published Tuesday, December 24th, 2013

The Protest

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 ...

261
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.
fairmon said...

I don't watch the show and those that don't like what was said by one of the cast can turn the channel and quit watching that network if the network don't do to that person what you want them to. Those objecting to the owners reaction can stop watching the owners network and quit buying products of those that sponsor A&E programs. Either way the owner stepped in in by over reacting to someone expressing a politically incorrect opinion. I bet A&E wishes he would be like Obama and just read the script like they write it and never say anything not provided by them to anyone.

December 24, 2013 at 1:22 a.m.
conservative said...

The cartoon would have been funnier had the sign read "eat more possum."

December 24, 2013 at 7:54 a.m.
limric said...

Oh my god!! Some bearded moron doesn't likes gays. Oh the humanity!!

However, it (it being the hype) is a good indicator of the utter stupidity that is the American public that this has caused the uproar it has. Pathetic!

Frank Zappa was right:

"You will obey me while I lead you- And eat the garbage that I feed you- Until the day that we don't need you- Don't go for help...no one will heed you.

Your mind is totally controlled- It has been stuffed into my mold- And you will do as you are told- Until the rights to you are sold.

I am the best you can get- Have you guessed me yet?

I am the slime oozin out From your TV set."

He he - Merry Christmas Y'all.

December 24, 2013 at 8:05 a.m.
LibDem said...

I expect A&E will reap a bonanza from the free publicity.

December 24, 2013 at 8:09 a.m.
jesse said...

If ya ask someone from Monroe La. that looks and acts like that what they think of gays then WHAT was you expectin him to say?

Limric nailed it about T.V. and the mentality of the folks that watch the garbage they air!T.V. has dumbed down the populace till they barely got walkin around sense!

December 24, 2013 at 8:26 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

You're right, Limmy. I always looked to Zappa for cultural advice. He was very inspiring.

December 24, 2013 at 8:32 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

More cultural advice: Watch out where those huskies go...,don't you eat that yellow snow.............brilliant.

December 24, 2013 at 8:56 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

^^^^ and don't squat with your spurs on.

December 24, 2013 at 9 a.m.
dude_abides said...

That's really interesting about you, PlainTruth, is there more to know?

December 24, 2013 at 9:05 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

If there is no law against making a fool of yourself and no law against running a private enterprise TV network, then the actor can spout whatever claptrap the actor feels like saying and the network can do what ever they want (as long as it is not a violation law): fire an actor, terminate a series, or not.

The real question is why would a person watch drivel like duck dynasty? Isn't there more productive things to do than sit around listening to homespun, bilious religiosity?

December 24, 2013 at 9:17 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Right. And watching the Kardashians is so much more fulfilling.

December 24, 2013 at 9:26 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

It's amazing that people have a conniption fit about "homespun, bilious religiosity", but yet have no problem supporting male on male digestion system penetration.

Question: Who you jiving with that cosmic debris?

December 24, 2013 at 9:39 a.m.
conservative said...

Liberals/sodomites are in a rage over the comments without citing the comments:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

'Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,' Robertson answered when asked by GQ what exactly he considered sinful, 'bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.

Who could disagree with that?

December 24, 2013 at 9:40 a.m.
alprova said...

I encountered a rather sensible man the other day, who did a great job of sizing up the entire mess surrounding Duck Dynasty.

He said it was painful for himself to watch what had to be some rather smart people acting stupid on a television "reality" show.

Stupid people do not build multi-million dollar businesses.

The man was entitled to his opinion. He was also entitled to express it publicly. A&E should not have suspended the man, because although it was possible that some people may have decided to tune out because the man offered his opinion, the fact is that no LBGT person alive and breathing today has not heard such an opinion expressed by others, routinely.

Over-reaction to outrage expressed by differing groups of people has become almost comical, especially when offensive comments are under a microscope.

I have no interest in watching the show. I have no interest in joining any pro-homosexual group in calling for the head of a man who holds his chosen beliefs.

People really need to learn how to ignore people when they offer potentially offensive remarks.

When such comments incite outrage, those who offer them achieve the hitting a target with their shots every time, because that is most likely their intent from the start.

A&E will come out a winner even if the entire Duck Dynasty clan bows out of the picture. I'm sure there are contractual obligations that will either be met or forfeited, along with lots of money involved.

Who knows? This may all be a PR stunt masterminded by the network to boost interest in not only the show, but the network as well.

