

February 27, 2012 at 1:12 a.m.
alprova said...

chattanoogatennesseeusa wrote: "News Junkie, I think America has had just about enough of the Obamas. Go state by state and Obama is TOAST."

America has not had enough. About a third of the country has.

"He'll win California, New York, R.I., Illinois, Hawaii, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Vermont, Oregon and Washington. Sorry he won't have the states."

There is nobody, and I do mean nobody that can predict this at this time. He'll carry many other states as well.

"Romney will probably be the nominee, and if he picks a good VP candidate it will even better."

So some of you believe.

"Life was better before he came on the scene, people feel that way. You can insist on here that it's not the case, but reality says otherwise."

Personally, my life has improved very much since he has been in office, not that I give him total credit for it. I still remember losing 40% of my retirement in 2008 in the stock market that year.

When Bush left office, this country was losing 850,000 jobs per month. This country has enjoyed positive jobs number gains since March 2010. There is no way around this simple fact.

Consumer spending and confidence is up. In the past three months, in my small town in North Georgia, four new businesses have opened around the one that I opened the first of December. All of us are doing very well.

"You Democraps can't save him. He can make all the flowery speeches he wants, it won't save him. Everyone knows what he's after now."

No. Not "everybody" agrees with you. There are plenty of people in this nation that have no interest in returning to the policies that the Republicans were fostering when GWB left office.

"There's a huge, depressing cloud over this country, it's the Obama's vision for us. It includes a bunch of school nazis poking through little children's homemade lunches, punishment for not buying insurance, citizenship being downgraded, freedom of religion being threatened, freedom of speech disrespected, the Constitution being use for toilet paper and Obama's ugly face being plastered all over the place like some cheap dictators."

We get it. Some of you people hate Obama. We also get it that some of you are prone to exaggerating to an extreme, the circumstances about practically anything under the Sun when it comes to the President.

The homemade lunch story turned out to be false. The mandatory health care coverage provision was a Republican initiative before it became a Democratic one. Nobody, including the President is threatening freedom of religion. I have no idea what is behind your charge that freedom of speech is under attack. And the Constitution has never been threatened by President Obama.

"In other words, Obama's vision is strikingly similar to North Korea."

I'm sure you wish that were the case, but the reality of the situation will be quite the opposite come November.

February 27, 2012 at 2:55 a.m.
Livn4life said...

LIBERALS(or socalled): Want government out of their lives when they want to get abortions yet in their lives to the denial of other's Constitutional rights when it comes to contraceptives and free government handed out health care. No wonder we are in such a mess, the liberals try to have it both ways and of course blame conservatives when it is exposed as ludicrous and impossible.

February 27, 2012 at 6:23 a.m.
YankeeinTN said...

Santorum is a hypocritical, dangerous liar who wants to take this country back to the dark ages. If you care anything at all about your freedom, you need to make sure he does not make it to the White House.

I just want to thank Clay for his great cartoons. Much appreciated!!

February 27, 2012 at 6:54 a.m.
alprova said...

Livin4 life wrote" "LIBERALS(or socalled): Want government out of their lives when they want to get abortions yet in their lives to the denial of other's Constitutional rights when it comes to contraceptives and free government handed out health care."

Do you know how easy it is to flip that sentence on you? Conservatives want government our of their lives, except to make it impossible for any woman to obtain an abortion.

Not every "Liberal" has a need for contraceptives or free health care. Most of the country has health insurance.

One-fifth of the nation lacks health care coverage. Have you priced a trip to a doctor if you don't have health insurance? Have you priced pharmaceutical drugs? Have you priced the cost of a surgical procedure? Heaven forbid some of those people wind up with a serious medical problem.

People that whine about someone in need of health care, without the means to pay for it, do so from a position of luxury. You probably have health insurance. It's not a problem for you.

Try putting yourself into their shoes for once in your life.

"No wonder we are in such a mess, the liberals try to have it both ways and of course blame conservatives when it is exposed as ludicrous and impossible."

Nothing in this nation used to be impossible.

February 27, 2012 at 7:02 a.m.
dude_abides said...

News... tu_q is trying to say that in actuariality, you should always bet against the odds. If the money is on one candidate or team, you should assume their opponents will win, because the majority is always wrong. If a movie wins the Oscar... don't go see it. If Verizon has excellent customer satisfaction, it must suck big time, so go with Cricket.

February 27, 2012 at 7:21 a.m.
ibshame said...

The establishment wing of the Republican Party knows without a doubt if Rick Santorum wins the nomination they are going to lose BIG time. Not only will they lose any chance of winning the White House but also quite possibly control of the House of Representatives and a chance at winning control of the U.S. Senate. They know this. So, while Rick Santorum is out there spewing lies and more lies they are gathering more money to put into the Super Pac for Mitt Romney. The Establishment knows only Romney has any chance of walking back the rhetoric of the primaries for a decent shot at the White House.

Santorum is a disaster waiting to happen if he should win the Republican nomination. He has already alienated a huge chunck of the independent voting population(not only female but male independents) and the Hispanic population. He couldn't get re-elected in Pennsylvania the last time he ran for his Senate seat and he won't carry it in a GENERAL election. And that's just for starters. The Romney machine didn't expect to have spend the money they are spending now to keep Santorum at bay. They destroyed Gingrich, they don't really pay much attention to Ron Paul (mainly because he hasn't been able to win even one state thus far.) and now they will turn their attack machine on Santorum. Rick Santorum does not have the temperament to withstand the type of attacks he's going to face against Romney. It wasn't pretty against Newt and it will be even uglier against Santorum.

