published Thursday, July 19th, 2012

The Demerit Badge

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 ...

241
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.
Jack_Dennis said...

So, I guess Bennett hates baseball, apple pie, and the 4th of July, too. Huh, Bulbs?

July 19, 2012 at 12:04 a.m.
MalleusChristus said...

Jesus Christ>>>John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life..."

Jack_Dennis,

ROMANS 1- "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,..."

July 19, 2012 at 12:06 a.m.
OllieH said...

Jack_Dennis writes, "So, I guess Bennett hates baseball, apple pie, and the 4th of July, too."


Maybe he just hates bigotry.

July 19, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
Easy123 said...

MC,

What exactly is the "natural use of the woman"?

Is it just procreation? Do they even have a say in the matter? Or are they just sex dolls that must submit to the sexual desires of men?

July 19, 2012 at 1:05 a.m.

Jack_Dennis, your accusations are overly trite. Please come up with something more original. Otherwise you'll sound like Allan West sounding like Joe McCartney.

MalleusChristus, so I assume you've rejected the people who have decided to exploit God and Jesus to try to get their theocracy established?

OllieH, but bigotry is their American way. Not tolerating it is intolerance.

July 19, 2012 at 1:57 a.m.
tenben62 said...

Hey Happy: Whatever!!!

Can any PRIVATE organization not have to bow down to the PC mafia without being pummeled with the the "bigot" label, especially by people who apparently do not know that the "bigot" really is.

July 19, 2012 at 2:17 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, personal habits, political alignment, age, economic status or disability, dissension to popular opinions. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.

July 19, 2012 at 5:37 a.m.
anniebelle said...

tenben, yes indeedy, I think we should start marching backwards in this country and not let certain people sit at our lunch counters (privately owned), enter our theatres (privately owned) to show what a wonderful country we live in. Maybe we should retroactively deny women (Rush Limpballs seems to support) and blacks the vote. Sounds like the tenents of Iran. Is that what you want this country to be?

July 19, 2012 at 6:11 a.m.
degage said...

Annie, your last statement is way over the top. you know very well that is not true. Your definition of bigotry is exactly what you and the rest of you libs are. Intolerant! It is not OK to think different than you so those that do get plummeted with your vile words. We have your number and we could care less how old you claim to be we still think you are a nasty old lady.

July 19, 2012 at 6:37 a.m.
wallyworld said...

A Brief History Lesson: Lost History, Lost Values: How Remembering Armed Birds and Dancing Horses Will Save America Posted by Gen. JC Christian, Patriot A lot of the dislike for Elder Romney and our patriots in Congress is based on an ignorance of our history. People just don't know things like how the Constitution's General Welfare Clause was written to ensure the welfare of generals and not to improve the overall condition of the people. I aim to change that by digging up our forgotten history and sharing it with you. I hope you'll pass this knowledge along via your chain email networks and help me bring the rest of America back up to speed. Today, we'll begin with a little early American history. Letter from a soldier writing from Valley Forge: We were cold, hungry, exhausted and dispirited, but when Gen. Washington declared, "Your travails are nothing when compared to those who are denied the right to abuse their dogs by tying them atop wagons," we rose to our frostbitten feet as a unit and cheered. From Samual Adams's journal: We unanimously adopted Ben Franklin's motion to protest the Stamp Act by hiding our money in the Caymans. From the transript of the congressional debate over passage of the Second Amendment: Rep. Baldwin: The phrase, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...," obviously applies to defense against scary, dark, hoody-wearers of Moorish complexion. There is no need to make this measure even more convoluted and confounding than it already is by adding a concept that is already implicitly expressed. It would be nothing less than...there is no English word that expresses such an ignorant exercise in redundancy, so I shall coin one here and call it communist--It would be nothing less than communist to do so. Letter found on the body of Jebediah Sprinfield who died at the Battle of Yorktown: ..and should I fall, do not mourn my passing for I shall have given my life for our children's god-given right to receive tax deductions for their dancing horses. Letter from James Madison to his wife, Dolly: I agree with you, my dearest Dolly. You have my authority to manage the slaves as you wish, but as for your womb, I shall manage it from here until I return. A womb is much too valuable a treasure to be entrusted to a woman's care. It's one of the reasons so many gave their lives to achieve our nation's independence. From the transcript of the congressional debate over passage of the First Amendment: Rep. Clymer: "By 'there shall not be a an establishment of religion' we mean an establishment by the Jews, Mohammedans, papists, or any future religion founded by anyone who claims Indians are Jews and Jesus gave him Golden Plates. Do we all agree on that? [consent given by all present] OK then, let's move on to the discussion about how calling someone a bigot violates their free practice of religion.

July 19, 2012 at 6:48 a.m.
EaTn said...

The big part of this "gay" issue will soon be put to rest when science determines through the study of the genome what determines gender of the mind. Is "gay" a choice lifestyle or is it heredity, or both? Stay tuned for the rest of the story.

July 19, 2012 at 6:48 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Thanks degage, for your allowing me to speak some truth, I appreciate you. I hope you will do the same some time.

July 19, 2012 at 6:49 a.m.
anniebelle said...

And by the way, degage, I thought I made it perfectly clear the other day, I don't give a rat's a$$ what hatefilled people like you have to say, and my age has nothing to do with anything except the fact that I have many years of accumulated knowledge that I intend to use against bigots such as you.

July 19, 2012 at 7:02 a.m.
Reardon said...

Hey Clay, why don't you fill your 1-toon bi-monthly anti-left quota and draw up a cartoon about how your Dear Leader thinks somebody else built my business?

July 19, 2012 at 7:18 a.m.

tenben62 said, "Can any PRIVATE organization not have to bow down to the PC mafia without being pummeled with the the "bigot" label, especially by people who apparently do not know that the "bigot" really is."

I suppose discrimination and bigotry is OK as long as it takes place under the cloak of a private entity? While I don't feel the Boy Scouts, as a private organization, should be compelled by government to change their values or policies, I do feel they should do so voluntarily.

The Boy Scouts' status as a "private organization" is a moot point in the overall argument. The fact is that the Boy Scouts operate in a very public arena and are, therefore, subject to public scrutiny and criticism. That the Boy Scouts continue to support and promote institutionalized bigotry is of importance because it is such a large organization and, as Jack_Dennis so eloquently points out, a ubiquitous part of American culture. As we fight to eliminate bullying in schools, this youth organization is essentially saying, "except for homosexuals."

July 19, 2012 at 7:29 a.m.
anniebelle said...

rearend, I guess you missed the whole quote because it didn't fall out limpballs pie hole. Well, here it is: The Romney campaign and conservative bloggers have been feasting on a selectively-edited quote from President Obama to argue that he believes that the government, not business owners, are responsible for the success of their enterprises. Though Obama’s comment — “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else did that” — accurately observed that businesses large and small rely on public infrastructure funded by taxpayer dollars, Republicans have used the statement to reinforce their ‘Obama hates businesses’ narrative. But during a campaign appearance in Ohio on Wednesday, Mitt Romney misquoted Obama, before agreeing that tax payer-funded programs help all American businesses succeed: ROMNEY: I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the bank, the investors. There is no question your mom and dad, your school teachers. The people who provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help.

July 19, 2012 at 7:30 a.m.
EaTn said...

Reardon....I'll petition Obama to retract his statement when you figure out how to run your business without roads, water, airports, electricity, secured money, employees and customers with the same,etc, etc, etc.

July 19, 2012 at 7:36 a.m.

Good move by the scouts. There have been too many instances of homosexual sexual predators infiltrating boys organizations.
EaTn, everyone knows Obama is a marxist. His rant was an attack on free enterprise. When he's off his teleprompter he goes in a Marxist direction. Obama is right regarding one thing, he didn't build his "success" writing books, someone else wrote them.

July 19, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.
EaTn said...

zablee said...."EaTn, everyone knows Obama is a marxist.".. if your idea of a president upholding the Constitution and all the subsequent added laws is marxism then you're probably in the wrong country.

July 19, 2012 at 8:25 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

Reardon said... Hey Clay, why don't you fill your 1-toon bi-monthly anti-left quota and draw up a cartoon about how your Dear Leader thinks somebody else built my business?

I work for you, or someone like you. And you have people like me, people that help you run your business. And even if you are the only person in your business, it takes 2 people, by definition of a business transaction. I don't think you own a business or you would have never made a idiotic statement like that. You are just repeating talking points and showing your ignorance.

July 19, 2012 at 8:28 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

EaTn said... zablee said...."EaTn, everyone knows Obama is a marxist.".. if your idea of a president upholding the Constitution and all the subsequent added laws is marxism then you're probably in the wrong country.

Aint no PROBABLY to it!

They claim he is the marxist, then get mad when we wont bow to THEIR commands. Who is the marxists? People like Jones, Con, etc. Sheepled into their thinking, they cannot see that it is they who spew marxists remarks. It is they who hold Obama up as a god. It is they who want to put all these people in jail for being human. It is they who are the Liars for Jesus.....Ken, or MalleusChristus,

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator"

YOU are one of the worst. I hope you have a woman show you real soon what the natural use of a man is. You are no authority and neither is that book so many evil men have changed. Ken unless you realize you are human and it is ok to be human, you will not be happy and will continue to demonize humans you dont agree with. Honor god in people. Jesus told you the kingdom of heaven is inside. Treat the least of you as me....... you are judging Jesus evey time you judge another.

July 19, 2012 at 8:46 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

The roads were paid for by money that businesses created in the first place. So the government takes our money, builds some roads with over paid union workers with it, and then says hey, look what the government did for you!! (at 50 times the cost that private industry would do it). What a great deal we're getting from our friendly government.

July 19, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.
mymy said...

anniebelle said... I have many years of accumulated knowledge....

More like many years of brainwashing!

July 19, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.
alprova said...

zableedofisterix wrote: "There have been too many instances of homosexual sexual predators infiltrating boys organizations."

Is that a fact? Then I'm sure that you'll have no problem citing the name of just one "boys organization" that has been "infiltrated by homosexual, sexual predator."

July 19, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

LEFTIES are soooo intolerant. Ah, the irony.

July 19, 2012 at 9 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Ea Tn. Can you tell us where the government gets the money for roads, water, airports, etc.....?

July 19, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.

Toes is correct, great point. Every single time Obama is taken off the teleprompter he reveals who he is, a babbling, foaming at the mouth Marxist. Taxes by people who work hard and by people who build businesses keep this country going. Obama is chomping at the bit to put down anyone who comes up with ideas because he's as vacant upstairs as it gets. He's a leach.

July 19, 2012 at 9:02 a.m.
mymy said...

Let's not forget what is the top of priority in this election season: It's the Economy! 386,000 weekly jobless claims = up by 34,000!

One does have to wonder how/why the left is so blind!

July 19, 2012 at 9:05 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

zableedofisterix wrote: "There have been too many instances of homosexual sexual predators infiltrating boys organizations."

Unless you can cite some examples, I think you are the infiltrator. How else would you have so much assurity that it is happening unless you are the one making it happen? Or are you just repeating talking points because you don't have an original thought in your head?

Me thinks there are quite a few men on here that "might be gay". It has been proven that those homophobes that protest too much are sexually aroused by pictures of men. So you guys go on and protest, it just lets us know who you are.