December 24, 2013 at 9:42 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Hey IQ, instead of watching that bilious religiosity, what the hell are you doing that's so productive? You pompous faux elitists make me nauseated.

December 24, 2013 at 9:52 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

al, are you OK? You don't sound like yourself.

December 24, 2013 at 10:01 a.m.
dude_abides said...

I wish Cracker Barrel was as fast with their flapjacks as they are with their flip-flops.

Only PlainTruth can spew "moderation." lmao

December 24, 2013 at 10:23 a.m.
jesse said...

WOW, Al done went and broke out w/some objectivity!!You runnin a fever with that Al??

Dude,the stuff Cracker Barrel was pullin was "Duck Dynasty" which is owned by A&E! "Duck Commander"is the Roberson brand owned by them!C.B.'s record on gay rights speaks for itself!not good!!

December 24, 2013 at 10:32 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Appears The Dude is obsessing on Ol' PT today.

December 24, 2013 at 10:34 a.m.
MasterBlaster said...

Fudgepackers/Conservatives have the good sense to keep their sodomy proclivities in the closet, where they believe it belongs. At least until they're eventually caught getting their freak on in any local glory hole or public airport bathroom...

December 24, 2013 at 10:49 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

”Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, etc etc.”

LOL

Phil Robertson, a dude that makes a living out of imitating the sounds of an excited animal, probably knows a thing or two about bestiality.

And from what I’ve read, a new organization, S.W.A.P. (Squirrel, Walrus, and Pup) are publicly decrying this bigoted person's bigoted bigotry against bestiality and demanding the evil Robertson be fired for his anti-species agenda...or be forced to watch every episode of ‘Glee’ without any beer.

December 24, 2013 at 11:06 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Hey Rat, bestiality ok between consenting parties, no?

December 24, 2013 at 11:26 a.m.
jesse said...

Ratso and blaster define ignorant low life!

Redneck would be 10 steps up the ladder for them!!

December 24, 2013 at 11:31 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Why does the road to bestiality start with homosexuality? Wouldn't premarital sex lead to all of the above? Masturbation? Bikinis? Sounds like it just depends on your own brand of Taliban. A, B, and C are okay, but D inevitably leads to Z?

December 24, 2013 at 11:48 a.m.
librul said...

Happy Holidays to all you quackers down in the swamp in the 'Quacker Compound'. Too bad you'll have to go when the mothership returns.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2013/12/freespeechLAC-500x500.jpg

December 24, 2013 at 11:48 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

In two to three years the public's fascination with Duck Dynasty ends and the show will be cancelled. You will be able to find all of the DD merchandise in the bottom of the bargain barrel at Wal-Mart and we'll all wonder did the fuss over the guy's comments even matter?

But I agree with Al, I think this is a ratings ploy by A&E and the DD guys (sorry I am not familiar with the show, having never watched one episode, enough to refer to them with a different name), while much of America thinks it's a battle against Christianity and free speech. I've had to quit looking at Facebook. If I see another "Letter to A&E" or "I Support Duck Dynasty Guy" I may vomit.

December 24, 2013 at 12:54 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Pretty sure gaydom doesn't lead to bestiality. Pretty sure I would rather have a couple Busch Lights with Robertson, than a magnum of Dom with Librul, Rat, dude, or Masterblaster.

Gassy, you're right about the bargain barrel. And by then, the Duck-boys will be lauging their azzes off at the elitist left.

December 24, 2013 at 1:08 p.m.
jesse said...

Gassious I been sayin that about the Kardashians almost from the getgo and look where they are now!!

I bet i don't watch 3 hours of t.v. all week unless there's a fishin show on! Even descov. and the history chans. have gone to squat!

December 24, 2013 at 1:11 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Truth, they're laughing at both sides. The "elitist left" initiates the controversy and the "elitist right" tries to defeat the "elitist left". This past fall, the LA Tea Party was upset with the DD guys because their backing of another candidate resulted in the Tea Party favorite losing a primary. What better way to get the Tea Party back in your court than a perceived attack on "Christian Values"?

December 24, 2013 at 1:16 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Jesse, it happened with Dog the Bounty Hunter. That show had a few "controversies" before the series came to an end.

And the fishing shows are too far and few in between. I'm left to watch reruns of FLW events and the occasional episode of Bill Dance. Even the Golf Channel is victim to crappy TV (I cannot stand to watch the Big Break any longer).