February 27, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.
MTJohn said...

MTJohn --I do not have the sinful lifestyle I once had, nor does any other Christian...The Holy Spirit indwells the believer and he becomes a new creature in Christ.

Conservative - what sins did you commit before you became a Christian? Which of those sins are you still committing? If the Holy Spirit indwells in you, even though you still commit those sins, what is your basis for concluding that the Holy Spirit does not indwell in the person who lives in a committed, same-gender relationship and professes faith in Christ?

If you read Scripture for the purpose of determining who is a sinner, you will find plenty of passages to discover that you are one, too. And, if you read to determine whom to condemn, you will discover that in judging others, you condemn yourself, as well. Do you really want to read Scripture that way? I don't because God's message does not end in judgement. The message ends in grace and I prefer to read Scripture to try to understand what it means that God loves me.

February 27, 2012 at 8:03 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The Wart cropped the part out with the infanticide going on just inside those pages. It’s funny how "progressives" want to avoid that part. It's all about an ovary, or a fallopian tube, the female anatomy... Nothing to concern yourself with here, move along...

Not only should we be ignoring the death of the child, we should be gladly forking over our money so we can pay for it through the federal government, right, Wart?

Since this is so obviously a dig on Santorum, that brings us to 70 more cartoons on the republican candidates to go. In the meantime, Obama is restricting drilling leases and licenses while the cost of oil and gasoline is spiraling upward, is forcing people with no need for contraception to pay for it for others, driving up the cost of health insurance by mandating coverage for things that are not even really health care, has successfully reduced funding for Social Security for another year, Afghanistan is spinning out of control on his watch, anti-US sentiment is Egypt is raging…

Absolutely NOTHING we should concern ourselves with there. Must spend every waking hour trying to find a way to criticize republicans. Must support my leader…

February 27, 2012 at 9:15 a.m.
conservative said...

MTJohn --

Yes, I still sin just like every other Christian. However, just like every other Christian, I have completely abandoned some sins that I was formally a slave to. It's a process called Santification, in which the Holy Spirit conforms the believer to the image of Christ.

Scripture is the word of God and God says In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 : "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

You put forth no Scripture supporting your belief that a homosexual will inherit the kingdom of GOD and it's because you can't. You don't use Scripture at all, just your human reasoning.

February 27, 2012 at 9:15 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Chattanoogatennesseeusa said: "There's a huge, depressing cloud over this country, it's the Obama's vision for us."

I believe Obama is a much better choice than what the Republicans have to offer, CTU. One of their presidential candidates doesn't even support the separation of church and state. Indeed, I think Santorum should pack his bags and move to Vatican City:

“Rick Santorum on Sunday took on separation of church and state.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. . .

. . . He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state. . .

Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/santorum-church-and-state_n_1302246.html

February 27, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.
alprova said...

Conservative wrote: "Scripture is the word of God and God says In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 : "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality."

So are we to take it from the above that Lesbians are a-okay with the Lord? No mention is made of them.

February 27, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...Yes, I still sin just like every other Christian. However, just like every other Christian, I have completely abandoned some sins that I was formally a slave to... You put forth no Scripture supporting your belief that a homosexual will inherit the kingdom of GOD and it's because you can't.

Conservative - for the sake of the others, we really should have continued this conversation in the other thread. And, for that reason, this will be my final response to you on this topic in this particular thread.

If you continue to sin, how do you know that you have been sanctified? How do you know that the sins that you continue to commit do not condemn you to the same fate to which you would condemn the homosexual? And, if, while you continue to sin, faith in Christ saves you from that fate, why does the same promise of forgiveness and salvation apply to the homosexual?

In the other exchange, I get very uncomfortable citing passages out of context of the larger reading and out of context of all of Scripture. I believe, based on studying Scripture and the catechism, that the central meaning of the sacred texts is the doctrine of justification, by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. I am responding based on that understanding from all of Scripture, not just proof texts. And, with that understanding, I believe that there is only one sin that condemns us - the sin against the Holy Spirit, i.e. rejecting the promise of salvation. I believe that the Spirit is at work in every believer doing the work, as you noted, of sanctification. Each of us may be sanctified, but each of us also is a work in progress because, as you also noted, we all continue to sin. But, if we believe, we also daily confess and start fresh each new day, sin again, confess again, start fresh again, sin again, etc. etc. That works for you. That works for me. That works for every sinner who believes, without distinction based on sin.

February 27, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "The "Separation of Church and State" is an unidirectional deal. The constitution prevents the government from becoming involved in church activities but not the reverse. Churches and church members have every right to involve themselves in the government's operation."

It sure is funny how the American people will only put up with just so much of religious involvemement.

"The government can remove tax exempt status from churches if they become involved to a certain extent. However if the church chooses to forgo that exemption then they are completely free to try and bend the government to their will. Except for activism against them there is nothing you can do about that situation."

Oh you're wrong about that. The conservative movement will never attain enough power in this country to ever influence government, and thus override the will of the majority of people, to the degree that they desire to.