July 19, 2012 at 9:06 a.m.
alprova said...

zableedofisterix wrote: "EaTn, everyone knows Obama is a marxist."

I'm sorry, but you don't have any right or invitation to speak for "everyone."

"His rant was an attack on free enterprise."

You, like every other Obama-basher, only hear what you want to hear when the man says anything.

"When he's off his teleprompter he goes in a Marxist direction."

Oh brother....

"Obama is right regarding one thing, he didn't build his "success" writing books, someone else wrote them."

I'm just betting that you are so informed about the President's books, that you haven't read so much as one word that he has written, after purchasing one of his books.

July 19, 2012 at 9:10 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama's the one who's out of touch. He's never had a punch clock job where he had to worry how much the government took from his check every week. He never had to stand in line at the grocery store with a box of mac and cheese while the guy in front of him is buying T-bone steak with food stamps. Obama has absolutely no clue about what made this country great.

The people of this country created our government, the government didn't create the people. The government cannot create anything.

July 19, 2012 at 9:19 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

JustOneWoman: Why are you turning so nasty?

July 19, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

http://www.lvrj.com/business/amonix-closes-north-las-vegas-solar-plant-after-14-months-heavy-federal-subsidies-162901626.html

Hey! Let's keep giving Obama more money so he can give it away like parade candy!! He's such a great president!!

July 19, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Jack: She may have that "not so fresh feeling".

July 19, 2012 at 9:26 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

TOES said " The people of this country created our government, the government didn't create the people. The government cannot create anything."

Ari Fleisher agrees: "If O wrote the Constitution, it would begin "We the government, in order to form a more perfect people..."

July 19, 2012 at 9:27 a.m.
mymy said...

Alpooo:

You, like every other Obama-lover, only hear what you want to hear when the man says anything.

July 19, 2012 at 9:29 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Bennett is a useless waste of oxygen.

On the other topic... It amazes me that there are still people on this forum that object to observations about Obama's strong tendencies towards Marxism. Why don't you just embrace his and your ideology and get on with the honest conversation?

July 19, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

TOES: Uh Oh, Now you've stepped in it. :)

July 19, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "The roads were paid for by money that businesses created in the first place."

Does that statement change anything the President said? All you are doing is supporting his stance that it took other business people paying their taxes to fund the building of the roads that exist today.

You don't think that infrastructure attracts someone looking to go into business today, to a particular location? Depending on the nature of a business, they may scout many locations before deciding where to locate their business.

If a business is for instance, a retail establishment, the success of which depends on random customers popping in to patronize it, they will locate it on a well-traveled road with plenty of potential customers passing by each day.

In that respect, what the President said makes complete sense. That customer base, the keystone to a successful retail business, is already in place before they open the doors.

Governments all the time, compete for businesses to locate where they are, by pre-building infrastructure. Think auto plants.

Volkswagen located to Chattanooga, after considering several other locations, based on several considerations, including the workforce that it could readily hire, the almost immediate access to an Interstate highway, the tax breaks being offered to offset the costs of building a new manufacturing plant, not to mention the industrial park location set aside and ready to begin building upon, complete with its own off and on ramps from the Interstate to handle the increased traffic.

"So the government takes our money, builds some roads with over paid union workers with it, and then says hey, look what the government did for you!!"

I hate to break it to you, but there are very few construction companies in the business of building roads that have union workers.

"(at 50 times the cost that private industry would do it)."

You really don't have a clue to the reality of the situation, do you? Road contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder routinely.

"What a great deal we're getting from our friendly government."

Let me ask you a question. Are you capable of building a driveway from your house to the road you live on? I'm sure you aren't and you would have to depend on someone else to pave or pur concrete to get it done.

Nobody ever built a business on their own. They depended on many people to help them build it, and that encompasses just about every aspect of what led to their success.

July 19, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

BRP: totally agree. I don't see why the leftists on here won't just admit it. Seemingly, they want a totalitarian form of gubment with the gubment making all decisions for them. SkaRoo individualism and let's all eat at the public teat. The food will be there. Won't be very good, but hey, the universe will provide.

July 19, 2012 at 9:52 a.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "Obama's the one who's out of touch. He's never had a punch clock job where he had to worry how much the government took from his check every week."

The man worked his way through college. I'm sure at some point, he did punch a clock and worked for some rather pitiful wages.

"He never had to stand in line at the grocery store with a box of mac and cheese while the guy in front of him is buying T-bone steak with food stamps."

Oh...I'm sure he's done that too.

"Obama has absolutely no clue about what made this country great."

And of course, you, like every other Obama basher, are gifted with the incredible insight into the mind of the man, where you know what he thinks all the time.

"The people of this country created our government, the government didn't create the people. The government cannot create anything."

There are many things that the Federal Government has created and that has run very well. Want a list?

The Federal Aviation Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The Public Library System

The Federal Deposit Insurance Commission

The Food and Drug Administration

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Oh, and let's not forget the United States Department of Transportation.

July 19, 2012 at 10:03 a.m.

The Boy Scouts are a private organization so who cares what they decide for themselves?

Geez people. Find some sunlight in your own lives and stop tearing down everyone elses.

July 19, 2012 at 10:03 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Jack_Dennis said... "Seemingly, they want a totalitarian form of gubment with the gubment making all decisions for them."

Or they are unwilling to realize that the government guarantees they want provided for them come at the cost of government control over their lives. They cannot see how history has shown time and time again that the power they want to give to government will corrupt that government and leave them with none of the security that they desire. The example in Greece is unfolding before their very eyes and they choose to ignore it. The entire European model that they aspire to emulate is on the verge of collapse.

Incredible.

July 19, 2012 at 10:05 a.m.
Walden said...

EaTn foolishly said: "Reardon....I'll petition Obama to retract his statement when you figure out how to run your business without roads, water, airports, electricity, secured money, employees and customers with the same,etc, etc, etc."

Hey EaTn - where the +&*^ do you think your almighty government got the frickin money to build those things? That's right Clown, from the people. Do you have a job? Have you ever had a job? If so, then you need to get down on your knees and thank the Good Lord Almighty that somebody out there had the guts to risk their own hard earned money to create the business that hired your sorry a$$.

July 19, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
Leaf said...

I think the boy scouts have probably had problems with pedophiles, so it makes sense that they are gay-shy now. However banning gays isn't the answer. The dangerous ones probably aren't going to be out of the closet, right? But I don't see that they have anything to fear from a lesbian. Maybe they should only recruit lesbians for the boy scout leaders and gay men for girls scouts. Yep, that's the answer to this connundrum. It says so in the bible, somewhere.

July 19, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The FAA is incapable of upgrading the traffic control system and increases fuel costs while planes navigate inefficient routes designed to accommodate an army of air traffic controllers. I heard a report recently that we have an average of over 2 runway incursions a day in this country.

Great Job

July 19, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The Food and Drug Administration has decided that it is appropriate to arm its agents and conduct armed raids on farmers and natural food suppliers. It actively suppresses local food cooperative efforts in favor of big agriculture and the food processors that insist on loading packaged foods with sweeteners and chemicals.

It is a party to the big pharma industry where Americans are subjected to chemical treatment of symptoms over actual cures and the drugging down of people with exceptional minds.

Great Job

Great Job

July 19, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The Federal government is in charge of the public library system? If that is true it is another example of federal overreach.

July 19, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.
Leaf said...

The problem with government isn't government, it's bureacracy. Bureacracy accumulates bad employees like a forest accumulates dead wood and scrub brush. The solution is to burn them out occasionally. I have a brilliant idea - if I do say so myself.

Create the Office of Decimation that each year focuses on different governmental entities, and fires 10% of the employees in those entities. The employees of the Office of Decimation can only work there for ten years and then must go into the private sector.

July 19, 2012 at 10:52 a.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "The FAA is incapable of upgrading the traffic control system and increases fuel costs while planes navigate inefficient routes designed to accommodate an army of air traffic controllers. I heard a report recently that we have an average of over 2 runway incursions a day in this country. Great Job"

Well, you can say what you want, but I think a more telling testimony to the success of the FAA is to cite the fact that more than 500,000 commercial flights take-off and land each year in this country, and that it's been 3 years and five months since a commercial aircraft has crashed in the United States.

That means that 1.8 million flights have taken off and landed safe and sound, due in large part, to the dedication that the FAA has in keeping passengers safe.

Errors and mistakes are going to happen, even up to and including a couple of times a day. Humans are not perfect and they never will be.

July 19, 2012 at 11:19 a.m.
dao1980 said...

Great idea Leaf.

Unfortunately, it's the type of idea that would encourage actual productivity, and makes way too much sense to ever be implemented.

July 19, 2012 at 11:23 a.m.
prairie_dog said...

Purists would argue that the only appropriate federal powers are those which involve the use of deadly force and the confiscation of property (taxation and otherwise) to support itself. Others would add regulation of interstate commerce as it applies to the above, and for the protection of life, health and property across state lines where the laws of the states conflict, or are lacking in force with regard to protection of life, health and property.

As for the "gay scouts" issue, as long as the Boy Scouts of America are a private organization not accepting government funding, and have liability issues related to pedophilia, you cannot blame them. the original purpose of the founder of the Boy Scouts, Sir Baden Powell, was to discourage homosexual behavior among boys. It is a very simple fact that when pre-teen and adolescent boys are put into situations that involve sleeping away from home, some of them are going to "experiment." My very first contact with sexual material and adolescent male sexual conduct was through the Boy Scouts of America . . . no kidding. I was shown photographs of men and women engaged in sex, and I witnessed a boy having oral contact with another boy's genitals (and no, it was not me). It's an age where boys (I cannot speak for the female perspective) want to know what's going on "down there" with both sexes, and it's a perfect environment for older boys with gay orientation to involve younger boys in homosexual activity without the younger kids really understanding what's going on -- or at least it was 50 years ago. Having now helped raise a teenage boy, the value of having trustworthy, mature male role models who are aware of these things is apparent. Even for those who are astute enough to realize that homosexuality is not going to be stamped out by telling boys, "NO! God will send you to Hell for that!" it is important to know that such behavior goes on, that some kids (those who have been overesheltered by homophobic or so-called "Christian" families) are not taught what is, and is not, appropriate in their homes, and an organization like the Boy Scouts has a duty to protect minors from predatory sexual behavior by older minors and adults. The BSA is no different from Penn State University in that respect, eh?

Maybe it would be sufficient in today's world, with the greater understanding of these issues, greater awareness, and better education, to simply add a line to the Scout Law: A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent and keeps his hands off another guy's junk.

July 19, 2012 at 11:32 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "Errors and mistakes are going to happen, even up to and including a couple of times a day. Humans are not perfect and they never will be."

In the meantime the airline industry and the technical community that is ready to deliver a revolution in air traffic safety and efficiency is held back by a bloated federal bureaucracy that is controlled more by the air traffic controller union than excellence and efficiency. But hey, what would all of those controllers do if they were not being paid for sleeping at the console?

July 19, 2012 at 11:52 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

BRP: Where's Reagan when you need him?

July 19, 2012 at 11:55 a.m.
Easy123 said...

prairie_dog,

"an organization like the Boy Scouts has a duty to protect minors from predatory sexual behavior by older minors and adults."

