published Sunday, May 13th, 2012

Presidential Seal

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 ...

181
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.
TOES02800 said...

Really? Does this mean the preezy is gay? All Obama did was say he supports gay marriage. He's changed nothing! It's still the domain of the states. Which by last count was : STATES-3O GAYS-0. Obama seems to have just used the gay community for a $15 million fund raiser. Note to gays: Obama has STILL done nothing to help you.

May 13, 2012 at 1:27 a.m.
WHS1970 said...

Happy Mothers Day everyone!!!!!!

May 13, 2012 at 1:40 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

You couldn't be more wrong, TOES. The mere fact that Obama has declared unequivocally that he is FOR gay marriage is a huge boon to the gay community. Voting state-by-state on whether gay marriage should be legal or not is nuts. This is not something that should be decided by a majority vote. It's a matter of civil rights, pure and simple. That backward thinking conservatives like you don't get it is definitely slowing down the progress that has been made so far in the evolving process of gay rights, but in time you obsolete and out-of-touch bigots will be swallowed up by the inevitable rising tide of progress in human rights. It's just a matter of time.

May 13, 2012 at 1:52 a.m.
shifarobe said...

Marriage will always mean a man and a woman, no matter what OBOOB does or how much homosexuals and lesbians stomp their feet and protest! Oboob just wants the money. What a PHONY!!!!

May 13, 2012 at 3:32 a.m.
joneses said...

Where was all the outrage and attention when obutthead said he was not for gay marriage? Obutthead will tell you anything to get elected making him a pathological liar. Obutthead has been against gay marriage much longer than he has been for gay marriage. Why does that not piss the gay community off? Where is all the outrage about obutthead spending 6 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it? Where is all the outrage about everything obutthead has done being a failure?

May 13, 2012 at 7:14 a.m.
conservative said...

If the loontoonist is trying to convey that Obamination is the homosexual president then I certainly agree with that. Please spread the word.

May 13, 2012 at 7:43 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Rickaroo: Define progress.

May 13, 2012 at 8 a.m.
GreenKepi said...

Obama could care less...he's after the vote - pure and simple....

May 13, 2012 at 8:03 a.m.
moon4kat said...

I think the right-wingnuts failed to consider "E Pluribus Unum." Do they know what that means?

May 13, 2012 at 8:19 a.m.
alprova said...

Perhaps the President has come to consider the issue to be one of personal choice for free Americans.

Far be it for people across the land to be allowed to do as they please, as free Americans, up to and including being allowed to marry whomever they choose.

It will be a great day in this country when people allow others to live their lives as they choose, without attempts to enforce personal or religious beliefs on others as a means to prevent them from doing what makes them happy in their own lives.

If illogical religious objections were removed from this issue altogether, there would be nothing left to argue against allowing people of the same gender to marry if they so choose.

Bravo to the President for finally hopping off the fence and coming down on the side that makes the most sense, even if it causes him more grief by the Obama bashers.

May 13, 2012 at 8:21 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

This may cost him a second term, but I am glad he is being honest about it.

I would like to see social issues left out of both side's platforms and everyone concentrate on foreign affairs and the economy. There have been times when I would vote conservative. Why can't conservatives vote together without being lured by stuff they should not be making judgment on in the first place? Why do we have to bring up imposing religious views and denying science in order to attract evangelicals? If the GOP has a valid message on economic and foreign relations issues then they should not have to drift into the crazy zone to be elected.

May 13, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.
conservative said...

So on MOTHER'S day the loontoonist shows his contempt for mothers by promoting homosexuality.

May 13, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

ikeithlu: The R's didn't make the issue. It's BHO making it an issue. He has NOTHING to run on, so all he can do is deflect. 99% of Amurcans don't give a rat's azz about gay marriage. It's just a smokescreen to redirect attention from a pathetically inept first term.

May 13, 2012 at 8:31 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Jack Dennis, the GOP has made this an issue since Bush II. That's how they got and continue to get middle america to vote against its best interests: prayer in schools, evolution, abortion, gays.

I disagree that he did this for votes. Biden forced his hand inadvertently. He may gain a little more support from liberals but he will lose a lot of black voters on this.

May 13, 2012 at 8:47 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

I doubt BHO does ANYTHING that is not calculated. I just don't get the fascination with this guy. I bet is asks "what comes after trillion?"

May 13, 2012 at 8:52 a.m.
rick1 said...

TOES you are absolutely correct this is all about Obama and the money. Where was Obama and the rest of the democrats when they had a filibuster proof majority and the democrats and Obama did nothing about same sex marraige at the federal level?

All you supporters of same sex marriage who hate Dick Cheney, where is your praise for him when he came out in support of same sex marriage at least three years before Obama?

May 13, 2012 at 9 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Obama has nothing to gain by endorsing gay marriage. I'd say he'll lose more people, especially in the south.

May 13, 2012 at 9:04 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

conservative, just how does supporting gays show contempt for mothers? I am a mother, and find this totally unrelated. If either of my sons were gay, Id love them just the same. Your hatefulness shows no bounds. Must be your attachment to Jesus.

May 13, 2012 at 9:07 a.m.
workinjay said...

Rickaroo, funny you mentioned swallowing. Sorry MAN, but me and most other MEN just aren't into that.

May 13, 2012 at 9:16 a.m.
Lr103 said...

You can always tell all the closet gays. They're the ones who come out swinging the most violently and pretend the most squeamish just hearing the mentioning of the word GAY! LOL

May 13, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

ikeithlu: Why the Jesus reference?

May 13, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Because conservative is a religion soaked fanatic. He uses the Bible and Jesus to justify his hateful rantings. He also lies, but feels that it is okay as long as it supports his narrow religious view. A non-believer like me is starting to suspect that religion may be the problem, not the answer.

May 13, 2012 at 9:29 a.m.
alprova said...

Rick 1 wrote: "Where was Obama and the rest of the democrats when they had a filibuster proof majority and the democrats and Obama did nothing about same sex marraige at the federal level?"

Think about what you just wrote.

When people apply for a marriage license, they do so through the State and County in the jurisdiction in which they desire to marry.

Given that the attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment in 2006, which would have defined a marriage as only involving one man and one woman, failed in both Houses of Congress, there is still nothing on any Federal level that prevents two people of the same gender from being allowed to marry.

You don't fix what is not broken.

May 13, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Ol' JD doesn' give a hoot about your atheism. You shouldn't care about believers. You're so progressive!

May 13, 2012 at 9:35 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Ol' lkeithlu doesn't give a hoot about your religion, unless you try to impose it on others.

That is what this argument boils down to. There is NO secular reason to disallow same sex marriage. You don't even have to change the constitution-equal protection under law is already there.

May 13, 2012 at 9:38 a.m.
workinjay said...

Lr103, yeah you nailed it. Metaphorically of course. In your case maybe not.

May 13, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "All you supporters of same sex marriage who hate Dick Cheney, where is your praise for him when he came out in support of same sex marriage at least three years before Obama?"

Good for Dick. I'm sure that his stance on this issue probably put off some people who previously liked the man for his declaration as a staunch Conservative.

But you see, this issue isn't about the politicians who endorse it or are against it. The issue is entirely about the lives of same gendered people who have the desire to enter into marriage just like all opposite gendered people have, but are prevented from doing so.

May 13, 2012 at 9:53 a.m.
mymy said...

moon4kat said...

I think the right-wingnuts failed to consider "E Pluribus Unum." Do they know what that means?

Yes, I know what it means. Do you know what divide et impera means? I’ll save you the time of looking it up. Divide and conquer (derived from the Latin saying Divide et impera) refers to divide and rule, in politics, sociology and economics. A strategy to gain or maintain power.

That’s Obama's Seal!

You fools that buy into all the side shows O and co. manufacture vs. the real problems this country is facing that he has made worse. No record to run on so class warfare is the name of his game.

Obame has to go!

May 13, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
mymy said...

On the lighter side the first thing I did was count the stars to see if there was 57!

May 13, 2012 at 10:10 a.m.
dude_abides said...

It's great to see that the Evangelicals have no problem with the Book of Mormon! Wonderful how they welcomed Mitt with open arms, on his 'solidify the base' tour. Maybe, one day, they will have as much respect and love for their gay sons and daughters. Happy Mother's Day to all the women, present and past, who are (and were) there for their gay children in spite of what our society dictates. I am truly, truly thankful to God Almighty that He blessed me with parents that taught us not to judge others, just because we didn't understand them. My own weakness of character stopped me from taking up for the 'picked upon' in my youth, but it was nonetheless nauseating to see good people ostracized and ridiculed. They must have dreaded every day of their lives. Maybe they still do. Damn.