December 24, 2013 at 1:20 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Pretty sure I would rather have a couple Busch Lights with Robertson, than a magnum of Dom with Librul, Rat, dude, or Masterblaster...the Duck-boys will be laughing their azzes off at the elitist left." - PT

Do you even know who this "elitist left" is that you are talking about? I will guarantee you that you're far more likely to find a "magnum of Dom" being imbibed by people like Trump or the Koch brothers and their ELITIST buds than by anybody on the left.

December 24, 2013 at 1:26 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Picky, picky, Roo. You got the point. Don't be such an azz. BTW, I apologize for omitting you from the Dom list. You for sure qualify.

Gassy, who says the attack is merely "perceived"?

December 24, 2013 at 1:43 p.m.
volsam said...

Phil Robertson for President? Couldn't be any worse than what we have now.

December 24, 2013 at 1:50 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

People say that A & E suspended Phil for his beliefs which is a perceived attack on Christianity. Just like someone may go to their employer and say "I can't work on the Sabbath as it is against my beliefs" and the employer turns around and fires the employee. Would that not be a perceived attack on Christianity in some people's eyes?

December 24, 2013 at 1:50 p.m.
dude_abides said...

PlainTruth said... "Pretty sure I would rather have a couple Busch Lights with Robertson, than a magnum of Dom with Librul, Rat, dude, or Masterblaster."

You might consider drinking with a woman! Ole' uncle Phil might make you operate his Duck Commander.

December 24, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

PT I think you'd probably be more likely to share a few tokes over the line with Pat Robertson than a swig of PBR, but watch his hands, you know how those guys are, pretty soon they offer to give you a tour of their dog house...no, wait, that was Tammy's beau! Dang! Feet of clay, even the whitest dove.

you'll know what I'm doing that's productive by looking around town :-)

December 24, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

You're still the czar of nits, Gassy.

December 24, 2013 at 1:54 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

^I guess I didn't fall in line with your thinking so I get an insult. Stay classy Truth.

December 24, 2013 at 2:03 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

No insult intended, Gas. You do tend to pick at the nits. Merry Christmas.

December 24, 2013 at 2:08 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova....glad you showed up, I was wondering if you were still doing ok all considered. I think your comments are accurate. A&E will be ok in time and the family has it made for life even if they lose the contract. I don't understand the outrage of either group. I can accept anything anyone wants to say as long as they are not suggesting or trying to incite harm to others.

That being said I personally don't think it is for anyone to condemn others for their life style. Judgment is God's alone, the application and interpretation of the bible which was written by man is his alone to make. I don't watch nor do I plan to watch the show, I don't see the attraction to it.

I hope president Obama doesn't feel obligated to opine on the Duck Dynasty issue.

December 24, 2013 at 2:22 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Duck Dynasty is like Fox News. Great ratings, yet no one watches. Curious.

December 24, 2013 at 2:31 p.m.
dude_abides said...

True, TaintRuth. Sorta like Obama supporters. Everybody hates him, but they voted him back in.

December 24, 2013 at 3:06 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"No insult intended, Gas. You do tend to pick at the nits." - PT

That's rich. Said by one who does nothing all day long every day of his life but stay glued to his ass nit-picking what any liberal or anyone who disagrees with him says.

December 24, 2013 at 3:15 p.m.
jesse said...

Actually if ALL the nit pickers quit posting on here this place would be a blank sheet of paper and no cartoon!!Clay is the CHIEF nitpicker and the rest of us pick the nits of him and everybody else!!IT'S what this place is all about!!LMAO!!

December 24, 2013 at 3:44 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I was wondering... Why is this such a hot issue for Bennett?

A) Bennett is gay himself? B) Bennett has lots of gay friends? c) Bennett is very empathetic?

Maybe the Bennett could weigh in on this one himself.

December 24, 2013 at 3:50 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

That's your problem, Jesse. You see no subtlety. In fact, you're about as subtle as a suitcase nuke. lmfao

December 24, 2013 at 4:31 p.m.
jesse said...

PROBLEM??I Just callum like i seeum!ain't NOTHIN about this place that's SUBTLE!!

BTW?: what is "SUBTLE"?Some kinda new booze?

December 24, 2013 at 4:42 p.m.
rick1 said...

So, Bennett and some other liberals believe Phil Robertson is a bigot and gay basher, and feel it is appropriate his show was taken off of A&E.