And how exactly does a gay ban solve this issue?

A gay ban will not keep any predator out of the Scouts. Was Jerry Sandusky open about his pedophilia or possibly homosexual desires? NO! That's the point. It isn't the openly gay people the Scouts should worry about. They are not the predators.

July 19, 2012 at 11:56 a.m.
timbo said...

People have the right to be a member of private organizations that exclude people based on race, money, job, etc. The Boy Scouts are a private religious organization whose set of believes say homosexuality is wrong. It would be impossible to have the Boy Scouts without these tenets.

If gays want to have their own organization and include whomever they want they can do so. What gay people want is acceptance. They want everyone to accept that their lifestyle is "normal." Noone has to except this if they don't want to do it.

It is similar to "gay marriage." Marriage is between a man and a woman period. If gays want some kind of union, they should call it something else because it is not marriage. Again, gays just want acceptance they they are just as normal as anyone else. Some people just don't agree and have every right to associate with who every they want.

If the Boy Scouts are so wrong, why do they have BET, NAACP, ETC. These organizations also have the right to associate with whomever they want.

July 19, 2012 at 12:04 p.m.

tenben62, yes, I'm afraid they will be subject to criticism for their decisions, as are the rest of us. It comes with free speech. Some criticism is invalid, naturally, and there are arguments for restricting that, but criticism as a general concept?

It's certainly acceptable.

Now when it's a very public-oriented organization such as the Boy Scouts that wants the rest of us to respect it, and treat it as something laudable, if they're not expecting others to have input on them and their choices, then they are sadly mistaken.

This is especially true when they wish involvement with schools and other public facilities with privileges others do not get. If they can't abide by the standards that others have to follow, then they're simply not going to get access. Their excuses for their behavior are nothing that hasn't been argued before, and long since refuted. Instead they're just justifying their bigotry with a flimsy reasoning.

But yes, as a private organization, they can continue on whatever path they choose. Just not with privilege from disapproval. Like the Catholic Church, they'll just have to accept that they can be questioned.

Leaf, there was a time, decades ago where bureaucracy was lauded as the more efficient and effective ways to do things, where a system would be implemented to solve every problem. It's interesting how things have turned. Now the bureaucracy has become the enemy.

July 19, 2012 at 12:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Timbo,

"It would be impossible to have the Boy Scouts without these tenets."

False.

"They want everyone to accept that their lifestyle is "normal."'

Or maybe they just want to be treated fairly. You know, like a heterosexual.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman period."

False.

"If gays want some kind of union, they should call it something else because it is not marriage."

Bigotry and false.

"Again, gays just want acceptance they they are just as normal as anyone else. Some people just don't agree and have every right to associate with who every they want."

The some people that don't agree are bigots.

"why do they have BET, NAACP, ETC. These organizations also have the right to associate with whomever they want."

BET has Caucasian employees. And the NAACP has Caucasian members. Would you like to try again?

July 19, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.

BET, the NAACP are representing interests of a given group in a positive way. That's perfectly legitimate. If they were seeking to punish or restrict others in a way other than from discriminating against them, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case except in conspiracy theories.

Besides, Fox has been advertising their new MundoFox programming. It's ok to appeal to a Demographic, believe it or not.

What's not ok is when you seek to oppress them. And no, those "Fourteen Words" slogans are not genuine. They're just cover for a far more abusive plan. Try not to confuse them with the purpose of the NAACP.

July 19, 2012 at 12:30 p.m.
conservative said...

EaTn...

You asked " Is "gay" a choice lifestyle or is it heredity, or both?"

Well, Christians, some "Liberal Christians" and anyone who is willing to know can find the answer in the word of God. It very clear that it a choice, a sin, for it is against the will and commandment of God :

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18 : 22

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20 : 13

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" Deuteronomy 23 : 17

July 19, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Not that this has anything to do with the Boy Scouts exactly, but it does have to do with bigotry and gay bashing in general: I watched a docmentary the other night, "Fall From Grace." It's about the Rev. Fred Phelps and his band of gay-hating followers in the Westboro Baptist Church, the ones who are so vocal in their condemnation, even to the point of picketing the funerals of gays, particularly those who were casualties of war. It's an eye-opening account, based on one-on-one interviews with the members, revealing the twisted workings of their hate-filled minds. Be forewarned: it is very upsetting. The part that especially made me sick was the interviews with the children of the family members. There is no clearer proof needed to show how bigotry and hate are learned traits. Those kids are disgusting little clones of their parents, mouthing the hate and the complete misconception of gays that has been force-fed to them from the time they were born. It really was sickening to watch. For those of you who haven't seen it, it is a well made doc and worthwhile watching. But very disturbing. It's available on Netflix streaming.

July 19, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Leftists mantra: Anything goes. Correct?

July 19, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Yeah, let's take the advice of a 2,000 year old book and ignore modern psychology!

Your ignorance is showing.

"Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

July 19, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy, and let's take the advice of a 16 yr old kid with zits over the 2000 year old book. Course the kid reads Wiki....

July 19, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JackTroll,

Who is this 16 year old kid you are taking advice from? Is it your "Cabana Boy"? Or is that what you call the American Psychological Association?

July 19, 2012 at 12:54 p.m.
Humphrey said...

I just want to get one thing out of the way:

"Good move by the scouts. There have been too many instances of homosexual sexual predators infiltrating boys organizations."

So, if Penn State hadn't let in gays, then we wouldn't have had to worry about this whole Jerry Sandusky thing, right? Because he was a married guy with kids.

That's the thing. Homosexuals don't molest children. Child molesters molest children. And most child molesters act like they are typical heterosexual guys. Most of them find their victims through girl friends and family and stuff like that.

They aren't going to wear a sign around that says "Hey, I'm a child molester."

If someone is trying to infiltrate the scouts to molest boys, asking them "are you gay?" isn't exactly going to weed them out.

The scouts would do a lot better keeping out child molesters by letting it be known that if you molest a scout we'll take you out and cut your balls off.

This kind of thinking is a smoke screen. It isn't about keeping molesters out, it is about "I think gay people are icky and I don't want that kid with two moms to be around my kid."

Period.

Some folks will admit that but others will try to come up with excuses - I prefer the ones that just admit it.

And Sir Baden Powell was as gay as twilight. Please.

A lot of this comes from the lds, frankly. The lds has take over scout leadership at the national level. The lds preaches against gays because they want their followers to have as many kids as possible to grow their church. The lds church picks the leaders in the lds scout chapters so they shouldn't be able to impose their views on other chapters who may not agree but there is too much lds leadership at the top of the scouts. Local chapters should be free to decide who they include, based on what they know about a person and the person's actions, not a small group of rich men imposing their view on everyone else. I don't want to say that all lds people are anti-gay, I'm saying the institution is. That's just a documented fact.

So yes, a group can decide to be bigoted if it wants, but people in the group who don't want to be bigoted shouldn't have to accept a bunch of bigots telling them they have to be.

July 19, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.
Reardon said...

Y'all Maoists are a bunch of tools n' fools.

Obviously none of you know sh*t about what it's like running a business.

Wonder how much risk you self-righteous employees have when your employer's business goes to hell?

Is your personal word, your assets, your character contractually connected to the success AND failure of the business?

That's what you f*cking dope heads don't get. No shrewd business man is saying he's an island. Or doesn't need employees.

Can you guys not think critically? What we're saying is community agitators like Obama DON'T understand business. The emotional side. The level of commitment. The fear of legislators, regulators, litigious customers and employees and investors.

Sh*t your ass will never have to deal with; you can walk away TONIGHT and leave it there.

Which is all actually fine! But you need to RESPECT the business owner -- it's a mutual agreement where none is better as a person than the other. BUT, you have to APPRECIATE why the successful ones get fabulously wealthy. Because they took a CHANCE of miserable failure and WON.

And your trifling ass didn't. Now go back and start complaining about how the boss man makes all his money and you haven't gotten a raise in 2 years. Loser.

July 19, 2012 at 1:25 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

A new way to swell the rolls of Undocumented Democrats.http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

July 19, 2012 at 1:31 p.m.
potcat said...

BBK the Serial Killer was a Cub Scout leader, just saying.

July 19, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.
EaTn said...

TOES02800 said..."Ea Tn. Can you tell us where the government gets the money for roads, water, airports, etc.....?"

Answer(oversimplified): the money comes from the Treasury Dept in the form of printed currency and ledger or electronic transfers for "loans" or payment for goods, services or other obligations. Unlike individual or businesses, they don't have to worry about having a check bounce, nor do they have to have deposited tax money before issuing these loans. No govt-- no money, no businesses.

July 19, 2012 at 1:56 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

MalleusKristus and con-man, you guys obviously have some kind of obsesssion with the verses in the Bible that emphasize strict obedience to a vengeful God and nothing at all to do with a truly loving God or with brotherly love and compassion. Why do you choose to focus so much on the negative aspects of your Bible and completely overlook the more positive parts about loving your fellow human beings?

You could dispense with all the clutter and claptrap of the Old Testament nonsense and reduce your entire Bible down to eleven words: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is all the Bible or religion or church that anyone needs. Please spare us your endless, boring quotes on sin and righteousness. Those who squawk the loudest about such things are only drawing attentioin to their own sin of self-righteousness, which is one of the biggest sins of all.

July 19, 2012 at 2:01 p.m.
EaTn said...

conservative wrote in regard to my previous comment " Is "gay" a choice lifestyle or is it heredity, or both?"

True, homosexual acts are a Biblical sin just like other Biblical sins like stealing, false witness, adultery,etc. It still does not answer the question of whether gay is a choice or heredity. If it's heredity then they were born gay with no choice, which brings up a whole new set of issues and questions.

July 19, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.
Leaf said...

Reardon, you are so classy and intelligent. Your reasoned argument at 1:25 has changed my mind and now I believe in the tea party. I was a former communist/fascist (and apparently schizophrenic) but now I'm a good tea party Republican. I think I'll open a small business. Perhaps a gun shop. Gays and liberals don't like guns, right? Because I don't want any of them in my shop. I'm afraid they'll molest me, or read a book at me or something.

July 19, 2012 at 2:58 p.m.
Reardon said...

Leaf -- couldn't care what you think or whether or not you think I'm trying to convert you.

I'm going to go back and make some obscene amounts of money, selling my wares now. Should be able to close around $1500 in commissions tomorrow. NOT by theft like you parasites. By PROVIDING VALUE.

Go ahead and continue your mindless crybaby efforts about how some big bad business owner is making your life pathetic (the secret is YOU make your life pathetic) while I work my a$$ off for my personal gratitude, my family's, and my clients.

July 19, 2012 at 3:22 p.m.
EaTn said...

Reardon...hope you got a big life insurance polity. While you may consider that some of us envy your stated position and/or money, the fact is many of us feel sorry for folks who have yet to find that stressful money grubbing will definitely put you at the head of the line for an early grave. Chill and enjoy the not so personal comments game on this site.

July 19, 2012 at 3:44 p.m.
conservative said...

EaTn....

One of the ways in which the homosexual movement tries to get acceptance and sanction for their perverted lifestyle is to get others to accept the false belief that they can't help who they are because they were born that way, it is not a choice, it is not a sin and that God and others have no right to judge their immoral behavior.