February 27, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.
ibshame said...

One has to wonder which part of JFK's speech in 1960 at the Southern Baptist Convention makes Santorum want to throw up more? Strange how Kennedy wrote this speech over a half century ago to explain how being a Catholic would not interfere with his role as President. Yet Santorum wants just the opposite. He wants the voters to believe because he IS a Catholic and does NOT SEPARATE his role as President from that of Church indoctrinator it somehow makes him a better candidate.

Excerpt from JFK's speech at Southern Baptist Convention in 1960.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him......

But let me stress again that these are my views -- for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but the candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic....

I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me......

Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise......."

February 27, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.
MTJohn said...

tu_quoque said...

MTJohnny Sez:

"It looks to me as though we have a small group of capitalists at the top of the pyramid who are willing to leverage the culture war and the tea party anger to drive this country into the tank for personal gain."

Why don't you provide us the logic behind your statement?

The K Street Project. You don't need my logic, TQ. Just pay attention to what the folks in the conservative "brain trust" have to say and follow the money.

February 27, 2012 at 10:41 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Birth control we can all support… sterilization of "progressives"!

(a joke)

February 27, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
timbo said...

Clay and you other liberal dumb asses still don't get it. Conservatives don't need advice from people who want us to go down in flames. Nominating another "Obama-lite" like McCain would be a disaster. Here is a little history for you idiots.

Since 1980, when Reagan was elected, this country has been a conservative leaning electorate. In the last 22 years the country has been governed about 70 percent of the time with a conservative president and conservative majorities in both houses of congress. When republicans run "moderates" they lose. Bush I's second term and McCain are prime examples. When the religious right is energized the republicans don't lose. They will dwarf any group the democrats have to put up against them. Just because you can't understand how these people think doesn't mean that they won't vote. If independents were leaning left, then how did all the conservatives win over the years. The most recent election in 2010 the independents went overwhelmingly for the conservatives. The Tea Party dominated. Do you think these people just disappeared into the woodwork?

Whatever you liberals suggest we should do the opposite.

So laugh it up while you can, you might just get your wish.

February 27, 2012 at 10:44 a.m.

So what you're saying is we need a Theocracy, timbo? You do want to appeal to the religious right, don't you? Somehow I think that would cause the country to go up in flames as you started burning witches again.

The independents didn't just go overwhelmingly for the conservatives, many of them stayed home. So did the Democrats. The turnout in 2010 was older, whiter, and not surprisingly more conservative.

That's why Republicans are trying to manipulate the system to encourage that even more.

They don't want Congress to be representative and they surely do not want the electorate to be.

Can you imagine, if it were mostly women making decisions about what health care they get in pregnancy? Oh my!

Can't have that.

February 27, 2012 at 10:58 a.m.
conservative said...

No alprova, Lesbians are not OK with the Lord just because they are not mentioned directly in the 1 Corinthian 6:9-11 verses I citied to MTJohn. However, it is covered under "the sexually immoral" prior to specifically mentioning male homosexuality. Lesbianism is sexual immorality. The word Lesbian does not appear in the Bible, it is the female term of homosexual. The word Lesbian began to be used in the early 1800s, thousands of years after Scripture was written.

The condemnation of female homosexuality is very clear in Romans 1:26-27.

February 27, 2012 at 11:01 a.m.
conservative said...

MTJohn--

What other "thread" are you referring to?

February 27, 2012 at 11:04 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

From Rassumusen today...

...in a hypothetical 2012 matchup.

Romney 45% Obama 43% Leads by 2%

Paul 43% Obama 41% Leads by 2%

Santorum 43% Obama 45% Loses by 2%

Gingrich 39% Obama 49% Loses by 10%

The actual numbers are not all that interesting, but how they will be covered is. Watch for news showing that the only candidates that are currently ahead of Obama are Romney and Paul. Watch for news that says this is incredible considering the lack coverage Paul has gotten compared to the others, it won't happen. If the Republicans would get behind Paul they would dominate Obama in 2012. Too bad they are so comfortable with being DemocratLite instead of being true conservatives.

February 27, 2012 at 12:27 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

"A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll reveals the prolonged nominating battle is taking a toll on the GOP candidates and finds the president’s standing significantly improved from late last year. President Barack Obama’s approval rating is 53 percent, up 9 percentage points in four months. Matched up against his Republican opponents, he leads Mitt Romney by 10 points (53-43)"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html

February 27, 2012 at 12:59 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

"Romney is bloodied after nine contests, five of which he has lost. Only 33 percent of independents view him favorably, compared with 51 percent who see him in an unfavorable light. In a head-to-head match-up against Obama among independents, Romney now trails 49 percent to 27 percent."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html

February 27, 2012 at 1:08 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

"After keeping some distance from the tea party for much of past year, Romney campaigned at a tea party rally in Milford, Mich., on Thursday night. It’s an approach that makes sense to win the primaries in Michigan and Arizona on Tuesday, but it could have repercussions if he is the nominee: Just one-quarter of all voters say they identify with the movement, while three-quarters do not. And 53 percent “strongly” distance themselves from the tea party."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html

February 27, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Democrats say they are more likely to vote for him now than they did last year, and he maintains a huge reserve of goodwill: Three-quarters of Americans continue to like the president personally — 59 percent strongly so.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html

February 27, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

"Lake noted that the enthusiasm gap favoring Republicans has almost disappeared, as 92 percent of Democrats approve of Obama and 72 percent say they’re likely to vote in November."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html

February 27, 2012 at 1:20 p.m.
ibshame said...