May 13, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.
moonpie said...

Rick1,

Regarding Dick Cheney, I think he is a perfect example of how it's easy for any of us to demonize something that doesn't directly affect us. One of his daughters is gay. Him seeing her, him loving her will likely affect the way he views homosexuality and gay marriage.

I have seen many Republicans come out in support of gay marriage, some prominently, some with videos on YouTube, because of family members who are homosexual.

Ideology works well on paper but frequently disentigrates upon contact with human realities.

The sad part about Dick Cheney's realization is that many individuals on the far right of this will dismiss Cheney's view on this simply because it is his daughter, and they will think he is biased on this issue because of it, rather than being enlightened.

I do think that President Obama has supported gay marriage for many years, but walked a political tightrope on this issue. I don't think that's to his credit. Since most of us do not want politicians to play politics, this can really tick people off and gives ammunition to their foes.

The reality is that the struggle for equal rights has always been slow and painful, even since before Magna Carta. It will continue to be slow... both socially and politically.

I think we should applaud correct stances when they are taken. So Cheney should be applauded for his stance on gay marriage. So should Obama.

May 13, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
moonpie said...

Welcome back, alprova.

May 13, 2012 at 10:28 a.m.
rick1 said...

Al said: Given that the attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment in 2006, which would have defined a marriage as only involving one man and one woman, failed in both Houses of Congress, there is still nothing on any Federal level that prevents two people of the same gender from being allowed to marry.

Al, that amendment would have defined a marriage between a man and women and it failed. So why didn't Obama and the Democrats try to bring up same sex marriage as a Constitutional Amendment when they had control of congress and an increasing number of States were legalizing same sex marriage? Don't those in favor of same sex marriage feel it is civil rights issue?

Al, did you notice Obama did not give his full support for same sex marriage as he said states still have the right to decide. Funny how boarder enforcement, health care, and abortion to name a few, Obama feels states do not have a right to decide on and are civil rights issues.

Al, I'm sure you are aware Obama was for same sex marriage in 1996 but then evolved (flipped)to traditional marriage and has now some what evolved (flopped)some what back to same sex marriage.

Obama only cares about himself and the only reason he made this half ass stance, is because gay and progressive donors were threatening to withhold donations.

Al, this is all about politics. Obama could have supported same sex marriage earlier then this but he refused to until money became an issue. Obama has not supported same sex marriage since 1996 and Cheney has endorsed it for the past three years and yet this is not mentioned.

May 13, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
rick1 said...

moonpie, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on Obama's stance. Obama could not even give his full conditional support as he said it is a states issue. If Obama really felt gays had a right to marry, why wouldn’t he address it as a civil rights issue and have Harry and Nancy address this when they had full control of congress when Obama first took office?

May 13, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Keep stirring this pot and deflecting attention to the real problems of this country. Trillions! Spend, spend, spend. More entitlements. More taxes.

May 13, 2012 at 11:21 a.m.
moonpie said...

rick1,

I can't speak for President Obama, so I can't answer that question. I don't recall the president every saying that Gay Marriage was going to be a key focus of his presidency.

In the early days, which you describe, he had his hands pretty full with an economy which was on the brink of collapse.

Plus, I imagine that there were things, like Healthcare, which he wanted to put his political clout behind. (I think he fell short there, too.)

President Obama cannot do all things at once. No man can. The implication that just because he did not ask for a bill to promote gay marriage does not mean he was against it is a pretty weak argument.

His flip flopping is a stronger argument. You seem to think you know what he was thinking. You indicate he was for gay marriage, then against it, now for it only for political/financial reasons. Flip flopping leaves him open to criticism. While, I think your opinion is overly cynical, I get how someone could feel the way you do.

I don't like flip flopping, either. Plus, I think we all are more intolerant of flip flops in people whom we oppose and are suspicious of their motivations. I'm certainly more suspicious of Romney's flip flops than I am Obama's.

But I will continue to applaud people for doing the right thing, for the thing's sake, even if I'm suspicious for the motivation.

May 13, 2012 at 11:23 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: “So on MOTHER'S day the loontoonist shows his contempt for mothers by promoting homosexuality.”

How so, Conservative? In her heart, I believe every mother wants to make certain that her child has the right to pursue and obtain happiness. President Obama’s acknowledgement of this right is a significant message, which must be a cause for celebration for lots of mothers across this nation. I’m happy for these mothers and their children - so happy Mother's Day everybody.

May 13, 2012 at 12:02 p.m.
hambone said...

What about the GOP marriage?

The most unholy marriage of all!

Between the GOP and Cooperations!!

May 13, 2012 at 1 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

So gay marriage is a pivotal issue for this president? No wonder he is doing such a horrible job, the guy needs to keep his eye on the ball.

May 13, 2012 at 1:10 p.m.
conservative said...

On this special day that we set aside to honor our mothers let us give thanks to GOD for our mothers and also thank our mothers for not having been a homosexual.

May 13, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Just another little hate poke from conservative. Did you learn that in church?

May 13, 2012 at 1:55 p.m.
rick1 said...

moonpie, I do not know what Obama was thinking, I only know he was for gay marriage in 1996 and then he was against it until this past week when two days after millions of dollars were threatened to be withheld from him by gay and progressive groups he suddenly evolved. I find this very suspicious alone with the fact that he has not given his full conditional support since he says it should be a state issue.

I also have a problem when someone flip flops like Romney and Obama. I also have a problem with Obama sitting in Rev Wright's church for twenty years and acting ignorant and saying he had no idea Wright's sermons were racist, bigoted hateful sermons. In an interview with Edward Klein, Rev Wright says Obama's team tried to buy his silence for $150,000 during the 2008 election.

Obama will do or say whatever it takes to get re elected. It is all about Obama.

May 13, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Does anybody, regardless of what side of the political fence you stand on, not see the loathing and rage that fills the con-man? Seriously, you've got some issues. If you're going to heaven I'll be happy to get on a fast train to hell if it means not having to be exposed to the likes of you and your hate-filled kind. Satan himself could learn a few hate tips from you.

May 13, 2012 at 2:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu_quoque,

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

The tactic you are using is called projection. You are the bigot. You are trying to impose your religion/beliefs on others. Your side spews all the hatred towards gays and lesbians. You can have all the religion you want but don't try to impose you religion/beliefs on anyone else.

May 13, 2012 at 2:38 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Don't believe the hype..... It is illegal not because the right is worried about the sanctaty(sic) of marriage but because big business doesn't want to pay for things like health insurance or survivor pensions, company sponsored life insurance and so forth. And the tax breaks for having dependents/head of household credits are there for the taking. As I posted earlier in the week if it becomes legal I will go marry my buddy who works as a shade tree so he can save $$$ on health insurance, which the corporation I work for provides, and in return I will gain a dependent that I do not have in order to file head of household and I too will save $$$. SO $$$$ is the secular reason the rest is a red meat/red herron distraction, smoke and mirrors. Gary Johnson or Ron Paul 2012

May 13, 2012 at 2:40 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu_quoque, And I suppose by using words like fool, dunce, intolerant, hate filled fleabaggers you are not denigrating us "libtards"? Nothing is being imposed by anyone that supports gay rights other than the equal rights for all people. I don't care if you are religious or not but your beliefs are naive and intolerant.

May 13, 2012 at 3:25 p.m.
conservative said...

Mothers in church with their beautiful chlidren and husbands, just as GOD ordained, what a blessed sight!

May 13, 2012 at 3:54 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You not only give a hoot about religion but you absolutely hate it and take every opportunity to denigrate it and its practitioners. Don’t be so coy about it and let you true bigoted self shine through.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I work for a church and I have a child that is a cleric. I really love the church denomination I work for and the wonderful people there. I don't believe in anything supernatural, and that is only reinforced by people like conservative; if there was a loving god, would some of its followers be so hateful?

I invite you, tuqu, to try where conservative and joneses refuse to go: a NON religious reason to not apply the constitution fully in the case of giving same sex marriages all the same rights and privileges. Go ahead.

May 13, 2012 at 3:57 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

lkeithlu: Define supernatural.

May 13, 2012 at 4:34 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

And if you libs think for one second that Biden wasn't sent out there on purpose to say he was for gay marriage, you're truly eyes blind!

According to you democrats, we have the smartest man in the world as president, the smartest, most well organized administration the country has ever seen.