The God of the Bible is a just God, he would never condemn anyone to hell for something they had no control over. Man by nature needs water, we were born that way. God does not call this desire or the drinking of water a sin. However, you acknowledged three sins that man chooses to do, steal, lie, and commit adultery. Likewise, homosexuals chose to commit their sin and unless they repent, (turn away from this sin) accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they will spend eternity in hell.

This is why homosexuals are atheists by either directly proclaiming there is no God or by just living as if there is no God whom they will have to face in judgment. This of course applies to heterosexuals as well.

July 19, 2012 at 3:53 p.m.
EaTn said...

conservative....your sermon is just like those I've heard in my Baptist church many times, which I don't necessarily disagree with. My point is that someday very soon science will prove whether or not homosexuality is a choice or a genetic- given birth characteristic. Then we all will have ammunition to backup or condemn our personal beliefs.

July 19, 2012 at 4:04 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Reardon, you and your wing-nut buds just don't get it. You are so constipated with your own sh#t that you don't even hear what anyone outside of your narrow little ideology is saying. We liberals do not hate business owners! Nor do we hate the concept of making a profit. Believe it or not, many liberals are business owners themselves. I'm as liberal as anyone can be and I do not hate, nor have I ever hated, business owners just because they are business owners. Many of them provide a good service or product at a fair price, treat their employees well and pay them fairly, and try to give back to their community. And those types of business owners I have the utmost respect for.

I am probably more socialist leaning than even most liberals but even as socialistic as I am, I see the impracticality and even the impossibility of trying to have a purely socialist form of government. For the same reason that it's a silly pipe dream to think we could ever have an across-the-board libertarian form of government (or no government, in other words) we likewise could not have a wholly socialistic one. The only way that either would work is for virtually every citizen to be on the same page with everyone else, with the same ideas of what constitutes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It just would not work because our society is too diverse, with too many conflicting opinions regarding our personal values.

Probably the best system devised so far has been the free market system, but with controls and sensible regulations in place to protect the consumer and the environment, and to ensure that the most number of people can benefit and prosper from its fruits. We had that for the two or more decades following WW2, when the rich and their boot lickers were not whining about paying their fair share in taxes, and people were more accepting of the New Deal policies that actually worked and benefited society as a whole. Neither government itself nor capitalism itself will work. We have to have a balance of both in order to have a workable system. You keep saying that we libs hate business owners and anybody who is successful or who makes a profit, but that simply is not true. It is the runaway greed and the mindset of "I've-got-mine-screw-everybody-else" that we hate. It is you whose hatred for government in any form is so irrational and intense that you can no longer reason or see clearly.

July 19, 2012 at 4:07 p.m.
conservative said...

You referenced the Bible, which is the word of God. His word is his will and his word is very specific about sin and the consequences of sin including the sin of homosexuality.

Your "someday very soon science will prove whether or not homosexuality is a choice or a genetic- given birth characteristic." statement is a denial and rejection of what God already says about the abominable sin of homosexuality. The matter has been settled for thousands of years!

July 19, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Sounds to me like good ol' boy Raredon thinks he's the only person making decent money these days.

Seem his affinity for crying... er, defiantly and defensively demanding how hard he works is counterproductive to whatever case is so heavy upon his table.

The pathetic life statement sounds a little like good ol' fashioned projection as well.

I gotta say, Raredon, there ol' fella, your opined perspective seems about "tight as a squirrels ear" and bout as "useless as teets on a boy dog". - (you gotta say that last part with a thick southern drawl)

July 19, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Rickaroo: A couple of your curious points:

"narrow little ideology" (pot meet kettle) "sensible regulations" (sensible for who?) "runaway greed" (what the hayel is this?) "hatred for govt in any form" (I haven't seen this; just hatred for constant intrusion)

You're probably well intentioned, but you're not winning me over. Selah.

July 19, 2012 at 4:25 p.m.
dao1980 said...

C'mon Conny, come out of your shell, there's a whole world out here.

I bet you think the computer you use to post on this site is working from magic.. IT'S A MIRACLE!!

The ol' good book didn't say nuthin bout computers?? But I thought it was the final word...

July 19, 2012 at 4:25 p.m.
fairmon said...

anniebelle said....

I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the bank, the investors. There is no question your mom and dad, your school teachers. The people who provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help. More people benefit from a business than help it. Who would fund all those feel good programs so many depend on if businesses were not successful?

Why did he not say that instead of stating you didn't build that successful business appearing to imply the government helped build it. An individual could be successful without the government but the government could not exist without people supporting it.

July 19, 2012 at 4:48 p.m.
potcat said...

How about someone born with a vagina and a penis....Girl or Boy Scout???

July 19, 2012 at 4:53 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

We don't need to wait for years of laboratory testing and research to determine whether homosexuals "choose" to be gay, or they are genetically predisposed to it. For god's sake, you holy rollers just get out and talk to some gays and it will become readily apparent that they did not make a conscious choice to be gay, just because they think sex is kinkier that way, or just to be rebellious.

Even if science came out today and said conclusively that gays are born that way, it wouldn't make the least bit of difference to the Bible thumpers - they reject science anyway! For them to accept the fact that gays are born that way would mean they would have to undergo a complete attitude adjustment and maybe even look upon gays as being actual children of God, okay just as they are, and not "sinners" in need of redemption. And what would that mean for those kristians? Heaven forbid, they might just have to spend more time actually spreading love and kindness instead of casting stones and feeling more righteous than others!

When I went through puberty I didn't make a choice to lust after girls. Suddenly girls had a special aura about them and my lust factor kicked in, beyond my control. There was no choice in the matter whatsoever. Likewise, gay people find themselves irresitstably drawn to their same sex. There is no "sin" involved, no choice of whom to lust after. It just is what it is. If the condemning christians want to keep hating gays regardless, then they need to blame their God for making them that way and stop blaming the gays for being born the way God made them.

July 19, 2012 at 5 p.m.
fairmon said...

I admire Boy Scout leadership for exercising their legal right to have a policy that may not be politically popular. Those opposing their position can make sure their kids don't participate in the boy scout program. I could care less if someone decides to be gay or is genetically disposed to be. I do resent government intervention in a private business or organization on behalf of anyone when that entity is not essential for people to have normal access to food, clothing and shelter.

July 19, 2012 at 5:08 p.m.

harp3339: I wouldn't give them credit for their decision to do something politically unpopular. The politically unpopular choice would be the OTHER way more than the former. They really picked the course of moral cowardice. Oh sure, it's unpopular with many here, but with the audience that the Boy Scouts are targeting, it's the popular choice.

And FWIW, I resent an organization being lauded as some great example of virtue when it's an example of intolerance and bigotry. But I also consider it important for the government to intervene with private businesses and organizations when they seek to do things that are to the detriment of society as a whole. Now if only we'll get some LIBOR investigation.

July 19, 2012 at 5:25 p.m.
alprova said...

Jack_Dennis wrote: "A new way to swell the rolls of Undocumented Democrats"

No. Not quite. You should have read a little more of your linked article.

"The partnership — which was signed by former USDA Secretary Ann M. Veneman and Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista in 2004"

July 19, 2012 at 5:27 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

J_D, whenever I offer my comments on here, whether I'm going to win you over or not is the last thing on my mind. No, wait, that's not true....it is not even on my mind, at all, period. I know better than to think I'm going to change the mind of you or any other wing nut. I just state my case and express my opinion, feeling better for having taken a stand for what I believe in.

July 19, 2012 at 5:30 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Rickaroo. Fair enough. Wing-nut? Is that fair?

July 19, 2012 at 5:46 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Harp, by your assessment of what constitutes whether the govt. should intervene in civil rights vs.the rights of private business, there would have been literally hundreds of thousands of businesses that would not have had to abide by the Civil Rights Act, thereby excluding blacks from shopping there. Just look at the vast number of businesses that are not essential to food, clothing, and shelter. The Boy Scouts are an institution that is meant to be open to and to serve the entire cross-secion of American boys. We have a significant number of boys/young men who are or will become homosexual. How is it right to deny them the opportunity to be a Scout, just because they happen to be gay? They are still boys and American citizens and they deserve the oppoortunity of engaging in the experience of being a Scout, if they so desire. There needs to be a solution that is inclusive of the gays, not one that excludes them. When it comes to civil rights, it should not be left up to majority vote or states' rights or picking and choosing which institutions or businesses should allow gays or ban them.

July 19, 2012 at 5:48 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

J_D, you're probably right - wing-nut might be unfair. I should have said teabagging wing-nut. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

July 19, 2012 at 6:04 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"I wouldn't give them credit for their decision to do something politically unpopular. The politically unpopular choice would be the OTHER way more than the former. They really picked the course of moral cowardice. Oh sure, it's unpopular with many here, but with the audience that the Boy Scouts are targeting, it's the popular choice." - HWNB

Exactly. Just the same way that so many Christians were claiming those in the City Commission were "brave" for insisting on praying despite the objections of the atheists. They were not brave at all - they were preaching to the choir! What kind of "bravery" does it take to stand and pray here in the buckle of the Bible Belt, surrounded by fellow christians who will pat you on the back for your "bravery?" It was the few atheists who stood up to make their lone voices heard who were truly the brave ones.

July 19, 2012 at 6:25 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"Reid can't explain why dems didn't raise taxes when they had the chance"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reid-cant-explain-why-dems-didnt-raise-taxes-when-they-had-chance_648760.html

I had this very same argument with easy, and ol easy never could explain it either.

I'll tell you why, it's because it wasn't an election year. They needed to wait just until the election.

July 19, 2012 at 6:36 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Evidently we can't even use Obama's own quotes against him. Is Obama beyond criticism?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-ad-accuses-romney-launching-false-attack-quoting-obama_648762.html

July 19, 2012 at 6:46 p.m.
Reardon said...

Hey EaTN -- thanks for your "concern."

TRUST ME, my goal is not to brag, but to piss off the loafers like Maobama who tell me my hard work and effort was done because "somebody else did it."

Try telling that affront to Capitalism to my dad. Almost went broke several times chasing his dream. Committed 100 hours a week traveling nationally six days a week growing his business. Jumping through regulatory hoops, pleasing the tax man, all that garbage.

Do you know he had to hire a rabbi to make his product kosher at the tune of $2500 EVERY SIX MONTHS?

In the end, he sold out his small 50-75 person business HE BUILT with HIS EFFORT and HIS EARNINGS... CONSTANTLY at risk to a Fortune 500 company, making millions, and retiring to Destin at age 49...

What's my point? Stop bitching about the person who's successful, who EARNED his earnings FAIRLY. Tend your own visions and efforts on becoming successful. However you define it.

But leave me the HELL alone. And NO, I don't owe you ANYTHING.

July 19, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "Evidently we can't even use Obama's own quotes against him. Is Obama beyond criticism?"

Thank you very much for posting the absolute proof that the President's accusation that Mitt Romney totally and intentionally misrepresented the President's words, is indeed true.

Romney's quote of the President, as he looks down at a piece of paper no less: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

What the President actually said (Please feel free to play the video and follow along): "If you were successful, somebody along the line......gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody invested in roads and bridges, that...you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Is there anything in the President's statement that can be remotely construed as condemning anyone in business? There is not a shred of truth to that accusation either. So quit yer whinin' Reardon. The President never said a word in condemnation of your Daddy.