"tu_quoque said... Ibeashamed:

You Libtards hold JFK up as a God in the Dimocrat pantheon however he would not win any Dimo state primary in the current U.S. political environment. He would have to run as a republican to have any chance."

Bless your little heart. Do you really want to play history games with me? Just how much of a chance do you think Abraham Lincoln would have in the Republican Party today? If that's too far back how about Old rough rider himself- Theodore Roosevelt? and last but certainly not least the "godfather" himself, Ronald R. Reagan the Repub who raised taxes not once but at least 11 times during his administration. All of the above would be running as Dems today. Go play your childhood pranks and games with someone else. As I stated once a long time ago to you I have no desire to play with or use for Neo-cons or Neo-con wannbes.

February 27, 2012 at 1:21 p.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...MTJohn--

What other "thread" are you referring to?

The thread where this conversation between the two of us began and where this kind of dialogue was pertinent to the theme of the political cartoon, February 18.

February 27, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
jesse said...

what santorum said about separation of church and state shows that he is insane,the fact that he said it out loud in front of the nation shows that he has to be the stupidest human to ever run for office!imo!

February 27, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tu_quo_que said: “The "Separation of Church and State" is an unidirectional deal. The constitution prevents the government from becoming involved in church activities but not the reverse. Churches and church members have every right to involve themselves in the government's operation.”

Aren’t you and Rick Santorum completely forgetting your fellow citizens along with our First Amendment rights in this little twisted one-sided perspective?

Surely, you’re not trying to convince us that you and Rick Santorum have a Constitutional right to create laws and impose your Catholic religious beliefs on the rest of us, Tutu?

Indeed, for a man who rants so much against evil, Rick Santorum’s mind seems to function a lot like that crafty serpent that we read so much about in the Bible. I believe he was also known to twist, misstate and misuse words in an attempt to get his...ssss way.

February 27, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.
potcat said...

Women getting Pregnant is the most dangerous and deadly condition a Women and Fetus are likely to endure,ever. Women Die in every third rate countries and America has a poor record of infant mortality in the South especially. Women Die At an astonishing rate from infection to bleeding to death and if the child makes it, more than likely it will also die from starvation. Women and babies die in a terribe agonizing way. Its the No.1 death of women and babies in the world.

We need a Czar, a woman Doctor, who has been around the World and knows such things and Ideology, will not, cannot come into the equation to a sensiable solution to this horible World problem, and Santorum needs to sit down and shut tfu about things he knows nothing about!!! The problem can be fixed for the unnecesary preventable plague of women on this Earth. Birth cntrol, tubes tied and better yet vesectomys Free of charge and in some cases mandatory. Abortion is absolutly here to stay, its BS that any one uses it for birth control. Its should be rare but safe for whatever reason the Women decides is best for her.

Santorum and men like him have NO place in this debate, they know nothing of intellegence to bring to the table on this issue or much else, you would have to have a clue of what you are talking about first, and he Does Not. Life threntening child bearing comes every day to Women in this Country and around the World Its absolutly ludicrous that (men) if not a Doctor,can even have a say in womens reproduction rights.

February 27, 2012 at 5:33 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jesse said: "What santorum said about separation of church and state shows that he is insane,the fact that he said it out loud in front of the nation shows that he has to be the stupidest human to ever run for office!imo!"

Yes, Jesse, I agree. Rick Santorum is a nut - and the label on his "nutshell" is theocracy.

Personally, I’m fed up with the radical disingenuous political rhetoric of the religious right. The U.S. government has repeatedly demonstrated that it recognizes the importance of religious liberty. A good example, are religious pacifists who are exempted from physically participating in certain types of military duties. Granted, as "conscientious objectors" they are required to perform some kind of alternative service for the accommodation that the U.S. government and the general public are making in regard to their religious beliefs, but it is only fair that they do.

In the HHS regulation matter, President Obama has already recognized and exempted the Catholics and other religious organizations that are opposed to birth control pills etc. as being “conscientious objectors” so to speak. From my perspective, the only matter that needs to be resolved is what kind of services these alleged "conscientious objectors" are going to be required to perform as an alternative. Clearly, the Catholic Church and these other religious organizations still have obligations toward the general public, and should be required to do something to spread the cost of this accommodation. Again, it's only fair that they do.

February 27, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Yes we do have the Constitutional right to create any laws and impose any beliefs on the rest of you if we so wish

Can you give an example of a "belief" the majority can impose on "the rest of us"?

February 27, 2012 at 7:40 p.m.
moonpie said...

I do love this.

"It appears Barack Obama has failed to live up to many of the campaign promises that his opponents made for him."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-22-2012/indecision-2012---president-evil

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-22-2012/indecision-2012---president-evil-2

February 27, 2012 at 7:43 p.m.
timbo said...

happywithnewboobs....As usual you are missing the point. The strategy for republicans with the religious right is the same with the democrats and blacks. Say whatever they want to hear and then do whatever you want after you get elected. This is called STRATEGY. I was not making a philosophical argument just stating facts.