And yet, just by sheer chance, the vice president just goes out and "OOPS, SORRY BOSS!! I really didn't mean to let the gay cat out of the bag"!

This was all calculated and planned out for money and votes just like everything Obama does. You can't have it both ways there folks!

Obama needs stupid ol' "uncle Joe" as V.P. so he can use him as a loose cannon when the opportunity or need arises.

He's like the Jerry Lewis to Dean Martin. You really think that the brilliant Obama could possibly let this get out if he didn't want it to? C'MON MAN!!

May 13, 2012 at 5:13 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "Al, that amendment would have defined a marriage between a man and women and it failed. So why didn't Obama and the Democrats try to bring up same sex marriage as a Constitutional Amendment when they had control of congress and an increasing number of States were legalizing same sex marriage? Don't those in favor of same sex marriage feel it is civil rights issue?"

You still don't get it. Nothing prevents people, regardless of circumstance, from marrying in any of the 50 states based on federal law. What sort of legislation do you think needs to be passed?

"Al, did you notice Obama did not give his full support for same sex marriage as he said states still have the right to decide."

The states have always been the party to decide any and all laws surrounding marriage. Not one person ever married at any time in this nation has ever been married by the Federal Government.

"Funny how boarder enforcement, health care, and abortion to name a few, Obama feels states do not have a right to decide on and are civil rights issues."

Immigration has always been the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. States have always had their hands out to the Federal Government for funds to cope with indigent health care costs. Abortion was decided by the Supreme Court in the 70's, yet is still being bantered about as if anyone can change a thing regarding a woman's right to one.

"Al, I'm sure you are aware Obama was for same sex marriage in 1996 but then evolved (flipped)to traditional marriage and has now some what evolved (flopped)some what back to same sex marriage."

People, including Presidents of the United States, do have the right to change their minds. I fail to see the significance or any long lasting implications if he has indeed flip-flopped on the issue of same-sex marriage. I'm sure there are many people more open to the idea than they were 15-20 years ago.

"Obama only cares about himself and the only reason he made this half ass stance, is because gay and progressive donors were threatening to withhold donations."

Given that the man is sitting on about $240 million raised himself and by the DNC already, I find that a rather weak argument you're trying to make.

"Al, this is all about politics. Obama could have supported same sex marriage earlier then this but he refused to until money became an issue. Obama has not supported same sex marriage since 1996 and Cheney has endorsed it for the past three years and yet this is not mentioned."

It may well be political. And that being the case, if it is, the reason that Dick Cheney's position is not being mentioned is because the man is no longer running for office. Thus, his endorsement for same-sex marriage for all practical purposes, is meaningless.

May 13, 2012 at 5:18 p.m.
alprova said...

Conservative wrote: "On this special day that we set aside to honor our mothers let us give thanks to GOD for our mothers and also thank our mothers for not having been a homosexual."

You do realize that every homosexual has a mother, do you not?

I've noticed that you are way too obsessed with anything having to do with homosexuals. You harp on the subject every time it comes up.

Thou protesteth too much to be one that is secure in your own manhood.

May 13, 2012 at 5:26 p.m.
moonpie said...

conservative said:On this special day that we set aside to honor our mothers let us give thanks to GOD for our mothers and also thank our mothers for not having been a homosexual. ........

Well, some mothers are homosexual. So are some fathers. In fact, there are a ton out there.


Rick,

As for the Rev Wright.

I grew up and was married in a church that remains bigoted toward homosexuals. I know many Catholics who will not leave their church or abandon a woman's right to choose, or their birth control, or.....

You get the idea.

People usually are not their church.

I don't like the fact that Obama attended there, but I've never seen him act in the manner in which I've seen the right Reverend Wright act. Clearly many conservatives see evil in everything Obama does.

If I can only one side of a person, can I really say I'm seeing the whole picture? Probably not.

Uniform praise and uniform criticism of people are both fundamentally blind.

May 13, 2012 at 5:26 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

If most of our mother's or fathers for that matter were homosexual, a lot of people would not even have been born in the first place!

We should all be thankful that OUR mom and dads' were NOT homosexuals.

If the Obama the great had a homosexual mother, would he even be alive today?

May 13, 2012 at 5:36 p.m.
pNc said...

conservative said... Mothers in church with their beautiful chlidren and husbands, just as GOD ordained, what a blessed sight!

Yeah! With clergy and members who won't think twice about "sexing" it with ungerage girls or boys.

We can agree, though, that APPEARANCE IS EVERYTHING! ;)

May 13, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Since my response above gave my opinion that the state should only sanction civil unions I would say that question is wrongly and ignorantly directed at me. But you’re more that welcome to provide a secular state need to sanction the marriage contract at all.

Fair enough, but you also accused me of hating religion and those that believe. That is a lie.

May 13, 2012 at 5:56 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, you still do not get it. Supporters of gay marriage believe it is their civil right to get marriage. This is why I am asking why didn't Obama, Harry and Nancy adddress this as a federal issue when they controled the House and Senate.

Boarder enforcement, The Supreme Court already determined that state regulation of illegal immigrants that is “harmonious with federal regulation” is not preempted by federal law. DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356 (1976). Also Congress has been clear that states should partner with the federal government in combating illegal immigration.

Al, be honest with yourself, Obama is way behind in donations from 2008. This is a fact. Hey but you can help Obama out by purchasing a bottle of BBBQ sauce, apron and an oven mitt from the DNC for $55.80

May 13, 2012 at 6 p.m.
rick1 said...

moonpie, your post on Obama and Rev. Wright does not address the allegation by Wright that Obama's team wanted to pay him $150,000 to keep silence until after the election.

According to Wright, he also received a short lecture from Obama on the necessity of sometimes stretching the truth.

“Barack said, ‘I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?’ And I said, ‘No, what’s my problem?’ And he said, ‘You have to tell the truth.’ I said, ‘That’s a good problem to have. That’s a good problem for all preachers to have. That’s why I could never be a politician.’”

Sounds like Obama as present when Wright was making those racists and bigoted statement s about our country. Yet Obama says he wasn’t present when these comments were made.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/13/obama-begged-wright-to-stay-silent-during-2008-election-as-ally-offered-him-bribe-new-book-says/

May 13, 2012 at 6:12 p.m.

Rick1, Boarders?

What does the federal government have to do with boarding, except maybe the third Amendment? I think you mean borders. States should partner with the federal government, but that doesn't mean anything they do would be sensible or wise.

Just ask Alabama, which left crops rotting in the fields.

But here's a nice congenial speech by a Reverend, Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson:

http://youtu.be/NeFhA_sL38c

Hmm, you're attacking Obama for sitting in Wright's church, but who are you attacking for giving Peterson a pulpit?

Or is attacking women ok?

Not that this has anything to with the subject of the cartoon. Sure, it'd have been nice if Pelosi and Reid had voted to repeal DOMA, or if Clinton had vetoed it. But recriminations are pointless, especially from somebody like you, rick1, who would be utterly and completely upset with them if they had.

Stop trying to play crazy-making games. We know you're a hopeless fanatic that toes the conservative party line. We know that the Tea Party idea of Bipartisanship is everybody coming to their point of view.

As such, there's no point in appeasing you, you're a fanatic.

And good show on the people trying to make out the liberal side to be bigots. I saw Stephen Colbert last Wednesday or Thursday, I know that line.

May 13, 2012 at 6:13 p.m.
patriot1 said...

With all the brouhaha over this issue, the liberal media would like us to believe the gay population makes up a large percentage of the population when it's actually < 2%.......ironically about the same percentage as Mormons who are often ridiculed

May 13, 2012 at 6:22 p.m.

Do you think that if the laws prevented Mormons from getting married for no objective reason, they'd be challenged or not?

I think they would.

May 13, 2012 at 6:38 p.m.
conservative said...

One thing is certain, no mother was ever impregnated by a woman in a homosexual "marriage", nor ever will be.

May 13, 2012 at 7:20 p.m.
GlacierClipper said...

Obama has no idea of what he supports. He has a problem with recognizing the issues he was support to support during the last election.

May 13, 2012 at 7:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative, Some women can't be impregnated by a man either. Does that make them lesser people?

May 13, 2012 at 7:31 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Maybe not as worthless as the loons on this web site

I presume you are including yourself in that group?

May 13, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu_quoque,

How is polygamy at all similar to same sex marriage? 1 husband/wife is very different from multiple husbands and wives.

May 13, 2012 at 7:57 p.m.
rick1 said...