I dare offer that there is not one person who owns a business throughout this entire nation, who personally built the roads or bridges that vehicles use to drive to their business location.

The President spoke the absolute truth. Somebody else indeed made that happen.

July 19, 2012 at 7:33 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Alpo. By your logic, the government should also be responsible for the businesses that don't succeed as well. So if I start a business on a road, and it fails, I should seek my investment back from the government. After all if the road made it happen for successful businesses, the road is also responsible for failed ones as well.

And this liberal idea that customers are "victims" of businesses is ridiculous. I challenge anyone to live their life without someone else's business.

I'll go one further and say that government could't have made anything happen without the people. Why the government, or at least Obama and his liberals, want to bite the hand that feeds them is a query to ponder.

July 19, 2012 at 7:47 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Alpo. You lied. Obama's actual words were: "If you got a business, you didn't build that". Stop covering for your idol. You need to watch the video again there big guy. That proves you to be a hack for Obama once again.

July 19, 2012 at 8:07 p.m.
EaTn said...

alprova said...."What the President actually said (Please feel free to play the video and follow along): "If you were successful, somebody along the line......gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody invested in roads and bridges, that...you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."............... Thanks alprova for putting in print what has been twisted for political motive. Nowhere did the President say "the government" was responsible for successeful businesses, but that others(taxpayers) invested in the infastructure to make businesses success possible.

July 19, 2012 at 8:14 p.m.
fairmon said...

Rickaroo said....

The Boy Scouts are an institution that is meant to be open to and to serve the entire cross-secion of American boys. We have a significant number of boys/young men who are or will become homosexual.

Apparently the majority of the board of directors don't agree with you. I think their ban is against having gays in leadership positions. The majoirty of parents would prefer to not have their sons exposed to a gay although their kid may be gay some day. If they are they can't become a scout master. My wonderment is how does anyone know if a person is gay unless they advertise it in some way?

July 19, 2012 at 8:26 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet".

Why leave out the most controversial sentence in the quote?

Liberals are so damn full of themselves. "allowed you to thrive". What a condescending remark.

July 19, 2012 at 8:39 p.m.
conservative said...

How do people become so immoral that they openly advocate homosexuals being in contact with children?

July 19, 2012 at 8:41 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

How do people become so immoral that they openly advocate homosexuals being in contact with children?

How are children harmed by homosexuals?

July 19, 2012 at 8:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Ikeithlu,

I second that question.

July 19, 2012 at 8:57 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

So when children have their first successes in life, the parents should tell them that it was actually other people who really did it for them. Individualism is a bad word for liberals. They only hate rich people that aren't democrat donors. Everything is done as a community. Hence the word, communism. Alpo's vision of America is becoming more apparent every day. Communism seems to be utopia for alpo.

July 19, 2012 at 9:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

You're trying to make an argument from a quote taken out of context. You're an imbecile.

July 19, 2012 at 9:03 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

What heterosexual likes to be ogled in the shower by another of the same sex? Do you propose we have four bathrooms now? Mens-gay mens?...womens-gay womens?

July 19, 2012 at 9:06 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

It's NOT taken out of context you freakin' moron!! Read the damn thing!! You're a fuc#in loser.

Obviously "taken out of context" to easy means easy has no way to spin it to make it look good for him. What a panty waste.

July 19, 2012 at 9:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

I've read it, sweetie. I've seen the video as well. You are taking it completely out of context. Maybe you should read the quote again. You'll have to remove your tongue from Rush Limbaugh's balls first though.

July 19, 2012 at 9:13 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

It's NOT taken out of context you freakin' moron!! Read the damn thing!! You're a fuc#in loser

Actually, it is. The president was clearly referring to infrastructure and to the support of parents, teachers, and others that make us who we are.

I don't understand why some people have to use distortions to attack Obama. He's not perfect and has made mistakes. How about discussing things he has actually done or failed to do? Why this gleaning of stuff taken out of context, misquotes, quotemines, conspiracy theories? Why is this necessary to make your point?

Oh, by the way, still waiting on an answer, conservative.

July 19, 2012 at 9:13 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"This is a man conducting a war on achievers. Not just a war on achievers. Obama is conducting a war on people striving for success. And he's talking to that crowd in Roanoke, that's what a community agitator or organizer does. He was trying to agitate those people, to organize them, whip up a frenzy. He's telling those people: You are justified in resenting the people that own businesses in your town. You're justified, 'cause they didn't do it. You did. You made it all happen for 'em. And what are you getting out of it? You get nothing. But I'm here for you. I'm gonna show you how to get what's rightfully yours. I can only do that in the White House. I need you to send me back there, and I'll get it back for you".

Here fag boy. you're mommy's calling.

July 19, 2012 at 9:17 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

"Here fag boy. you're mommy's calling."

First homophobic slur of the day. Congratulations! You make being an ignorant bigot look like an artform.

July 19, 2012 at 9:19 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

The number of Obama apologists is astounding.

July 19, 2012 at 9:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Still less than the number of Conservative morons.

July 19, 2012 at 9:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

The number of Obama apologists is astounding.

I am not an apologist. All I ask is that he is criticized for REAL reasons, not contrived, exaggerated or imaginary crimes.

July 19, 2012 at 9:31 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Hilarious if not so freakin sad. www.examiner.com/article/debbie-wasse...>

Who you gonna believe, Debbie or your lying ears? bwahahahaha

July 19, 2012 at 9:33 p.m.
MalleusChristus said...

Jesus Christ>>>John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life..."

Deuteronomy 23- "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a 'sodomite' of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God." ["...or the price of a dog,..."
'Dog' in Holy Scripture=Homosexual']

II Corinthians 6-"...what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?...for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

July 19, 2012 at 9:34 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

"dog in Holy scripture = homosexual"

How you arrive at that, Malleus?

July 19, 2012 at 9:39 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oh, Jesus, MC. Go away. Let conservative answer to his claim. I don't accept the authority of your book.

July 19, 2012 at 9:40 p.m.
dude_abides said...

TOES02800 said... "Here fag boy. you're mommy's calling."

Why would you think you could print something like that and retain any credibility at all? Do you sport a mullet?

Hey, Jack_Dennis! How do you feel about that sentence? If you don't have a problem with it, just remain silent about it.

July 19, 2012 at 10:08 p.m.
MalleusChristus said...

Jesus Christ>>>John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life..."

Jack_Dennis,

keleb [keh'·lev] masculine noun

1) dog a) dog (literal) b) contempt or abasement (fig.) c) of pagan sacrifice d) of male cult prostitute (fig.)

Gesenius's Lexicon Arabic/Syrian 'An unclean and despised animal, so by way of reproach, any one is called a dog, 2 Kings 8:13. Because of the shamelessness of dogs, this name is given to 'scorta Virilia'=male escorts. k'uvec, Apoc. 22:15, Deuteronomy 23:18; elsewhere. Context concludes and affirms such.

July 19, 2012 at 10:11 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

No answer from conservative. Big surprise. Any of you others want to answer for him? Just how are children harmed by homosexuals?

July 19, 2012 at 10:13 p.m.
dude_abides said...

MalleableChristian... God called... He wants his pious omnipotence back. He also said He's roll, roll, rollin' on Heaven's floor... laughing Hfao.

July 19, 2012 at 10:19 p.m.
MalleusChristus said...

Deuteronomy 23- "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a 'sodomite' of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

July 19, 2012 at 10:19 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Seems no one can answer. Maybe tomorrow...

July 19, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES 02800 wrote: "Alpo. By your logic, the government should also be responsible for the businesses that don't succeed as well."

How much logic does it take for you to acknowledge the simple fact that no business is successful without the help of other people?

How hard is it for some of you people to understand that Governments, both local and Federal, have been responsible for assisting businesses achieve success by providing them the infrastructure that we, as Americans, take for granted each and every day?

"So if I start a business on a road, and it fails, I should seek my investment back from the government."

If you start a business "on a road," you'll probably wind up dead after being run over by a great big Tractor-trailer.

"After all if the road made it happen for successful businesses, the road is also responsible for failed ones as well."

Please tell me that you are not so thick-headed that you can't see the point to what the President was attempting to make. Nobody in this country achieves success in business without the help of many of your fellow Americans. We're all in this collective entity known as the United States, together.

While some of you would just love to take all your hard earned money and purchase some island in the middle of the ocean and seal yourselves off from the rest of the world, the simple fact is that the novelty of such an existence would wear off rather quickly.

People need people. People depend on other people. People can't survive without other people in their lives. Solitude and total isolation will drive a person insane.

"And this liberal idea that customers are "victims" of businesses is ridiculous. I challenge anyone to live their life without someone else's business."

Who has offered that "customers are victims of businesses?" You're pathetically attempting to change your argument to reflect some sort of sentiment that no one that I am aware of, has ever offered.

"I'll go one further and say that government could't have made anything happen without the people. Why the government, or at least Obama and his liberals, want to bite the hand that feeds them is a query to ponder."

I'll agree with your statement, but it has no bearing at all on what your claim was earlier. It doesn't have any bearing on your newfound claim either.

How is anyone, including "Obama and his liberals," attempted to "bite the hand that feeds" him or them?

Do you really think that I am going to be confused by your dancing around while singing "Ring Around the Rosies?"

July 19, 2012 at 10:57 p.m.

What kind of government would exist without the people? Isn't the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" ?

However, according to all the advertisements I've been seeing, yes, the government has been responsible for the failure of business. It's lacking in details, but it's on TV, so it must be true.

July 19, 2012 at 11:04 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES 20800 wrote: "Alpo. You lied. Obama's actual words were: "If you got a business, you didn't build that". Stop covering for your idol. You need to watch the video again there big guy. That proves you to be a hack for Obama once again."

I told you to play the video as you read what I typed. Nowhere was the quote you and Mitt Romney offered ever uttered by the President. He said EXACTLY what I typed above.

He NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said "if you have a business, you didn't build that."

Here's a transcript of the entire segment of that speech in which he referred to business in America. See if you can point out where in it, he put all those words together and came close to stating what he has been charged with. He never uttered it.

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)"

"If you were successful,..(pause)..somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- that, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires."

I again ask the question, with everything put back into the context it was presented, how can anyone not agree with what the man said? He is 1000% correct and it's time that people are reminded that no man is an island of their own.

July 19, 2012 at 11:18 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "...Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive..."

"...The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet..."

"Why leave out the most controversial sentence in the quote?"

What in the hell is controversial about either one of them?

July 19, 2012 at 11:26 p.m.
moonpie said...

While I do not agree with the Scouts' position on homosexuals, so far the courts have sided with them.

To my knowledge they are privately funded, and therein lies their protection.

The question is, should a private group ever lose the right of free association?

Is there a size, a sphere of influence, whereby not permitting individuals to participate would be harmful to that individual?

I'm not sure I know the answer.

The Boy Scouts give a glancing blow to my values. We overlap some, but are apart in this critical area. So I will not enroll my son in their ranks.

However, I do respect their right to free association.

And I'll give them this, at least they openly acknowledge the way they discriminate.

This is a case where I can disapprove of what they do, and respect their right to do what they do.

July 19, 2012 at 11:28 p.m.
alprova said...