It is all about turn-out. Who can get their voters to the polls. The religious right religiously go to the polls. If white/conservative turn-out is greater..it is backed up with historical behavior. Obama was elected by people who historically don't turn-out. Blacks and young people are notorious for not showing up at the polls. My point was that when the republicans run "democrat-lite" they lose because their constituencies are not excited. Do you get it now?

There will never be a theocracy in this country, but the threat is socialism. It is already here. You liberals express it everyday like gas. The proof is that we now have a socialist president.

I don't give a hoot about the religious right except they provide the solution to the Obama problem. He has to go. We don't have much of a chance to turn this country around with the republicans but we have NO CHANCE WITH OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.

Strategy...look it up.

February 27, 2012 at 7:43 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "No alprova, Lesbians are not OK with the Lord just because they are not mentioned directly in the 1 Corinthian 6:9-11 verses I citied to MTJohn. However, it is covered under "the sexually immoral" prior to specifically mentioning male homosexuality."

If that were a plausible explanation, then male homosexuality would be covered by the "sexually immoral" phraseology equally. Why mention one gender and exempt the other?

"Lesbianism is sexual immorality."

Says who? Not God. Not Jesus. Not any of the disciples or apostles.

"The word Lesbian does not appear in the Bible, it is the female term of homosexual."

I hate to burst your bubble, but the word "homosexual" didn't appear in original versions of the Bible either. The word first appeared in translations of the Bible in 1946. In 1973, other revised and newly printed versions adopted its use.

Original Hebrew versions of the Bible make no reference whatsoever to the word "homosexual"...period. Sexual orientation was never contained in any scripture whatsoever.

The Bible you read today, regardless of the version, has been amended by many people and is in no manner pure, nor can it be relied upon to be the end all word of God.

"word Lesbian began to be used in the early 1800s, thousands of years after Scripture was written."

Actually, the first use of the word appeared in 1732. The word "homosexual" first appeared in 1869. It most certainly was not written into Biblical scripture until the middle of the 20th century.

"The condemnation of female homosexuality is very clear in Romans 1:26-27."

It's hardly clear. Who knows who wrote that scripture? You sure don't. I don't either. Hebrew Bibles never mention sexual orientation...ever. The Bible we read in English has been translated many times over by humans, and all versions have very likely been altered to reflect personal, and very biased preferences as well.

February 27, 2012 at 7:55 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tu_quo_que ranted: “You seem to suffer from . . . a decidedly incurious nature when it comes to research. Yes we do have the Constitutional right to create any laws and impose any beliefs on the rest of you if we so wish and you can't do anything about it. That is if we can muster a sufficiently large enough major to support our position."

Well, I see you’re wearing your little Rick Santorum sweater vest and tutu today.

No, Tutu, neither you nor any other other religious fanatic has the Constitutional right to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us. Once again you seem to be ignoring the First Amendment rights of your fellow citizens. You also seem to be ignoring the role the U.S. courts play - including the Supreme Court - in assuring that the Constitultional rights of your fellow citizens are not violated by religious fanatics like you and the rest of your fellow Republicans.

February 27, 2012 at 7:57 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Where did I address how much the American people will put up with? I only stated that the religious have the right to be involved in the government as much as they wish. “The People” will have to deal with that until they outlaw religion by amending the Constitution."

And religious people who don't know their place will have to deal with rejection and obstruction by the American people to their desire to be in charge of this nation.

"No I got it exactly right. I never mentioned the Conservative movement or anybody overriding the majority of “The People”."

Who cares what you mentioned or not? The right of religious people to infiltrate the government does not translate into any one of them or all of them having a right in attaining power enough to be in charge.

February 27, 2012 at 8:01 p.m.
MTJohn said...

fwiw, I appreciate people of faith serving in public office - assuming that their faith informs their own commitment to responsible public service. Speaking from the perspective of Christianity, respect for the Constitution also honors God. Understanding the boundaries between state and church honors God. Commitment to make law based on and responsive to the Constitution and not Scripture honors God. Respect for citizens who voted for the opposition honors God. A commitment to serve the greater good, rather than running a personal agenda, honors God.

February 27, 2012 at 8:32 p.m.
potcat said...

I have known a Lesbian since she has been born and babysit her off and on her entire life, she is my Niece.

She just turned 30 and has been with her wonderful Partner for 10 yrs. She just got a new job making an extra $20,000 a yr.

She is the hardest worker i know and is kind, funny, loyal and nice. Everyone who knows her ,Loves her. She is out of the closet and it matters nothing to anyone who knows her and she has more friends than anyone i know. She wants to Marry her Love, they have a beautiful home and have their money tied up with each other, just like any other married couple. They are going this summer to Marry in New York, of course it want mean a thing in Tennessee.

She and her Partner deserve the same Civil Rights as my husband and i do. They pay plenty of Taxes and we have all family get togeathers at their house because we are welcome and they have the bigger house that will accoumadate 40 people and if you didn't know they were Gay, you wouldn't even know it, they don't make out in front of anyone because kids are around, they are respectful.

I didn't understand Gay for a long time, but when you know someone who is, you get it real fast. She has never been with a man and never will , she was BORN GAY and should have every Civil Right as i do.