Bulbs, my post was about the allegation by Rev Wright that Obama’s team offered to pay him $150,000 to not speak until after the 2008 election and how Obama told Wright his problem is that he does not stretch the truth. Interesting how you bring Rev Peterson into the conversation. I'm not sure what Peterson has to do with Obama and Wright.

I never said it was ok to attack women. If there was someone sitting in Rev. Peterson’s parish for the past twenty years, and they were running for President of the United States, and agreed with these views I would have a problem with that. That is the issue here Blubs. You seem to miss the point that Obama was sitting in Wright’s church for twenty years and said he never heard Wright make racist and bigoted statements about this country. Now Wright says Obama wanted him not to speak during the 2008 election and wanted Wright to stretch the truth. Why offer Wright $150,000? Because Obama does agree with Wright’s views and did not want this coming out?

Bulbs instead of having concerns that the President of the United States may have the same views about our country as Wright you turn to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and attack. Funny you want everyone to be tolerant of your views but you are anything but tolerant when someone does not agree with your views. You are a hypocrite.

May 13, 2012 at 8:14 p.m.
joneses said...

Newsweek announced that obutthead is "America's First Gay President". So now we have a black, white, muslim, gay, irish, president. I guess the next step for obutthead is to announce he is part mexican then we will have the first black, white, muslim, gay, irish, mexican president. Wait a minute, obutthead needs the women vote so now he will have to claim he is America's first black, white, muslim, gay, irish, mexican, women president. It is not over yet as he ate a dog, So now America has the first black, white, muslim, gay, irish, mexican, women president that ate a dog. Oh no! There is one more. He bullied a little girl. So now America has the first black, white, muslim, gay, irish, mexican, women president that ate a dog and abused a little girl. Obutthead will stop at nothing to get the votes from blacks, whites, muslims, gays, the Irish, the Mexicans, women, the dog eaters and child molesters. Will it ever end?

May 13, 2012 at 8:16 p.m.

Turns out objective, non-religious reasons have been offered for the prohibition against polygamous marriages.

This position was expressed by the Supreme Court. You do remember them, you were citing them not long ago as the reason for your position on something or another...did you forget to look up what they've said on this subject? (And said opinion also covers how religious practice does not trump the law, so perhaps it's not surprising you'd avoid it.)

You can find it here:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html

If you disagree with the reasoning offered, perhaps feeling it is constitutionally void, you're certainly welcome to make the argument, and persuade the legislature to effect change, or the Supreme Court. You will find much support among the Civil Libertarians for that position. They're a bit quiet about it when it comes to Republican platforms though, for some reason.

Me? I see the difference between the positions, and I've seen the analogies offered like marrying a twelve-year year old or a dog, to know that the attempt is suspect here as well. Still, if you want to insist it's genuine, go right ahead. Make the speech in Tampa.

BTW, it's very possible for both men and women to have children without getting married, not only that, with modern science, you don't even have to directly engage with the partner. We might even reach the point where genes are directly convertible from cell matter, so we might have two men or two women having children without even that intermediary.

May 13, 2012 at 8:16 p.m.

Rick1: Notice how instead of simply repudiating him, you try to blame me from the start of your post.

That's the problem.

Thanks again for showing it. You're the one following Saul Alinsky's rules, by attacking and projecting. Yes, you are. Yet you pretend it's the other side that is the problem.

The rest of us see it, you don't. Well, maybe you do, but you can't admit it. EVER.

OTOH, I will admit I am attacking you for your hypocrisy and dishonesty. You don't care one bit about your own integrity, you don't care about others, you just want to attack attack attack.

And you just did it. As usual. You could have just said "That guy is terrible, I don't want anything to do with that person" and shown your probity. Why won't you? You insist it of others, but you don't do it yourself?

Funny, how you attack others for hypocrisy and yet you're guilty of it yourself. Didn't you hear about the log in thine own eye?

And it continues with your nonsense about tolerance. As I said, I saw the Colbert Report. The quote applies.

You'll never get it though, because that's just not available to you, but you think, just maybe that you can trick somebody else into falling for your duplicitous sophistry.

Too bad we won't.

Never will, not going to happen. Instead your behavior is confirmation, like joneses, and tu_quoque, and TOE02800, and Rolando, and timbo, and others that the conservative side makes prideful boasts, but fails to deliver.

Sorry, but you don't live up to your own professed virtues.

Your opposition sees it, you're not fooling one single person. Ever.

Do as you say, but you do as you want.

Hey, that reminds me of Newt Gingrich.

May 13, 2012 at 8:25 p.m.
joneses said...

Excerpts from 60 Minutes 5/13/12 Hank Crumpton: Life as a spy

(CBS News) There are more foreign spies on U.S. soil now than at the peak of the Cold War, according to Hank Crumpton, former head of the CIA's National Resources Division, a highly sensitive operation charged with collecting foreign intelligence here in the U.S. Crumpton also led the covert response to 9/11 in Afghanistan, where the CIA helped topple the Taliban. Lara Logan interviews Crumpton about his 24 years as a legendary spy.

1999 Covert Operation in Afganistan

Hank Crumpton: We saw a security detail, a convoy and we saw bin Laden exit the vehicle.

Lara Logan: Clearly?

Hank Crumpton: Clearly. And we had-- the optics were spot on. It was beaming back to us, CIA headquarters. We immediately alerted the White House. And the Clinton administration's response was, "Well, it will take several hours for the TLAMs, the cruise missiles launched from submarines, to reach that objective. So you need to tell us where bin Laden will be five or six hours from now." The frustration was enormous.

Lara Logan: So at that moment you wanted to kill him?

Hank Crumpton: Yes.

Lara Logan: But you couldn't get permission?

Hank Crumpton: Correct.

He couldn't get permission to do anything, including allowing the CIA's Afghan agents on the ground to attack bin Laden's compound. That missed opportunity in the late summer of 1999, led Crumpton and his CIA team to figure out how to arm the Predator drone with hellfire missiles.

Thank you Bill Clinton for 9/11

May 13, 2012 at 8:27 p.m.

I remember conservatives complaining about Clinton launching missiles that year.

Try again joneses, get your honesty back in line.

May 13, 2012 at 8:28 p.m.
rick1 said...

Blub, you sit there and attack me in your first post and again in your second and you still have not addressed Rev. Wright allegations made against Obama.

You have proven Michael Savage correct when he says Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

May 13, 2012 at 9:11 p.m.

rick1, you have proven me correct when I say you're a hypocrite. See that last sentence of yours? Evidence that conservatives are big on the "Do as I say, not as I do" line.

Thanks again, the quality of the arguments by conservatives is the best argument for liberalism.

It's much appreciated. I really thank you for being such a terrible advocate for your cause, that you almost seem more likely to be paid to be so horrible at it.

May 13, 2012 at 9:38 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote "moonpie, your post on Obama and Rev. Wright does not address the allegation by Wright that Obama's team wanted to pay him $150,000 to keep silence until after the election."

Just like in 2008, the crackpot writers start writing books. These allegations, allegedly spoken by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, were supposed to have been related to Edward Klein, an author that even Fox News denounces as a kook.

The above is not a credible claim.

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/05/12/483210/edward-klein-obama-book/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205130003

"Sounds like Obama as present when Wright was making those racists and bigoted statement s about our country. Yet Obama says he wasn’t present when these comments were made."

The smear attempts against Barack Obama didn't work in 2008 and they are not going to work this year either.

And now that you have bought into them and posted, your credibility took a nosedive today as well.

May 13, 2012 at 9:40 p.m.
acerigger said...

Good to see ya al. "Whimpers" via tu,,had to chuckle @ that,she's a hoot aint she?

May 13, 2012 at 10:01 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

Rickaroo, ARE YOU GAY?

May 13, 2012 at 10:15 p.m.
alprova said...

moonpie wrote: "Welcome back, alprova"

Thank you.

acerigger wrote: "Good to see ya al."

Thanks.

""..."Whimpers" via tu,,had to chuckle @ that,she's a hoot aint she?"*

That person is not on my radar screen. That troll contributes nothing to any subject ever discussed. It's only mission is to make as many personal attacks it can per day. It can write whatever it wants but whatever it does write will be skimmed over and dutifully ignored by myself.

It thrives on getting responses and attention. If people quit responding to what it writes, it would go elsewhere.

May 13, 2012 at 10:24 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

You MUST know bulbs that you do EXACTLY what you say others do.

I encourage you to read your own post at 8:25 and then look at yourself in the mirror.