EaTn wrote: "Thanks alprova for putting in print what has been twisted for political motive. Nowhere did the President say "the government" was responsible for successeful businesses, but that others(taxpayers) invested in the infastructure to make businesses success possible."

This debacle illustrates exactly what tytpifies the more determined opponents of the President. Their faux outrage is always based on a premise born when his words are taken completely out of context, which places their two feet standing in a bed of lies, no more solid that a bowl full of Jello.

July 19, 2012 at 11:35 p.m.
moonpie said...

As for the president's comments on how people didn't create anything on their own, I do understand the point he is trying to make. I also think he's talking to his base. He runs the risk of losing people who have not made up their minds, because even at its most nuanced, this statement runs counter to the American ideal of self reliance.

This is a belief that runs deep within Americans, even when there is no foundational evidence to support it.

I think this was a misstep by our president to pick a fight with individualism. Even JFK got this... Ask not what your country can do for you....

You can be liberal and still embrace the power of 1.

You should encourage each 1 to work for us all. I think Kennedy knew that. So did Reagan. So did Clinton. I think that's what Mr. Obama was trying to get at, to a degree. But I don't think the way he made his points will resonate with the bulk of the American people, even if he is right.

July 19, 2012 at 11:39 p.m.

moonpie, well, such self-delusion is deeply entrenched, but there's no reason to kowtow to it.

However the Boy Scouts have lost some cases, not for their membership, but for their privileges. Of course then their devotees gave them a special Congressional Act to protect their right to discriminate. That's going too far.

July 19, 2012 at 11:49 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES 02800 wrote: "So when children have their first successes in life, the parents should tell them that it was actually other people who really did it for them."

Your statement is too broad to adequately address. If you're talking about bringing home a perfect report card from school, then that is an effort of individual achievement.

If you're talking about winning a baseball game, then that is a team coming together and collectively striving to achieve a better result over another team, for you see, no individual ball player has ever won a game on their own either.

You need to be more specific, if your goal is to score a point in this debate. Right now, your batting average leaves a bit to be desired.

"Individualism is a bad word for liberals. They only hate rich people that aren't democrat donors."

That's complete and utter hogwash. Liberals do not "hate" rich people and you can't begin to prove that they do. You present such a statement as if liberals are combing the streets so that they can shoot rich people to death.

"Everything is done as a community. Hence the word, communism. Alpo's vision of America is becoming more apparent every day. Communism seems to be utopia for alpo."

No man is an island of his own. Now either that simple statement is fundamentally true, or it isn't. It has nothing at all to do with Communism, which I recommend you research the definition of the word, so that you don't look so foolish and ignorant the next time you use it in a sentence.

If you think that the statement isn't true, then I challenge you to sit there type a post explaining to everyone just how any one person can achieve financial success in this or any other country, without the assistance of another soul.

July 19, 2012 at 11:55 p.m.
alprova said...

Jack_Dennis wrote: "The number of Obama apologists is astounding."

None of us need to apologize for the man. He did not say what he is accused of saying, plain and simple.

If you dislike the man, more power to you. But people, no matter their reasons for their intense resentment of the President, at the very least, have a moral responsibility to be honest when referencing what the man says.

The prohibition of bearing false witness is one of the Ten Commandments that some people believe in honoring at all times.

Clearly and undeniably, Mitt Romney is guilty of bearing false witness against the President.

And this one is about as dishonest as it has ever been.

July 20, 2012 at 12:11 a.m.
tenben62 said...

Hey Libs, You know what seperates me for your guys? If I didnt like the way a organization ran things, I wouldnt participate nor allow my son to join. If you didnt like the way the organization ran things, you want the organization shut down or changed to fit your whims. I've always been told that liberals were champions of "open mindedness and tolerance", I guess thats really not the case.

July 20, 2012 at 2:38 a.m.
tenben62 said...

Sorry for typos

July 20, 2012 at 2:39 a.m.
Reardon said...

There's no reason arguing with Al -- he's an admitted Socialist. I used to do it several years ago; he has his gaping bias towards Collectivism and nobody's going to change that.

The whole problem with what President Maobama said is that he's attempting to equate capitalists to the level of parasites (which gets the parasites in his audience all hot and bothered) so as to justify needing to fleece their productiveness of more tax dollars.

The other blatant distortion President Maobama is cookin' up is that he equates charitable giving to increasing forceful thieving by governmental taxation. As if anyone has some duty to provide anymore to the government cheese bag than they're providing now, and if that truly will make a difference.

July 20, 2012 at 6:07 a.m.
Echo said...

Homosexuality, or any kind of sexuality for that matter, is irrelevant to developing the moral, mental, and physical abilities of boys and young men within a group. Scouting is friendship, leadership, camping, camaraderie, and service to the community. Scouting is a healthy alternative to activities that do not improve a young man's health, confidence, or leadership ability such as using drugs, joining gangs, playing video games, or watching TV.

Scouting also teaches civic responsibility, how to handle money, how to plan, how to apply first aid. Your average Eagle Scout is better prepared to survive outdoors and handle a crisis than a soldier. Believe it. It takes years to make an Eagle Scout, but even a scout that does not reach that level still learns valuable things and enjoys the experiences.

Not every kid is a gifted athlete. If a kid just wants to go outside, go backpacking, bike, climb, swim, learn how to build a fire and cook on it, sleep in a tent, use a compass, canoe, ect. why does some gay adult have to prance in and selfishly stick his sexuality in there?

Why do liberals hate scouting? Liberals hate scouting because scouting makes achievers who love their country and place a high value on serving their community. Over 30 US astronauts were first Eagle Scouts including James Lovell. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Stewart, Walter Cronkite, and Steven Spielberg are also Eagle Scouts.

Scouting does not need to solve the internal conflict of annoying, pathetic, self-centered people looking for acceptance for their adult choices. Some kid just trying to grow up and figure themselves out should not have to contemplate an adult's sexual preference.

July 20, 2012 at 6:36 a.m.
degage said...

Alpo, A perfect report card is an individual achievement? not according to you liberals. The teacher had to teach that child and there was at least 29 other kids in that class. granted he learned but he had help,so as far as I can see you and Obama can't possibly believe he did it on his own. That is if you believe everything your buddy says is gospel. Obama is being weaned off his teleprompter so we should be hearing more of his true feelings. The great orator isn't so great without his blankie. I truly believe the child worked very hard to achieve that perfect card so it was an individual achievement just like the person that worked very hard to bring a product or service to the masses.

July 20, 2012 at 6:54 a.m.
anniebelle said...

To feel confident they have reached their braindead audience on the misquotes they supplied their lackeys, they ran 42 segments, presenting the same lie over and over in over 2 hours of air time. That's how brainwashing is accomplished folks.

July 20, 2012 at 7:25 a.m.
joneses said...

If the Gays want to be Boy Scouts then why do they not start their own Boy Scouts? it is probably because this is not about gays being in the Boy Scouts but it is more about Gays forcing their lifestyle upon others. They are doing what the liberals do not want the Christians doing. Another example of fine liberal hypocrisy.

July 20, 2012 at 7:33 a.m.
MalleusChristus said...

Jesus Christ>>>John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life..."

I Corinthians 6- "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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 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."

July 20, 2012 at 8:42 a.m.
MalleusChristus said...

Jesus Christ>>>John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life..."

Effeminate = μαλακός = malakos = mä-lä-ko's =

OUTLINE of BIBLICAL USAGE 1) soft, soft to the touch 2) metaph. in a bad sense a) effeminate 1) of a catamite???? 2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man 3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness 4) of a male prostitute

July 20, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.
dao1980 said...

Watch out MC, those snakes you been handlin' are gonna bite-cha.

July 20, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

alprova said "Clearly and undeniably, Mitt Romney is guilty of bearing false witness against the President." Sooo, Al, do BHO and his minions never bear false witness against Romney? Hmmm? Sadly, Al, you see things thru one lens. Trying to come across as open minded doesn't wash. You, sir, are an ideologue and a hack. With all respect.

July 20, 2012 at 9:11 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

alpo. "If you were successful,..(pause)..somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. IF YOU'VE GOT A BUSINESS -- THAT, YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

I copied and pasted this straight from your 11:18 post. It clearly states "if you got a business, you didn't build that". Get real man. Are you going blind dude?

July 20, 2012 at 9:27 a.m.
Humphrey said...

you know good and well that he was talking about roads and bridges.

July 20, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

'The left wants to point fingers at Romney as an outsourcing pioneer when, in fact, their own side is just as guilty of the practice".

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/13/Don-t-forget-Obama-bundler-Jeffrey-Katzenberg-shipped-DreamWorks-Animation-jobs-to-India

July 20, 2012 at 9:55 a.m.
Humphrey said...

Romney told Fox News, "My dad's dad was not a polygamist." He added, "My dad grew up in a family with a mom and a dad and a few brothers and one sister. They lived in Mexico and lived a very nice life there from what I understand and then when he was five or six years old there was a revolution in Mexico. They escaped. I believe they went to El Paso first, and were helped by the government to get on their feet and then his dad went around the country, Los Angeles, I think Idaho, Utah, went broke more than once. My dad had a very tough upbringing."

were helped by the government to get on their feet His dad born in Mexico; in a polygamy compound. Chased out of the country. Romney's an anchor baby, Mexican parents got US government assistance.

July 20, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
alprova said...

Jack_Dennis wrote: "alprova said "Clearly and undeniably, Mitt Romney is guilty of bearing false witness against the President." Sooo, Al, do BHO and his minions never bear false witness against Romney? Hmmm? Sadly, Al, you see things thru one lens. Trying to come across as open minded doesn't wash. You, sir, are an ideologue and a hack. With all respect."

Until Mitt Romney comes clean with his tax returns to prove:

A.) That he had no further involvement with Bain Capital after 1999, thus making his claim to be a job creator a reality and;

B.) Where the bulk of his income went in relation to the amount of income taxes he paid on it;

there does not appear to be any false witness in evidence.

Mitt Romney is the only person at this point who can refute the accusations against him, and the longer he holds out, the more the accusations look to be true.

July 20, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Then why not just say in that sentence, "if you got roads and bridges--that, you didn't build them"? Face it, he let it slip what he really is by ranting off teleprompter. He was in one of his starry-eyed community organizer rants and his true colors came flying out of his mouth. And apparently, it's starting to reflect in the polls.

July 20, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Humphrey 9:56: So?

July 20, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

How about this alpo: We have to vote Romney in before we can see what's in his tax returns.

July 20, 2012 at 10:11 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Toes: Thanks loads. Now we can look forward to a 10,000 word response from alpo.

July 20, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.
Walden said...

Alprova - you are showing your hackishness more than ever on this thread. BHO bears false witness against, not only his political opponents, but against this very Country on a nearly daily basis. His use of straw man arguments is second to none. He is a terrible president, and needs to go. Your failure to see this is astounding.

July 20, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

He did say that, just not very articulate way. It wasn't a slip of the tongue or a rant. YOU are the one taking it out of context.

July 20, 2012 at 10:20 a.m.
Humphrey said...

jack Dennis, on one hand you have Romney quoting a 1/2 a sentence to try and make it look like Obama is saying that you have to have gov. help when Obama was clearly talking about roads and bridges and anyone with half a brain knows it. On the other hand you have Romney saying his family got government support to get on their feet. Its like on one hand you have people freak out that obama's dad was born in another country, and here you have romney who has a dad born in another country. He's an anchor baby, his dad was born in a mexican cult polygamy camp. You couldn't make this crap up if you wanted to.