I was the first person she came out to at 12, of course i knew. We spent the week end togeather and i asked her why she trusted to tell me, she said that she needed my help in breaking it to the other family menbers and she knew i would have her back. Of course every thing went fine except for a few religous nuts, but they have come around or they would be the ones on the outside looking in.

February 27, 2012 at 8:44 p.m.

timbo, as usual, you try to make up for your lack of argument by heaping on the insults and name-calling.

It has exactly the opposite effect. The more your resort to such language, the more I know you have little to say.

The participation of the electorate is certainly important, that's why the conservative right is trying to suppress it even more, a repetition of their own past patterns when they were Southern Democrats. Some things never change.

But if you want to talk about participatory turnout, take a look at the Republican primary turnout. Lacking across the board, and turning to the religious fervor will do one thing...get everybody else out there voting to keep them from office.

The same thing happened when a bunch of people got into office in Texas, and proceeded to try to rewrite the school books. They scared the people enough to vote against them.

But hey, if you want to make voting mandatory, that works for me. I doubt you actually want to foster a representative government though, it seems you're just concerned about chasing your own phantom enemies, in which case, I suggest you look up partisan bickering and factionalism, then take a look at what George Washington thought of that.

Serve the country, and don't just pretend to yourself that you're fighting against an enemy by allying yourself with a far worse devil.

You want a government that interferes with your life? Pick the religious zealots to lead. They won't care for your freedom.

Though you're wrong about Obama being a socialist. He's a centrist, and more right-wing than half the Republicans were in the sixties. You're just overcome with your own opposition to him that you can't see who you've hopped into bed with.

I do hope you enjoy your marriage.

tq: You say with a majority that you could impose any laws you wish, and nobody can do anything about it? In what universe? That would violate the precepts of the Constitution to the point where appealing to it would be nonsensical.

Now I will say a lot of people will grasp at some pretty tenuous logic to claim things are unconstitutional, but there are limits. The US Constitution does deliberately provide for some protections, and if you're going to say you can amend it to remove those, then you've basically gotten rid of the spirit of it, in which case, it's no longer an issue of the Constitutional, but of the practice of society as a whole.

Which you can do, but expect that to have some consequences. It will certainly invalidate the legitimacy of a consensual government if you try to apply that too broadly. There is a reason the Constitution explicitly provides AGAINST certain impositions.

Not all, mind you, but it does at least require substance for those it does allow.

February 27, 2012 at 8:46 p.m.
potcat said...

Timboo, i hate to break it to you, but we have Huge Big Time Corporate Welfare SOCIALISM, Know one can Dispute that. So which is it Obama Socialism or giving it away to Big Business.

Stop with your stupid lies, you want to talk Socialism, than its going to be a Honest, you lying sack of rocks for brains.

February 27, 2012 at 8:57 p.m.
conservative said...

Alprova, you spent all afternoon seeking something written by some heathen claiming that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible. Imagine that, a heathen homosexual posing as an authority on the word of GOD writing something for other heathens who want to continue in their sins of choice and you fell for it.

Male and female homosexuality are strongly condemned in the Bible in such Scripture as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1: 26-27, and Leviticus 20:13. Read those verses and see how you have been duped. Leviticus 20:13 reads in the ESV : "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Such plain language, so simple to understand, even for the simple. Do you see the words Lesbian, or homosexual in that verse, do you struggle with the meaning there? If you do struggle,just keep reading untill you understand those simple words, or get someone to explain it to you.

The Scriptures were mostly written in Hebrew and Greek, none in English. Scholars translated those words referring to homosexuals, and homosexual activity into English. Don't let anyone mislead you, read these passages for yourself, you can do it.

February 27, 2012 at 9:22 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Potcat said: “Life threntening child bearing comes every day to Women in this Country and around the World. Its absolutly ludicrous that (men) if not a Doctor, can even have a say in womens reproduction rights.”

Thoughtful, Potcat. I read somewhere that over a half a million women die each year around the world in pregnancy, usally as a result of neglect.

The more I listen to some of these male Republican lawmakers, the more I realize the bottom-line is that they simply do not respect women. They’ve repeatedly demonstrated this through their manipulative contraception policies; their mean-spirited and intrusive policies toward rape victims and other women’s right to choose an abortion; their negative attitude toward women’s role in the workplace; and their arrogant attitute toward women’s role in the military.

February 27, 2012 at 9:29 p.m.
dude_abides said...

conservative... do you believe the book of Mormon is God's word?

February 27, 2012 at 10:16 p.m.
potcat said...

Conservative said, that my Niece shall surely be put to death. By who? Your God that made her that way, GAY.

If she is put to death by your God, i hope to bust it wide open.

I have always said, if they are a God and i hope they are, he is a LOT bigger and all knowing, he surely is not as small minded and MEAN, after all he created these beautiful Gay PEOPLE.

If they are a God, i thank him for his judgements and not mans.Thats going to be like night and day and it want be YOU doing any judgeing anything because your type will die and your dogma will die with you.

Why would God make such a huge misstake as making Gay, Transgender and people with both a Vagina and a Penis or not Sexual at all, man did he make a big blunder creating the Human Race.

Read the Old Testament, get f ing real, it started out real messed up. Its a LIE, and we the people know its a LIE.