Your mind is SO indoctrinated with the mush that your lefties taught you, that you can't BELIEVE anything could be better than socialism/communism. You are TRULY a lost cause.

May 13, 2012 at 10:26 p.m.
moonpie said...

Rick1,

Thanks for the discourse.

So what if Klein is a birther? I guess it's possible that he gets some things correct. Let's assume he's correct in his published account....

Even if Klein's story is accurate, I just don't see how Obama is like Reverend Wright. He doesn't act like him, doesn't speak like him.

He was correct to put some distance between himself and the Rev Wright.

If you were Mr. Obama, I think you would have asked Wright to cool it, too. If he said what Klein writes, it sounds to me that Obama was trying temper Wright and appeal to his sense of dignity.

As for the $150,000... they've "told" us the money, now "show" us the proof.

Sometimes where there is smoke, there is fire.

Sometimes smoke is from a smoke machine... the political smoke machine.

In my experience, Birther Nation believes the smoke machine is an acutal fire just because flames are painted on the sides.

For now, I'll take Obama over Klein for credibility.

May 13, 2012 at 10:26 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, before you talk about my credibility you may want to look at the credibility of the sources you list. We all know Media Matters and Think progress do not have an agenda ,and we know anybody can add anything to Wikipedia.

Talking about credibility Al, ypu posted here on March 23, 2012 that you were with drawing from this form. Looks like you were not turthful with your comment.

alprova said... Someone wrote: "Childish insults and name calling is all I see on this forum anymore." Between the trolls, the hopelessly misinformed, the eternally ignorant, and people with no manners or respect whatsoever for anyone, they have totally ruined what once was a good place to debate topical issues. And because it all of this has become so out of control, as this very thread illustrates, I am withdrawing my future participation. March 23, 2012 at 9:17 p.m

May 13, 2012 at 10:31 p.m.
songbird said...

Alpo, it's kinda funny that u of all people would even mention someone losing credibility. I have been reading these comments for a couple of years now and u r well known for lacking credibility. It's a little odd that u would say Rick1's credibility took a nosedive. Ur consistent plagiarism and and copy and paste from Wikipedia, as an attempt to make yourself appear to be educated, ended up making u look more like an idiot. It's kinda sad and I almost feel sorry for u since u have to use these posts as a way to boost ur ego and it ended up backfiring on u. Alpo, u will never get away with ur flagrant plagiarism and will always be the laughingstock. I knew it would just be a matter of time before u were called out on it. It was a little coincidental that u took ur hiatus right after ur posts were found to be fraudulent. Alpo, for ur own sake, save yourself anymore embarrassment and shame. Be more kind to ur poor wife and maybe she can stroke ur ego for u. There r self help books also for people with ur condition.

May 13, 2012 at 10:50 p.m.

TOES02800, I hate to tell you this, but...I don't deny I am attacking a poster for the quality of their arguments when I find them to lack merit. Like in this case.

However, unlike rick1, I don't lower myself to such statements as he ended his post with(I don't believe any you have a mental disorder, if I did, I wouldn't bother replying), and unlike timbo and joneses, I don't try to play petty games where I add insults to people's names.

I've looked myself in the mirror, I'm happy with what I see. Can you look yourself in the mirror? Can you look at who you have chosen to associate yourself with (yes, I do recall you cheering on joneses) and not realize what kind of person you've chosen to stand with?

See, you're the one who is indoctrinated, you have this idea in your head that "Communists are bad, anybody who opposes what I want must be a communist, and if I call them a communist, surely they'll be ashamed of it" when the reality is...your resorting to that kind of denigration has the opposite effect. Your idea of bipartisan ship is exactly what Richard Mourdock represents, that the only good way is to do what you want.

I could explain that I'd like to hear some good ideas from honest and polite conservatives who could approach things rationally, I could express my regret that genuine bipartisanship isn't happening.

But there's no point, as long as you keep up your current behavior.

So instead, I see it, and you know I do? Realize that I must be doing something right, or you'd stick with better arguments. Or you'd at least repudiate the worst examples so you didn't have them associating with.

Don't you realize Mitt Romney could have ended the speculation by simply saying "Yes, that was wrong to do" much as you claim Obama should have produced his birth certificate?

Oh wait, that still bothers you, doesn't it? My bad then.

songbird: And you're another example of the kind of quality conservative post on this site that actually makes me wonder, are you paid to be a poor representative of their position?

alprova: Or the TFP could start policing its site, and improve the quality of discussions. Or just give up as they did with other articles.

May 13, 2012 at 11:15 p.m.

rick1: You're attacking Alprova for not staying away? What, you don't realize that you just proved the statement right? You're doing nothing but attacking him in order to shame him away. He'd do well to ignore you on that point, though I can't fault leaving this place.

I'm just hoping they shut it down since the TFP can't be bothered to run it with decency.

Also, there's a reason why Wikipedia has sources and why edits are logged. You can't just blanket say, "Oh it's on Wikipedia, it can't be trusted" but you have to offer actual criticism of the information or alternatives.

You don't. You just rely on a hand-wave gesture.

That's exactly the problem.

May 13, 2012 at 11:19 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Good to see you back Alprova. Strange that a bird who claims to have read posts on here for two years decided to come out of the closet (no pun intended), to make their first post deriding you. Perhaps the bird can enlighten us to their charge of posts of yours that were "fraudulent." Perhaps this person is related to the iconic canaryinacoalmine?

May 13, 2012 at 11:20 p.m.

A sockpuppet account? On this site? No way is such a thing possible!

The close supervision and effective administration of this site would never allow it!

May 13, 2012 at 11:24 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulbs: Are you a godless commie?

May 13, 2012 at 11:30 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Ahh yes, nothing new here. The same conservative mindset that throughout history has attempted to deny basic rights and freedoms to others is alive and well in this forum. While hiding behind the facade of being Christians many of the conservative posters here show themselves to be anything but Christians.

"Our civilization is not Christian. It does not come from the skies. It is not a result of "inspiration." It is the child of invention, of discovery, of applied knowledge -- that is to say, of science. When man becomes great and grand enough to admit that all have equal rights; when thought is untrammeled; when worship shall consist in doing useful things; when religion means the discharge of obligations to our fellow-men, then, and not until then, will the world be civilized. -Robert Green Ingersoll

May 13, 2012 at 11:42 p.m.

Jack_Dennis: Your question provides an answer about yourself. You've been as indoctrinated as TOES02800, if you can call it a "communist" or an "atheist" you can make it look bad.

That's why you do it, and you know what it does...convinces me that your methods have blinded you to the path you're taking.

hotdiggity: They're almost as insulting to the Christian faith as the Westboro Baptist Church or the Huttaree.

Almost. Well, ok, for some of them, it's closer than others.

May 13, 2012 at 11:46 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1 wrote: "Al, before you talk about my credibility you may want to look at the credibility of the sources you list. We all know Media Matters and Think progress do not have an agenda ,and we know anybody can add anything to Wikipedia."

The man in question who has lobbed the accusation is Edward Klein. His credibility is somewhere south of where a toilet gets flushed and his writing ability is quite equal to the articles you will find on World Net Daily.

If you are not aware of that fact, then perhaps you need to learn how to research what is written for truth and for facts. Try sticking to more credible sources of information and you might find yourself not so embarrassed in the future.

"Talking about credibility Al, ypu posted here on March 23, 2012 that you were with drawing from this form. Looks like you were not turthful with your comment."

Oh please. As a free man, and over the age of 21, I changed my mind. If you think changing my mind about participating in this forum damages my credibility, then more power to you.

I couldn't care less about your opinion as to the level of my credibility. You have demonstrated that credibility means nothing to you, so long as the incredible misinformation you offer happens to demean the President, whom you obviously do not like.

May 14, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.
alprova said...

Songbird wrote: "Alpo, it's kinda funny that u of all people would even mention someone losing credibility. I have been reading these comments for a couple of years now and u r well known for lacking credibility."

Is that so? Please go on...

"It's a little odd that u would say Rick1's credibility took a nosedive. Ur consistent plagiarism and and copy and paste from Wikipedia, as an attempt to make yourself appear to be educated, ended up making u look more like an idiot."

I do not deny copying material from time to time, but I do not do it consistently.

"It's kinda sad and I almost feel sorry for u since u have to use these posts as a way to boost ur ego and it ended up backfiring on u."

Of course, that is a personal opinion you are expressing there and in no manner a statement of fact.