July 20, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

"If the Gays want to be Boy Scouts then why do they not start their own Boy Scouts? it is probably because this is not about gays being in the Boy Scouts but it is more about Gays forcing their lifestyle upon others. They are doing what the liberals do not want the Christians doing. Another example of fine liberal hypocrisy."

Gays are not forcing their lifestyle on anyone. Are you forcing your heterosexuality on others?

Why are you so ignorant? I'd love you know.

July 20, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Walden,

Romney bears false witness against, not only his political opponents, but against this very Country on a nearly daily basis. His use of straw man arguments is second to none. He would be a terrible president. Your failure to see this is astounding.

July 20, 2012 at 10:24 a.m.
Walden said...

Weak Easy123, very weak.

July 20, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Humphrey: BHO was CLEARLY talking about roads and bridges?? How was it clear? You need to lose those rose-colored glasses, Hump.

July 20, 2012 at 10:29 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Walden,

It was the same argument YOU used. LMAO!

So I should say, Weak Walden, very weak.

July 20, 2012 at 10:29 a.m.
Walden said...

Look Libbies, the man said what he said. His words cannot be twisted into something he did not say. He is responsible for his words, not us. Have you even noticed that he isn't even trying to walk back what he said? Have you ever considered for a moment that he actually believes this crap?

July 20, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
Easy123 said...

JackTroll,

It wasn't crystal clear but it's obvious he was talking about roads and bridges.

You need to lose those dumbass-colored glasses.

July 20, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.

tenben62, that's nice, except I don't see anybody calling for them to be shut down here. Did I miss it? The only thing I've said is that they shouldn't receive support or privileges from the government if they can't measure up to acceptable standards. And that I don't want them lauded as an example of virtue when they fail to measure up. FWIW, I can go over to the editorial on the Mosque in Murfreeboro and see right-wingers declaring their opposition to the Muslim faith, based on wild theories, so don't pretend your side is free and clear. I've also seen plenty of other comments about shutting down other liberal organizations (including the ACLU) so it's not limited to that either.

Sorry, but you're going to have to try some less preposterous claim to virtue yourself. Liberals are not fooled by your claims that intolerance of your intolerance is itself intolerance, instead we laugh at your feeble attempt to defend yourself.

Walden, while you can believe Barack Obama to be wrong, the standard for false witness is a lot higher.

In the case of Mitt Romney, if he's not able to realize how distorting his words are, then he is so monstrously incompetent that he shouldn't be President of a Bath Tub, let alone this country.

Easy123: It was fine in terms of articulation, there's absolutely no way that Obama could say anything that the right-wing agenda would not try to distort and misrepresent.

While completely ignoring their own faults in that regard. Or in even worse ways, such as making up complete fabrications.

July 20, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.
Walden said...

Easy - you aren't very smart are you? You missed my point.

July 20, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Walden,

You're correct. But you and your Conservative buddies ARE twisting his words into something he did not say. And you are responsible for you words. But you are not being honest about this issue.

And he isn't trying to take back anything he said because he didn't saying anything controversial. He was talking about roads and bridges.

Have you ever considered that you are an idiot?

July 20, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Alpo, I remember some accusations being made about Obama's birth certificate. If he had a legal right to even become president and so forth. And I also recall Obama not providing it until WELL after he was elected. So what's your point with all of this tax return crap. And why just now bring it up if it's such a mind blowing issue.

I think you're paranoid and panicky over the fact that you and your lefties thought (wrongly) that Obama-the-great would have had this election in the bag by now. But here we are in a neck and neck race with time running out and a terrible economy strapped to Obama's back. All the poison darts you liberals have been throwing at Romney aren't sticking so you're getting desperate for something to work. I'll bet I'm not far off the mark.

July 20, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Walden,

YOU missed the point, sweetie.

You can use that stupid argument against either person, Romney or Obama. But you don't see it that way for some strange reason.

Would you like to try again?

July 20, 2012 at 10:35 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

It would seem that Romney is the paranoid and panicky one by not disclosing his tax returns. He clearly has something to hide but you don't see it that way. You'll never see it that way. You just dismiss the things you can't defend, remember?

July 20, 2012 at 10:38 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Poor Bulbs. He rants. He bloviates. He drowns us in a tsunami of prose. Alas, he's just frustrated he can't make his points with the crayons. Stick to the sub-par toons, Bennett.

July 20, 2012 at 10:40 a.m.
Easy123 said...

JackTroll,

I think you're the one drowning in prose. You bitch about having to read anything over 2 paragraphs.

I guess your incontinence and old age won't allow you to sit for too long.

July 20, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.

TOES02800, probably because those arguments weren't legitimate but were instead paranoid conspiracy theories.

If anybody is asking for proof that Mitt Romney isn't a Robot pretending to be human, or anything else of the same character as the still continuing birther movement, then you can present it.

One's tax returns? George Romney, Mitt's own father, released twelve years of returns. Why can't his son follow his father's example? Oh wait, it's because he's afraid he'll be persecuted...where have we heard that before?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-18-2012/mystery-finance-theater-2012

Jack_Dennis, Clay Bennett posts from his own account when he has cause to do so.

Your accusations of me being him...are perfectly invalidating of your every criticism.

Thank you, keep destroying yourself.

July 20, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Wow easy, you just described yourself to a tee! Like I said, we have to vote Romney in to see what's in his returns. You didn't seem to mind that theory during the Obamacare battle.

July 20, 2012 at 10:44 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Libs always have a hard time practicing what they preach.

July 20, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Thedailyshow. HAHAHAHAHA!! NOW THERE'S AN ICON OF TRUTH!! HAHA!!

July 20, 2012 at 10:48 a.m.

Conservatives always have a hard time with recognizing reality.

Probably because they're more comfortable with their delusions.

And the Daily Show's videos is showing tape of actual Republican statements.

You just hate the mirror they put up exposing your hypocrisy, don't you?

July 20, 2012 at 10:48 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Conservatives always have a hard time not being a ignorant.

"we have to vote Romney in to see what's in his returns. You didn't seem to mind that theory during the Obamacare battle."

That's not the precedence. Candidates always show at least 8-10 years worth of tax returns.

People knew what was in Obamacare. You're taken a dated Pelosi quote and trying to use it to your advantage. It doesn't work like that, sugarpie.

July 20, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
Walden said...

Easy - take it light little gal, don't get your knickers so twisted up, it isn't good for your heart!

July 20, 2012 at 10:50 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Walden,

It would be nice if any part of your intended wit applied to me but, as usual, it doesn't.

July 20, 2012 at 10:52 a.m.
Walden said...

Easy said "Candidates always show at least 8-10 years worth of tax returns..."

Wanna re-think that? I think Reagan showed only 2, as did many others.

Why won't your god BHO show us his college transcripts? Sure seems like he's hiding something to me. Could it be that he used shady methods to get into Columbia, or could it possibly be that the "smartest man ever to inhabit the Oval Office" might have made some C's???

July 20, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.

It should be obvious why Obama's not showing you his college transcripts.

Your demands for them aren't legitimate. Just like the requests for his birth certificate. And no, President Obama isn't running for office based on his performance as a college student.

Mitt Romney, OTOH, is running for office based on his business career. And his own father released 12 years. Can't he follow his father's example?

BTW, why does Sheriff Joe Arpaio still refuse to accept Hawaii's statement that the birth certificate Obama provided is legitimate?

July 20, 2012 at 11 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Walden,

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/

Would you like to re-re-think that?

His transcripts wouldn't show anything about how he got in to Columbia. But please tell me these "shady" methods people employ to get in to college?

Who cares if he made some C's? Who hasn't made some C's?

Romney's tax returns could show that he didn't pay taxes during some years or at least that is the speculation.

Which is worse: C's on a transcript or a man worth $200 million paying ZERO taxes.

July 20, 2012 at 11:01 a.m.
Walden said...

Easy - pipe down little lady. I'm not saying it is shameful to make C's, I'm just saying that The One probably thinks his C's, if they exist, are shameful, because, after all, he is perfect. What evidence do you possibly have that Romney has ever cheated on his taxes? That is the type of false witness we were speaking of earlier. That guy pays more taxes in any given quarter than you will ever pay in a lifetime of working the check out lane at Greenlife.

July 20, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.
conservative said...

Why don't Liberals understand simple economics and contracts?

A worker was paid by his employer for his labor whether it was a good, service, bridge, road, government building etc. The employer owes him nothing more and the worker owes the business owner nothing more.

July 20, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
alprova said...

TOES 20800 wrote: "Alpo, I remember some accusations being made about Obama's birth certificate. If he had a legal right to even become president and so forth. And I also recall Obama not providing it until WELL after he was elected."

That's not true. He released a copy of his Certificate of live birth on June 12, 2008, and then in response to the accusations still ongoing, he released a copy of his "long form" birth certificate on July 27, 2011.

"So what's your point with all of this tax return crap. And why just now bring it up if it's such a mind blowing issue."

It was an issue when the Republican candates were duking it out. Newt Gingrich hammered him hard on that issue.

"I think you're paranoid and panicky over the fact that you and your lefties thought (wrongly) that Obama-the-great would have had this election in the bag by now."

I'm hardly paranoid or panicky. I'll be just fine if Mitt Romney wins, for he clearly is not a water toting Republican.

"But here we are in a neck and neck race with time running out and a terrible economy strapped to Obama's back."

Yep. His magic wand failed.

"All the poison darts you liberals have been throwing at Romney aren't sticking so you're getting desperate for something to work. I'll bet I'm not far off the mark."

I don't throw poison darts. The man is vulnerable on those two points, and they are pretty serious too.

I just took a look at the latest state polls. Romney is still losing ground. North Carolina, which was solidly going to Romney, now is in play. The President is still leading in all other swing states, and every one of them are up from two weeks ago.

July 20, 2012 at 11:25 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Walden,

Still not a lady.

"I'm just saying that The One probably thinks his C's, if they exist, are shameful, because, after all, he is perfect."

Straw Man Argument.

"What evidence do you possibly have that Romney has ever cheated on his taxes?"

I don't have any. But I also never claimed that he did. No false witness was bared. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

"That guy pays more taxes in any given quarter than you will ever pay in a lifetime of working the check out lane at Greenlife."

You haven't seen his hidden tax returns. So how would you know? And your scenario doesn't apply to me. But that's a common trend among you folks.

July 20, 2012 at 11:36 a.m.
alprova said...

Walden wrote: "I think Reagan showed only 2, as did many others."

Newt Gingrich released only one year

Gerald Ford, John McCain, & Sarah Palin released two years.

George Bush Sr. & Jimmy Carter released three years.

Richard Nixon & Rick Santorum released four years.

Ronald Reagan released six years.

Bill Clinton, GWB, & Dick Cheney released eight years.

Barack Obama released 10 years.

Joe Biden released 12 years.

Franklin D. Roosevelt released 30 years.

Source: http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/

July 20, 2012 at 11:38 a.m.
Walden said...

yer right Alpo

July 20, 2012 at 11:51 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Ah, conservative. You're back. Want to explain now why gays are a threat to children? Be sure to provide evidence to support your claim. "I hate gays" will not cut it.