February 27, 2012 at 10:18 p.m.
dude_abides said...

potcat... I wonder what conservative uses his God given nipples for. LOL

February 27, 2012 at 10:21 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Why is there a separation between church and state? I give you Exhibit A: conservative. Thanks to Dog we have a Constitution.

February 27, 2012 at 10:30 p.m.

Which is tantamount to saying that you believe one could amend the Constitution to saying the Constitution was in abeyance.

That would be something you'd find asked before the Supreme Court to determine its legality.

But what's the force into service? If they don't want to engage in common business, they don't have to do so. If they do, they have to follow the rules applicable to all.

February 27, 2012 at 11:46 p.m.
timbo said...

happywithnewbrains.....That last one was about the most bizarre thing I have read. YOU STILL MISSED THE POINT!!!!

Name calling..namecalling...have you read this liberal horse hockey. I called someone a dumb ass, big deal. How about tea bagger, and the rest of the conservative insults. pottymouthcat actually called me a "lying sack of rocks for brains." Wow..that really hurt. Next time he might tell the teacher on me.

One more time....I don't care about the philosophy, I was commenting on strategy. Argue the rest of your clap trap with someone else who gives a damn about the religious right taking over the country. It won't happen, they are as unorganized as you liberals. I quote another wise liberal in saying, (Forest Gump, your intellectual leader) "That's all I have to say about that."

pottymouthcat...Obama is practicing corporate socialism. He is trying to run the economy just like Nazi Germany. That was NATIONAL SOCIALISM. It was where the state dictated the direction of production and the economy by picking the private sector winners and losers. They did this by Solyndra type "investment" with their buddies. Just like Obama is doing with GM, GE, Solyndra, Strongetc. etc. Grow up.

February 27, 2012 at 11:51 p.m.

TQ, You propose your amendment, you can watch it go there.

Why? Because you'd be contravening the others, and that's not going to happen without judicial decision.

Timbo, I'm not engaged in discussion with them, so I only flag them when I see them. What the people who receive the flags see and do, I don't know. I do wish they'd engage in more constructive controls to dissuade such conduct though.

But you can claim you're just engaging in strategy, but it's one that will burn you both ways. Either you will get a reaction of opposition to it since you're hanging with some rather repellent ideologues, or you will open the door to leadership you don't want. You might also find that you get the friends you invited in realizing that you're not engaged in the same affair, so you end up getting them to turn on you. It's like riding a tiger, the problem is getting off.

Oh and if you think Hitler was the first, or only leader to endorse a business for national interest? Hardly. There have been hundreds of examples before and since, from oil development to finding a source of tea and other spices. Using Hitler as an example is about as valid as saying he ate Sugar, so Sugar is bad.

February 27, 2012 at 11:55 p.m.
rogerdodger said...

Can any of you Obama lovers honestly say you support his plan to reduce medical benefits to both active duty and retired military personal? Not to mention the reduction of benefits to spouses and children of those people that have lost their life while serving this country.

February 27, 2012 at 11:57 p.m.

Can you honestly say that the Republican plan wouldn't do the same, or worse?

It would. They won't admit it, not for a second, but the Ryan plan has the same things. Perhaps they just disguise it in their multitude of other cuts.

February 28, 2012 at 12:04 a.m.
timbo said...

By the way, for you frustrated women with penis envy, have you ever been to a PTA meeting. All run by women. It is more unorganized than a monkey having sex with a football. Picture that in your head.

That's the way it would be if women took over the government. We would last about 5 minutes. Empathy would paralyze us and we wouldn't be able to make a decision. They would then talk about the problem forever, and when you asked how to solve it...they would just say, "You never just listen to me you just don't understand" All you really want is power without responsibility.

By the way, before you blame men for your reproductive woes. I seem to recall that you control that yourselves by crossing your legs. That's right ladies, the ultimate birth control and it is Santorum approved. By the way, don't worry about us guys...there is always imported wives from Russia or Bangladesh. We can only hope they don't speak English....or speak at all....

P.S. Most of you liberals wouldn't know the constitution if it bit you. Quit wasting your time trying to interpret it.

February 28, 2012 at 12:05 a.m.

Well, we can tell who is a misogynist here.

February 28, 2012 at 12:08 a.m.
potcat said...

dude, who says he has any or is it a she. Could have been born without any.

A lot of women in the world are so malnourished and weak from chid birth and don't have the means of getting formula, the child dies and the Mother is probaly worst off. We are talking millions in the world, where is the concern about the no.1 killer of women?

America starts wars based on LIEs and kills innocent women and Chidren. The Moral Family Value Christian cults are not what they portray themselves to be. They are the complete opposite of Christ teachings, and although people are dying, they have to pretend they are pure as the driven snow, to damn bad its not TRUE, not even close. they are dangerous pretenders, but what else is new.

Their lying Piety makes me sick, one thing i don't believe, is they believe this BS pledge they make, no more than i do. I don't believe that they believe it. No one could be so damn ignorant, their singing to the Choir, which half of the married ones are swapping each other, i know this fron just about every church gossip you can imagine. The Whoredom that goes on in CHURCH!! The first ones that can throw the first stones in their glass houses, have at it. Its known and documented, no denying. Last thing any of them need to be agianst is the Gays that God created.

February 28, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
timbo said...

happywithnewbrains...is that the best you can do. Is that name calling i hear

February 28, 2012 at 12:25 a.m.
potcat said...