"Alpo, u will never get away with ur flagrant plagiarism and will always be the laughingstock. I knew it would just be a matter of time before u were called out on it."

If I were the only person participating in public forums who has ever been guilty of copying and pasting material, I might be bothered by your charge. As it is, you might as well be farting in a head wind.

"It was a little coincidental that u took ur hiatus right after ur posts were found to be fraudulent."

Perhaps you should quote the posts you are referring to.

"Alpo, for ur own sake, save yourself anymore embarrassment and shame. Be more kind to ur poor wife and maybe she can stroke ur ego for u. There r self help books also for people with ur condition."

I don't need my ego stroked. I'm not out to impress anyone. I do however find it necessary to fight ignorance and misinformation in order to enlighten truth and facts.

How and with whatever source out there available to me to achieve that goal is my choice and will forever remain so. I am no more or less guilty of copying and pasting as anyone else.

Who are you anyway? You created a brand new identity to post your spineless attack on me. You're totally pathetic. Crawl back into your hole.

May 14, 2012 at 12:30 a.m.
alprova said...

Now that I think about it, there is only one person who has ever cared one whit what people copy and paste in this forum and that is the resident troll. I would be willing to bet my left arm that it created a new name and wrote the above post, just to get a response.

Another tell in the post is the use of the word "Alpo" when addressing me. One poster routinely addresses me with that name. I'm sure others will figure that one out too.

Pathetic...just totally pathetic.

May 14, 2012 at 12:44 a.m.
fairmon said...

Not visiting this forum for a while then checking it out reveals no change. Mountainlaurel still thinks a centralized all powerful government is the best way to be supported in the life style desired. Many continue to maintain that all democrats are good honest politicians and republicans are all crooked and dishonest. Others continue to maintain the opposite position.

Any federal politician taking a position on same sex marriage is not very smart. Those opposed to same sex marriage need to understand the motivation for the marriage. Clue: It is not their undying love. Are those opposed to gay marriage willing to end the discriminatory behavior toward all singles? It is obvious most are not likely willing to do that.

May 14, 2012 at 6:57 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "Any federal politician taking a position on same sex marriage is not very smart. Those opposed to same sex marriage need to understand the motivation for the marriage. Clue: It is not their undying love."

How in the world could you possibly know the hearts of all people? Just because financial implications rest in your heart and are on your mind at all times, does not mean that the same is true for others.

"Are those opposed to gay marriage willing to end the discriminatory behavior toward all singles? It is obvious most are not likely willing to do that."

Harp, you're peeing in the wind as usual. Our tax system favors people who embrace the covenant of marriage and who sire or bear children. Do you really think things are going to change?

Why don't you take the plunge, get married to your significant other, and join the rest of the married nation who enjoys the tax breaks you so longingly pine for?

May 14, 2012 at 7:19 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Come on bulbs!!! "as long as you keep up your current behavior" and "Start policing their site"? WOW!! There it is again!! You just ooze communism and socialism!

Policing the site to make sure that only like-minded socialists like you can preach to the choir what is right or wrong? So much for free speech! That's communism 101!

And change my current behavior? Who the hell are you? My mother?

You sit and spew your uber-liberal/communist/socialist/progressive garbage like it's the undying truth and we should all just bow to your holier-than-thou rantings.

We did NOT become the BEST country in the world in less than 300 years by being socialists! LOOK AROUND!! The proof that socialism/communism doesn't work is all around us! Past and present! Give me just ONE example of a socialist nation that has succeeded! Where the lives of the people prospered under socialism!

May 14, 2012 at 9 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulbs: No, my question is simply a question. That you, BTW, did not answer.

May 14, 2012 at 9:21 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Silence is deafening Jack. Definitely a pinko.

This is who we're dealing with, Burger King shift managers and pinko's......What a crew.

May 14, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Jack, would it influence your opinion of the values, character, or intelligence of a person if they were "godless"?

As for the suggestion of a person being a communist, I don't believe I have seen anyone here professing we turn to communism, although I have noticed a tendency of some of the more conservative posters here to hurl those accusations at posters who dare to suggest the government address the social problems inherent in a capitalistic society.

May 14, 2012 at 9:52 a.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "Give me just ONE example of a socialist nation that has succeeded! Where the lives of the people prospered under socialism!"

I'll give you four. Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, and Norway.

Norway's economy grew 3 percent at a time when the world's economies were tanking. The country has a budget surplus of 11 percent and not a dime in debt.

Citizen satisfaction is very high in all four countries, even among the rich, who are required to pony up to two-thirds of their income to the tax man. They do so willingly and eagerly because the return on what they are taxed is repaid through the social programs in those countries that benefit every citizen from cradle to grave. No one is denied health care. No one starves or is displaced from their homes if a job is lost. Why an American Conservative would pop a vein after spending one week in such a country.

Capitalism as it is known in this country only benefits the very wealthy and they are out to protect a system that benefits very few people in the long run, which forever remains a mystery why it is that so many people who do not truly recieve the long term benefits of Capitalism, go to such lengths to defend it.

May 14, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.

Thanks Jack_Dennis and TOES02800, your conduct continues to affirm my position that you want to attack others for who you believe them to be, not for the specifics of their argument.

You can't even admit it when you are trying to harass and intimidate somebody. You know what you're doing. I know what you're doing.

And the reason why the TFP need to police things is, TOES02800, is you're just not responsible enough to police yourselves. You can't refrain from the conduct yourself. You can't help it.

Sorry, but you lack the integrity to be able to manage your own conduct. The garbage you seen spewed...is your own, you wallow in the filth of your own behavior, but fail to see the stench that arises from your own words. You're just engaging in insults, false attacks, and sophistic rhetoric, instead of honest dialogue and discussion.

Really, what are you doing? Can you say it outright? Can you own up to it?

No? Why not?

Because what you're doing is exactly what would destroy this country, a flagrant disregard for civility and decorum, and the principles of law. You are like Preston Brooks and Joe McCartney, or even the modern Allen West, a problem for the nation who professes themselves to be acting justly even while taking themselves out to be the best.

That's actually the kind of thing that has lead to some of the worst incidents in the history of this fortunate country, which grew to be great by being open and inviting to others, not divisive and degrading.

That and a vast empty continent full of resources to be exploited. Propinquity helps.

hotdiggity: Of course, anything that says the free market isn't all good is that evil of all evils, the dreaded communism. In fact anything they disagree with at all is communism, they still label everything and everybody communist because they've been indoctrinated into it being a bad word.

May 14, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.

alprova, it's no mystery, the only way they can look down on others is if they have a philosophy to justify it. Their version of capitalism offers just that, anybody who doesn't have money, who needs help is a lesser being to be despised for laziness and envy.

May 14, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

http://www.answers.com/topic/finland

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Netherlands_capitalist_or_socialist

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Norway_socialist

Please read the provided links above, and do some research.

Not ONE of the countries you stated above are socialist! In fact, Finland even has a free market economy!

Thank you for helping my cause!

May 14, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

hotdiggety: Have no problem with godless people. I didn't accuse ANYONE of being a commie. Bulbs made reference to communism earlier and I simply asked the question. Read before flaming.

May 14, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
fairmon said...

"Are those opposed to gay marriage willing to end the discriminatory behavior toward all singles? It is obvious most are not likely willing to do that."

alp said.....

Harp, you're peeing in the wind as usual. Our tax system favors people who embrace the covenant of marriage and who sire or bear children. Do you really think things are going to change?

Why don't you take the plunge, get married to your significant other, and join the rest of the married nation who enjoys the tax breaks you so longingly pine for?

Can't change even though in a republic not a democracy, it is intended a majority is not supposed to be able to dictate an unfairness to a minority. I don't want the tax breaks but I would like to see all deductions, reductions etc. abolished and each pay the published rate for their income category. The tax system could and should be so simple one could file on a post card.

Do politicians embrace the covenant of marriage and child bearing or do they embrace votes?

May 14, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Everything bulbs says is straight out of the communist playbook. I just call a spade a spade. The truth is, I really don't care one way or the other. The fact that bulbs doesn't admit it is what's intriguing.

May 14, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

All that success in a capitalist nation Alprova! WOW what a revelation!

May 14, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Jack, not flaming. Perhaps you could define "godless commie" so we could know why you would ask someone if they are of this nature? I would assume you know that the term is generally used in a derogatory manner?

May 14, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Cmobn y'all. This is just Clay's tribute to the real power behind the presidency ... The Revrund ... Jesse ... Jackson, and the Rainbow Coalition.