July 20, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.
degage said...

Happy, It is legit to ask for your buddys transcripts because the libs and the liberal media contend he is brilliant. I for one would like to know if it is warranted, so his transcripts would put that to rest. Easy says, so what if he got c's, guess he doesn't care if we have an idiot in the WH. You also said A man making 200 million paying zero taxes. You have no bases for that accusation.

July 20, 2012 at 1:06 p.m.
degage said...

Easy, there is a bases for is GE . GE made 13billion dollar profit and paid zero taxes. But then GE ceo is Obamas jobs czar. Pelosi has backed off wanting to see Mitts taxes because she was challenged to show hers. She doesn't want to do that. Obamas GE jobs czar is the biggest outsourcer in the US.

July 20, 2012 at 1:35 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Jeff Immelt, Jobs Czar. Friend of labor. Bwahahahahaha

July 20, 2012 at 2:24 p.m.
EaTn said...

Sorry to jump in here but I've been watching the Colorado tragedy. Regarding twisting Obama's statement into another lie...the Swift Boat has left and nobody pays any attention to those tactics except the gullible and non-informed right-wingers. They wouldn't be voting Obama regardless.. so spin all you want, but the real issue will come down to what's in the missing Romney tax records.

July 20, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I suppose James Holmes can credit government and its infrastructure for his achievements too.

July 20, 2012 at 2:33 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Not so fast, my friend. Swift Boaters are patriots. Kerry was, and is, a pile of it.

July 20, 2012 at 2:36 p.m.
miraweb said...

The president is right. There will be other days for politics.

I would like to add my thoughts and prayers for the families and the community of Denver and the nation.

July 20, 2012 at 2:36 p.m.
BobMKE said...

This will be the first of many. The gaff of the year. He made VP "Bite Me/Plugs" look like a piker. There is a God and I pray that he blesses America again this November.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_3PknkNz8E&feature=youtu.be

July 20, 2012 at 3:12 p.m.
Walden said...

Here is what the estimable Charles Krauthammer had to say on the "taken out of context" BS that's being floated around right now...

On Mitt Romney’s use of the President’s “you didn’t build that” remarks:

"The content here is utterly damning. Romney said it’s not a gaffe. A gaffe is defined in Washington as when a politician accidentally speaks what is really in his heart. This is his political philosophy. And it’s elaborated.

I would say, disagree with Steve about that one sentence. ["If you have a business -- you didn't build that."] As I just heard it, and as anybody looking at it would see in print… “that” is a reference to a person’s idea that he built his own business. It is not a reference to roads and bridges.

But let’s look at the whole context and let’s ignore that one sentence. He starts with a mocking reference to people who succeed — believing it might have something to do with intelligence or hard work….

So he is mocking people — a Korean immigrant working 16 hours a day in a candy store and builds it and sends his kids to college with … the money he finally makes 20 years later; or a physician in medical school who goes 60 or 80 hour weeks, works hard, and then in his 50s, begins reaping the rewards of his work. That is number one.

Secondly, everybody he says who helped you along the way — it’s no accident [that] everybody in his example — is an agent of the government. It’s either a teacher, or a road, or a bridge, or the Internet, which he says, incorrectly, was invented by the government so it could create opportunities in the marketplace. So it’s all government. And this is his philosophy, that government is the root of American success — individual and national. It’s not individual enterprise. Yes, to some extent individual enterprise, but anybody who thinks it’s that — obviously is [crediting] himself in a way that is undeserved.

It’s the government. And that is the heart of his philosophy.

That is the real division between left and right in the country. That’s why Romney should hit it every day until Election Day."

EaTn - nice attempt to make this election about Mitt Romney's tax returns! That is what Obama is doing, to no avail. This election is about Obama's failures, and that is all.

July 20, 2012 at 3:24 p.m.
Walden said...

What exactly is it you Libbies think you are going to find in an older tax return of the Romneys? Don't you think that if he were doing something illegal, or even slightly shady, the IRS would have been all over him like flies on poop and that the story would be out there? He's rich, so what? He reported $20MM in income in 2011, big deal. He also paid more taxes than all of us on this comemnt thread combined. For that, he should be given a hearty "Thanks Mitt"! But instead, you little snipers are only out to embarrass him in the name of keeping your candy man in office... Shameful, I say!

July 20, 2012 at 3:27 p.m.
EaTn said...

Walden said....."EaTn - nice attempt to make this election about Mitt Romney's tax returns! That is what Obama is doing, to no avail. This election is about Obama's failures, and that is all."

First I agree that Obama has to run on his current record---bring it on. But don't try to mix his record with bull crap if you want to get the most effect. Secondly, maybe it's just an early strategy of Romney camp to use the tax issue to fog his record; but sometime between now and election he will have to open those tax reports or lose all credibility.

July 20, 2012 at 4:04 p.m.
Walden said...

EaTn - you're chasing rabbits buddy. The real issue is the epic failure of the Obama experiment. Time for this nation to move on.

July 20, 2012 at 4:20 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

The tax return thingie is just more class-warfare. They want to demonize Romney as a big nasty rich guy. They've got ZERO to run on, so any talk of Romney's wealth is better than trying to justify a failed presidency.

July 20, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
alprova said...

Romney is running on a platform that he is a job creator. He didn't do it as Governor of Massachusetts. So, in order to support that claim, he has to prove that he was not in charge of Bain Capital after 1999, when that firm destroyed a bunch of jobs.

He has forever and a day dodged questions regarding tax havens. Regardless of how anyone out there feels about it, the man can't claim to be a job creator or a patriotic American who pays all of his taxes, unless he steps up to the plate to prove it.

It's not about attacking him because he is rich. It's about the man proving he is what he says he is. And the longer he refuses to do it, the worse he will fare.

July 20, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.
EaTn said...

Jack_Dennis said... "The tax return thingie is just more class-warfare"

No. Everyone knows Romney is filthy rich. The question from the tax returns is where did the wealth come from, where was it "invested" and how much taxes were payed, or not?

July 20, 2012 at 4:50 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

EaTn: You expect a lot from tax filings.

July 20, 2012 at 6:29 p.m.
alprova said...

An Eagle Scout's Letter to Boy Scouts of America on why he can't in good conscious keep his Eagle Badge.

http://i.imgur.com/XJNny.jpg

July 20, 2012 at 6:47 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Hey alpo, the majority doesn't matter anymore, remember? About 70% of America didn't want Obamacare either. But you didn't seem to care about that. So NOW you post a link saying that a majority of people say Romney should release his returns. You're such a hypocrite. As long as it advances a liberal cause, it ok with you.

July 20, 2012 at 9:27 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Geesh, TOES. Now you've done it.

July 20, 2012 at 9:32 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

And just what does the government plan on spending all of it's new "tax the middle, oh, I mean rich" money on?

July 20, 2012 at 9:38 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Well Jack, alpo seems to think he has this inherent high moral ground, he thinks that somehow he is the cyber-guru and is so much smarter than the rest. As a true liberal, he feels he has an answer for everything that is non-liberal. But if you read through most of his gobbledy-goock, you find the same old liberal talking points of wealth distribution.

July 20, 2012 at 9:48 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

By the way, Obama's "tax the rich" scheme is said to garner only $85 billion. That runs the government for about 8 1/2 days. So it can't be about paying their "fair" share. It doesn't help anybody. I't's more about punishing the mean old rich people for their success. A typical class envy stance the left just loves.

July 20, 2012 at 9:57 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Throughout the first 1,257 days of his presidency, Mr. Obama has spent just 412 hours in economic meetings or briefings of any kind In 2012, so far Obama has spent just 24 total hours in economic meetings of any kind.

Assuming a six day, 10-hour workweek, Obama has spent less than 4 percent of his total time in economic meetings or briefings of any kind.

There were 773 days (72 percent), excluding Sundays, in which he had no economic meetings.

Mr. Obama has spent an average of 138 minutes a week in economic meetings. According to a study published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, new dog owners spent an average of 130 minutes a week walking their dogs.

Just love Obama's "laser-like focus" on jobs.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/19/REPORT-Obama-Spends-Nearly-As-Much-Time-On-The-Economy-As-Dog-Owners-Spend-Walking-Their-Dogs

July 20, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

TOES: All libs think they have the high moral ground. It's in their DNA. And it's a load of hokum.

July 20, 2012 at 10:23 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"The presidential election has given us two myths about the rich. First, that their incomes, and income inequality, are at all-time highs. Second, that the wealthy pay less in taxes than ever, and lower taxes than the rest of us". A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, however, suggests that both may be false".

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611

July 20, 2012 at 11:02 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

class warfare, plain and simple

July 20, 2012 at 11:04 p.m.

Yes, the rich have been fighting a war on the poor, and they've been winning.

Thanks for noticing.

But seriously, what other people, even supporters, believe about Obama doesn't mean he is running on that platform. Nor would it help you learn anything.

On the other hand, since Mitt Romney is asking us to look at his record as a businessman, his tax returns are fair game.

None of this has anything to do with the Boy Scouts though.

Pity.

July 20, 2012 at 11:31 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES012800 wrote: "Hey alpo, the majority doesn't matter anymore, remember? About 70% of America didn't want Obamacare either. But you didn't seem to care about that."

Why not compare a mouse to an elephant?

"So NOW you post a link saying that a majority of people say Romney should release his returns. You're such a hypocrite."

Thou needs to look up the definition of the word.

"As long as it advances a liberal cause, it ok with you."

You din't read very much of that article, did you? A good many of those people that feel that Mitt Romney should come clean with his tax returns are Republicans and Independents.

Goodness knows that it most certainly is the Democrats/Liberals who are determined to see to it that the people have access to a health care system that does not bankrupt them when they get sick.

That is more than what can be said for the Conservative cause, which has been to do a whole lot of nothing about the problem.

July 21, 2012 at 12:39 a.m.
alprova said...

Toes02800, pointing to an article on Breitbart, as a credible source, is very much like quoting Donald Trump as an authority on the circumstances of the President's birth.

"But," you might say, "They cite a study performed by the Government Accountability Institute."

Oh my, who in their right mind would dare challenge anything that comes from such a credible sounding source?

Moi.

The GAI is nothing more than a one man operation, Peter Schweizer, a man hell bent on attacking anything Liberal. He is definitely biased in his positions against the President.

But, let's set that aside for the moment. His "Study" is rather flawed. He compiled his data from compiling information obtained from the White House official Press Calendar, hardly a reliable source used to determined what the President does all day.

That calendar is meant to inform the press of the President's whereabouts on any given weekday, and it outlines events that the press is welcome to attend, and those that they aren't. It is not, as Peter Schweizer presents, an end-all digest of what the President does all day.

He makes all kinds of ASSumptions in his "report."

He assumes a six day work week, 10 hour work day. There is no public information posted on the calendar every Saturday or Sunday. He did not exempt Saturdays from his calculations, which throws off his numbers exponentially. Further, the information that can be found on that calendar often encompasses as little as two hours of the President's day.

He, nor anyone else outside of the White House and the President himself, has the first clue to all of the meetings the President attends or holds on any given day.

July 21, 2012 at 1:48 a.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.