Timboo, i don't think i need to say this but you are crazy as hell, along with a couple others , you are off the hook nuts.

Pottymouth, who the hell talks that way. I am an adult and thats how i talk, i'm not fake but i think you and toolou are the biggest phony fakes on this thread.

Anyone want to second that, they need to be told and quit beating around the pussy bush, hows that for a pottymouth, i feel like i am in the 2nd. grade writting that word,

February 28, 2012 at 12:31 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Alprova, you spent all afternoon seeking something written by some heathen claiming that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible."

Nope. The source of the information I provided was not pro-homosexual in nature at all.

"Imagine that, a heathen homosexual posing as an authority on the word of GOD writing something for other heathens who want to continue in their sins of choice and you fell for it."

Nope. It is you that is delusional. The Bible is a collection of writings that have been altered numerous times over the years, translated by people with absolute biases.

You believe the Bible to be the word of God. I don't. It's as simple as that.

"Male and female homosexuality are strongly condemned in the Bible in such Scripture as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1: 26-27, and Leviticus 20:13. Read those verses and see how you have been duped. Leviticus 20:13 reads in the ESV : "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Such plain language, so simple to understand, even for the simple. Do you see the words Lesbian, or homosexual in that verse, do you struggle with the meaning there? If you do struggle,just keep reading untill you understand those simple words, or get someone to explain it to you."

You believe what you wish. I don't care how many verses you drudge up to condemn others.

1.) People who are homosexual do not choose to be so.

2.) There is no way that I will ever believe that the God I know and love would condemn to death, someone who is born homosexual.

"The Scriptures were mostly written in Hebrew and Greek, none in English. Scholars translated those words referring to homosexuals, and homosexual activity into English. Don't let anyone mislead you, read these passages for yourself, you can do it."

For all we know, the Bible is a complete work of fiction. No one on Earth alive today is in any position to prove otherwise.

Argue your homophobia with someone else.

February 28, 2012 at 12:34 a.m.

TQ: Bit different to revise part of it, versus declare the whole Constitution invalid, which is what your proposal does. But there have been several rulings regarding how Section 2 did not contravene the 1st Amendment. Of course, that was due to it not being explicit, versus the invalidation of the 18th being outright. Still, you can see how the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what an Amendment means, and if it is valid. Somebody has to uphold it at some point.

So can you write an Amendment to invalidate the Constitution? Again, if you wish a legal answer, you will find it asked before the Supreme Court to get a judicial answer. If you don't care for getting one, then you don't care for the Constitution, in which case the question of anything being Constitutional becomes a non-issue.

timbo: Nope, description of your words. If you can't tell the difference, I'll explain.

Your negative aspersions above served no purpose except to express hateful language, while mine specifically addressed the conduct of your words.

Call somebody a Doo-Doo head and you've insulted them. Call somebody a liar, and you've described how they said something false.

In your case, your words express a hatred or disdain of women.

It can be hard to tell sometimes, but they're quite distinct.

February 28, 2012 at 12:35 a.m.

Not at all, the Supreme Court DID have something to say about the 21st amendment and its effects upon other parts of the Constitution.

In other words, it didn't necessarily repeal them. They did answer that yes, the specific instance of the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st, but that other parts were not.

The question of "Can the Constitution be eliminated by Constitutional process" remains unanswered in a direct fashion, probably because it has not been asked.

Good luck getting it asked. Especially since the Supreme Court is reluctant to provide advice absent an actual case.

Keep trying though, all you're really saying is you believe the Constitution can be rendered null and void, which as I said, makes the issue of what you propose immaterial as to whether it's Constitutional or not.

February 28, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tu_quo_quo said: “So corporations are not people but religious organizations are?”

Actually, I think churches envision themselves more like God rather than like people - at least, some of them do. As I understand it, the belief is the Holy Spirit will not allow the church to err. Personally, I think history has clearly demonstrated that this cannot be the case, but I’m more inclined to be a realist when it comes to human nature, which is one reason why I do not buy into the almighty Supreme Court right-wingers’ claim that corporations are people too.

Tu_quo_que said: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” I think that says no religious organization can be forced into the service of the government.

Needless to say, you seem to ignoring several factors involved in this situation. For starters, this issue is not about a religious organization using its own money to operate its own programs – this type is fully exempted. This issue is about religious organizations that have branched out and established organizations that are serving the public and benefiting from public monies, which means the rights of the general public are involved. Is it fair to the public that their money is being used to further the goals of a religious organization? Personally, I don’t think so. If the religious organizations involved are not willing to agree to some kind of compromise, then I don’t think they are entitled to benefit from public monies. And what about the rights of their employees who may or may not share their employer's religious views?

Tu_quo_que said. “If any group can satisfy the below requirements they can install and/or remove any law including the Constitution itself. They can impose anything on you and your fellow citizens that they so desire.”

I simply can’t envision the public sitting idly by and allowing your group to remove the U.S. Constitution. In fact, I envision such a group being tried rather quickly for treason with the sentencing being far more severe than a little hot tar and a few chicken feathers.

February 28, 2012 at 2:22 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

It is what it is. Science, reality does not and will not make inroads into the minds of superstitious peoples.

These good folk will go to their graves lost.

click here for enlightment -- > X

March 3, 2012 at 5:37 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.