May 14, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
dude_abides said...

"This is who we're dealing with, Burger King shift managers and pinko's......What a crew." -Jack_Dennis

"I didn't accuse ANYONE of being a commie." -Jack_Dennis

?

May 14, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Read again dude! that's not Jack! I posted that!! Read! Your apologies are in order for the J man!!

May 14, 2012 at 11:11 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Toes, curious as to your presumption that anyone here is advocating we become a socialist nation. Perhaps you could name one person here who has advocated this? Methinks you are confusing anyone who disagrees with your economic opinions as being for socialism.

Surely you understand that pure capitalism, in a Darwinian sense, is unworkable unless tempered by regulation and restrain to prevent the excesses of the rich and powerful. How many depressions, recessions, Enrons, dot com bubble, robber barons, S&L crisis, etc does it take to understand our capitalist system only works when we restrain and regulate the excesses inherent in a capitalist system?

May 14, 2012 at 11:24 a.m.
timbo said...

The problem with "gay" marriage is there is no such thing. Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. This kinship was predicated on the need for society to provide for children so it could continue the species. Until recently there was no question that it was meant to be between a man and a woman.

If gay people want to make a contract between each partner they can go to a lawyer and have that done. There is no problem with them making a commitment to one another any way they see fit.

I would also say that if they have this contract they should be permitted access to their partner in any way that they decide is appropriate. The can call it a "union" or a "coupling" or whatever they want, but it is not a marriage.

Having said that, what gay people are really after is acceptance of their life style by all parts of society. They want to force their life style on others and have them say it is "ok." Never mind the religious overtones, never mind the societal consequences, just let me have my way.

The is not going to happen. Religious people will not accept "gay marriage" under any circumstances.

Obama is desperate. This was a absolutely stupid. He is reading the polls wrong and it will backfire. Between this and the "bullying" story about Romney it pretty much shows just how far the liberals are behind.

I hope that every gay couple who gets married holds an Obama for President sign. This thing is over.

May 14, 2012 at 11:41 a.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

Explain how gays are trying to "force their lifestyle on others" by wanting the same right to marriage that heterosexuals have? Then explain these societal consequences you speak of.

It seems to me, by your own admission, that the religious are the ones that are "forcing their lifestyle on others". You said it yourself, "Religious people will not accept gay marriage under any circumstances". Why should what you or anyone else believe about God or the afterlife have any bearing on what other people have the right to do?

May 14, 2012 at 12:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu_quoque,

Their viewpoints infringe on others rights. That's what people like you don't understand. I'm sure people were saying the same thing when women couldn't vote, during slavery, etc. My viewpoint is for equal rights. Theirs isn't. You act like both viewpoints merit respect. The religious viewpoint is hateful, biased, and backward.

May 14, 2012 at 12:32 p.m.
miraweb said...

This argument actually goes right back to the Pilgrims. The Church of England had to approve all marriages which made life rather difficult for "noncomformists" - including all the sects that came here such as Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, and the rest.

A great number of the Mayflower's passengers were married in Holland, where civil marriages were allowed, and brought the practice with them. One of our oldest and most cherished values is to let those with beliefs other than one's own, live their lives with dignity, respect, and equal rights.

May 14, 2012 at 12:42 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

tu_: The term "godless commie" is just an attempt at humor. You lefties should loosen up a bit. You are the guys throwing the word bombs. (on the other hand, I suspect most commies are , by definition, godless. What's the BFD? You southpaws can throw it out, but can't take it. Sorry I hurt you widdle feewings.

May 14, 2012 at 1 p.m.
moonpie said...

Socialism, communism, bad manners, reproductive capacity, alprova's return.... harp's return.... All interesting topics.

Is anyone here actually opposing Gay Marriage?

I've read some partial definitions of marriage, some truncated benefits of marriage, a little history of marriage, but still not one reason to ban gay marriage other than a personal preference to ban it.

May 14, 2012 at 1:09 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

TOESO: No prob.....he never laid a glove on me.

May 14, 2012 at 1:21 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

JD, no big deal except you came back and asked the poster again to answer your question. Perhaps you were making two "attempt(s) at humor"?

Oh, love your Elmer Fudd impersonation. How quaint.

May 14, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

2_Q says "That is the version for the religious but for the rest of us it is "God#@^^ Commies !!!

Gracious, taking the Lords name in vain. Careful or you may offend some of your conservative posters here. Some here may say you are attacking or mocking their religion. I'm sure Andrew at least would be offended. Tsk tsk.

Naturally, the godless communists probably applaud your desecration.

May 14, 2012 at 1:39 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Noogs: ...So how people that disagree with you are not only racists, but homophopes too. Do I have that right?

May 14, 2012 at 2:33 p.m.
jesse said...

hey tu-que! don't be jumpin on alpro! he is the lord high muckity-muck serious thinker of sesamy street! if you hurt his feelins he drops off the radar for a month or two! kinda like nixon! you ain't gonna have me to kick around no-mo!!!LOL

May 14, 2012 at 2:34 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Noogs, Bulbs, & diggity: I'll pop for the Ted Nugent tix if you guys want to go. Bwahahahahha

May 14, 2012 at 2:39 p.m.
WHS1970 said...

I'm sure Nugent will fit right in around here. That's a scary thought.

May 14, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "Not ONE of the countries you stated above are socialist!"

You're basing that response on Wiki Answers? Unbelieveable.

You're a waste of time to refute. Perhaps you could take the time to read up on the economies of each of the four countries to discover that they are all far from Capitalistic economies.

"In fact, Finland even has a free market economy!"

All four trade on the open markets. You're apparently not very well versed on the points of what constitutes the economy of a country.

You're spouting Conservative talking points without understanding a thing you write.

"Thank you for helping my cause!"

You don't have a cause. You spout ignorance.

May 14, 2012 at 3:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu_quoque,

As a matter of fact, you are correct. Your unlettered and bigoted viewpoint infringes on the rights of others. Practice your religion or believe whatever you want but when your religion/beliefs hurt others, they are wrong. This is the part you fail to address.

Personally, I do not label myself as liberal or conservative. I believe in equal rights. Our Constitution promotes equal rights but when people like yourself try to argue against equal rights and support it with the idea that conservatives/religious have the right to impose their beliefs on public policy, then you would be the bigot by definition. I'm all for religious freedom but for every religion included no religion. Your ideas are backward and impinge on the rights of others. What about that do you not understand?

May 14, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.
LaughingBoy said...

What happened to David Cook's opinion piece on homosexuals and religion?

May 14, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Noogs: Something dishonorable about shift work? Elitist lefty.....

May 14, 2012 at 5:45 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Yeah, Ted Nugent. I thought he was AWESOME when I was sixteen. It's sad when you outgrow childhood heroes, but sadder when you don't. You guys enjoy those teen anthems, and the teenage level politics he spews. Bwaha...etc.

May 14, 2012 at 6:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu_quoque,

Nothing you say makes sense. You cannot argue your point so you resort to name calling. The comments that you post are ignorant and seemingly mindless. But I'm sure you will come up with another witty name or joke to post. Bravo to your stupidity. It is unmatched in this particular comment section.

May 14, 2012 at 7:15 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Note to self: tu_ disparages barbers and hairdressers (and pet groomers), but I am elitist.

May 14, 2012 at 7:25 p.m.
mymy said...

The lefties are do brain dead they don't see what is going on: divide et impera!

May 14, 2012 at 7:28 p.m.
mymy said...

And it will be in nobody's best interest!

May 14, 2012 at 7:29 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Nothing like a little gay reference to keep the lemmings occupied for a few days!

May 14, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

So what the lefties are saying is that I can't object to Gay "rights" based on any religious conviction. And being offended is not a basis for objecting to Gay "rights". Then we should be free to use the "N" or the "Q" word or any other obscenity any time and any place without repercussions. The words may offend but I should be totally free to use them since they don't offend me ?

You can be offended all you like JonRoss. AND you can use the N word and the Q word and the F word and any other word you like. It's a free country, and you using these words doesn't deprive others of their rights. Of course, you can be asked to leave polite company, and be labeled a racist and homophobe, and lose your job for exercising this right against your workplace's policies. (Your employer has the right to fire you) You know, life's just not fair.

May 14, 2012 at 7:58 p.m.
moonpie said...

To all,

In defense of alprova's list of "socialist countries," many folks on the right are calling our social programs a socialist agenda. When we try to become more like these countries, it's the folks on the Right who cry socialism. Alprova is using those definitions. Those are the Right's definitions.

If you say these aren't socialist countries, then you shouldn't call Obama a socialist for trying to create programs similar to theirs. But yet, you do.

So in your efforts to bash alprova, you hollow out your own arguments against Obama and the Democrats.

May 14, 2012 at 8:14 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Moonpie,

Obama IS a Marxist/Socialist. He should not have had to become president and push an agenda for you to figure that out.

May 14, 2012 at 9:54 p.m.
moonpie said...

BRP,

Give me your definition of Marxist/Socialism and we can see how this compares to the free market northern Europeans.

May 14, 2012 at 9:59 p.m.
alprova said...

Thank you moonpie.

The fact is that there is no such thing as a verifiable definition of a country with an economy that is based on "Socialism." Every country utilizes varying degrees of Capitalism mixed with varying degrees of Socialism, including the United States. Thus, the United States does not offer an economy rooted exclusively in Capitalism either.

The citizens of the United States have been brainwashed to embrace the worst that Capitalism has to offer, which involves defending the abject greed by those who have control of most of the wealth that this nation owns.

There are many successful countries in this world that offer extensive social programs to all of their citizens from cradle to grave, assuring that all have access at all times throughout their lives to health care, food, shelter, and all are assured a comfortable retirement income.

France leads the world in providing an entire nation a superb system of socialized health care. The Netherlands leads the world in providing a socialized retirement program to all. South Korea leads the world in providing an education to its citizens.

Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland offer their citizens a system which can be described as very successful system of welfare transfers of funds from the state, to the services provided to their citizens for health care, education, or directly to individuals paid in the form of benefits.

This welfare is funded through redistribution of rather hefty taxes taken from all citizens, and is based on their individual incomes.

The main difference between the United States and countries knee deep in providing social programs to all of their citizens, is that the taxation formulas in those countries are quite different.

Everyone in these "Socialist" countries pays hefty taxes as an individual, and businesses are taxed to the hilt as well. The trade-off in most of these countries is that everyone receives guaranteed health care from cradle to grave. Everyone is guaranteed a comfortable retirement. And in those countries, people who become ill, injured, disabled temporary or permanently, elderly, etc. are not discarded like garbage and left to fend for themselves. They are cared for and assured sufficient monetary funds to support them until they recover their health or die.

The Conservative/Republican attitude towards social programs in this nation is shameful and disgusting. Their resistance to amend our broken health care system to be accessible to all is equally appalling. The United States no longer leads the world in any admirable category.

We do however lead the world as the country with the highest incarceration rate of its citizens. We lead the world in the rate of obesity. We lead the world in murders, rapes, theft, and crime in general.

I'll forever endorse a necessary amount of Socialism over the selfish aspects of Capitalism any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

May 14, 2012 at 10:53 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

moonpie said... "Give me your definition of Marxist/Socialism and we can see how this compares to the free market northern Europeans."

I never made a connection between Marxism/Socialism and the Northern European countries. All you have to do is read Obama and look at his past to know where he stands.

May 14, 2012 at 11:05 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

How about we follow Sweden's recent economic policies...

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/may/14/what-can-we-learn-sweden/

May 14, 2012 at 11:07 p.m.
moonpie said...

Ok BRP,

I think most of us have read about Sweden.... There is a lesson there, which we can discuss.

But feet to the fire: what is a Marxist/Socialist? Let's see how your definition squares with Obama. Then we will see how that squares with the free market economies in Europe that many conservatives have referred to as socialist..... Until today.

May 14, 2012 at 11:25 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP, bloviating Boortz used to be a hero of mine. This was before I became aware that Neal Boortz has a propensity to distort certain facts surrounding key issues that he holds near and dear.

His admiration of Sweden's Finance Minister, Anders Borg, is no different. He is either ignorant to what the man did to stimulate employment in that nation, or he is purposely misrepresenting the facts in order to make a comparison to what he and other ignorant people believes drives an economy.

You see, Anders Borg has done a fine job of putting people back to work in Sweden by cutting income taxes on a certain segment of the population in that nation.

The tax cuts were awarded to the lower income classes to encourage more people to seek employment. Employment skyrocketed in that country. He did not offer tax cuts to the wealthy, which we all should know by now, has done little or nothing to improve employment for people in this nation.

Source: http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/7418993/the-technocrats-coup.thtml

Now, to be totally fair, Sweden had a welfare system and rates of taxation that previously provided more money long term to those who sought to remain on the dole. So Anders Borg's tactic worked like a charm.

The poor in this nation are not taxed. Those on the dole earn a very meager living. Borg's achievement could never be repeated in this nation.

And we all should be keenly aware that cutting taxes for the wealthy in this nation has not produced an abundance of jobs either.

What will work to drive the United States economy would be to put more money in the hands of those who would be most likely to spend it for goods and services offered by businesses.

Common sense should tell anyone that the lower and middle income classes spend more of their disposable income far more freely than do the wealthy.

May 15, 2012 at 12:04 a.m.
fairmon said...

alpro said

The United States no longer leads the world in any admirable category.

response: We lead the world in debt and highest published corporate tax rates which is paid by very few due to government manipulation. Not admirable categories.

alpro said.. What will work to drive the United States economy would be to put more money in the hands of those who would be most likely to spend it for goods and services offered by businesses.

Response..... Only if American produced goods and services are purchased which has not been the case with prior stimulus. Services are not wealth creating activities. Government policies favor service industries while incentivising all companies to move their headquarters to other countries.

alpro said.... And we all should be keenly aware that cutting taxes for the wealthy in this nation has not produced an abundance of jobs either.

I agree. Individual tax rates could and should be increased. No corporate manager is worth the compensation they receive. No pro athlete or entertainer, TV journalist etc. are worth what they are paid and should have higher tax rates. All deductions, reductions etc. for large or small businesses should be eliminated and a rate of 15% plus or minus a couple of points paid on all profits. Some expenses considered business cost should not be allowed. Earned income credit should be eliminated, if a welfare program is needed to fill that void create it and call it welfare and openly account for it.

May 15, 2012 at 1:35 a.m.
fairmon said...

timbo said... Having said that, what gay people are really after is acceptance of their life style by all parts of society. They want to force their life style on others and have them say it is "ok." Never mind the religious overtones, never mind the societal consequences, just let me have my way.

response: Their motivation is for the benefits afforded to married couples through various tax polocies and other legislation favoring married couples. Remove those and there would not be enough protesting the marriage ban to have a rally.

May 15, 2012 at 1:47 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Secular reason to reject 'gay marriage'? 'Gay' sex doesn't breed. 'Gays' can breed with test tubes (or whatever), but their forms of sex can't do what my wife and I can. So evolutionism tells 'gays': all of you are Darwin award winners. Drop dead.

"Repent," the Christian word to all sinners (not just 'gays'), shows love. Wouldn't you rather be told to improve than told you're as good as you're going to get? Doesn't "repent" show more respect for people, and for reality, than "you're OK" when what you're doing is not OK?

Repent, my brothers, of ignoring fornication and adultery and divorce and focusing on the weird minority sins of those 'gays' out there when we and our neighbors also sin sexually. Yeah, 'they' need to repent. SO DO WE.

Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He showed love, he accepted them as people, but did he accept what they did? Some of them repented. The prostitutes found other lines of work. The tax collectors stopped overcharging. Sure, he loves 'gay' people. He warns them to repent of their sins, as the rest of us need to repent of ours. This may not be easy, but it beats damnation.

May 15, 2012 at 1:50 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Drop dead.

Tsk tsk. Did you learn such talk in church?

So if you cannot have children you can't marry, correct? If your god did not want gays, why did he/she/it make them in the first place? To give Christians something to condemn and kick around?

May 15, 2012 at 8:31 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

tu: Marriage has a legal definition and legal rights associated with that definition. This is the point I was trying to convey. By endorsing a term such as civil union you have also to define the term in a legal sence. So since it is a made up term it must to be defined by the creator so it is legally different from a marraige.Which bringes me to my 2nd point: By defining the contract as a civil union you now can decide which benifits and tax deductions apply to civil unions as opposed to marraige which has a legal definition and legal presedence(sic). So you have gained nothing in a legal since by having a civil union. So if you would take the time to reread my comment you will see that I made a case for neither civil unions or marraige only an observation that the underlying reasons are financial as oppossed to moral.

May 15, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.
facyspacy said...

Who cares about gay marriage? Really.... I would trade gay marriage in Exchange for Kenyan born Obama to lose this years election

May 17, 2012 at 7:39 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.