But Bennett and these same liberals did not have a problem with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University after he ordered gays stoned, hanged, beheaded, and buried alive.

December 24, 2013 at 4:51 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Rick. That's different.

December 24, 2013 at 5:08 p.m.
rick1 said...

PT. so true, because Bennett and others like him use tolerance to become dominant and then they use power to silence all other ideas.

Hope you have a Merry Christmas.

December 24, 2013 at 5:17 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Curious: who is being silenced?

December 24, 2013 at 5:31 p.m.
tifosi said...

Hope all of you have a Merry Christmas. with family and friends.

Please take a moment tonight to remember that someone is sitting behind a machine gun and sandbags, thinking about his family and praying for a silent night.

December 24, 2013 at 5:32 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

You too, Rick.

December 24, 2013 at 5:34 p.m.
rick1 said...

Ike, you can start with Phil Robertson. He was asked a question and gave an answer that was not acceptable to the liberal PC crowd and he silenced by A&E. Yes A&E is a private business and it was their choice to suspended Robertson but let's be honest if he was a liberal this would not even be in the news. Look at how many time Alec Baldwin called people fags, and queers before he was finally let go by MSNBC and Capital One

During the Ms. USA pageant Carrie Prejean was asked her opinion on gay marriage and her answer was not what Perez Hilton or the liberal media wanted to hear and she lost the crown.

Liberal universities are anything but tolerant when a conservative speaker or those who do not have the same liberal views as the university. Some liberal universities have not allowed speakers who have opposing views on their campus to speak. And at several liberal universities where speakers with opposing views have been allowed to speak have been verbally and or physically abused and their speech was cut short.

You have the liberal media and a lot liberals who will attempt to silence those who do not agree with them by labeling them as racists, bigot, gay basher etc.

When you silence those who disagree with you, you then have an easier time of pushing though your agenda.

Hope you have a warm and sunny Merry Christmas in the Keys.

December 24, 2013 at 6:45 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Ike is a smart lady. Surely she will agree, Rick.

December 24, 2013 at 6:51 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Amen.

December 24, 2013 at 6:53 p.m.

This is what happens when someone has the audacity to point out the obvious. It will never be normal, it will never be ok, it will never be viewed by sane , logical, individuals who have any knowledge of biology at all, as anything other than what it is, icky. They can do what they want, have the right do what they want, it's there life, but this idiotic campaign to promote it is as normal, will never work. Phil just said what any sane person thinks, or would say.

December 24, 2013 at 6:55 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have to disagree. Freedom of Speech does not apply in an employment contract: if A&E had a contract with him that states he could be terminated for such (and I have no idea if he did or not) then he is not protected. He cannot be jailed or penalized BY HIS GOVERNMENT, even if he is wrong (and he was on at least one point, but he is free to say it it anyway) He can say what he wants, take out a billboard ad or an ad in the paper, state his views from pulpit or public stage, or on a street corner. He has that right. He does not have the right to be employed by A&E: he is employed at their convenience only.

Liberal universities are anything but tolerant when a conservative speaker or those who do not have the same liberal views as the university. Some liberal universities have not allowed speakers who have opposing views on their campus to speak. And at several liberal universities where speakers with opposing views have been allowed to speak have been verbally and or physically abused and their speech was cut short.

Examples of the above, please. Unfortunately, in my area (science), "conservative" speakers are usually wrong. Factually wrong. Even so, universities can regulate what speakers have access. Freedom of speech does not usually apply.

So when I ask: who is being silenced? Who is the government silencing? For only in that context is there true freedom of speech. Who is being jailed, killed or otherwise penalized by their government for their views?

Happy Christmas to all! We are not in the keys, but in the great state of Texas! (sans boat)

December 24, 2013 at 7:19 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"conservative" speakers are usually wrong. Factually wrong"

Any proof of this?

And by this statement you insinuate that liberal speakers are the gospel of truth?

December 24, 2013 at 7:45 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

In science, TOES. Speakers that label themselves "conservative" in science, unless they are speaking specifically about ethics, are usually religious conservative speaking against evolution. Can't comment on any other topic because I don't know. A legit science speaker is neither liberal nor conservative.

Again, universities are not obligated to invite any speaker. The choices of speakers are theirs and theirs alone. I have only experience with one university, and although the faculty were politically liberal, the admin and board of trustees were quite conservative, so I have never seen any examples of censorship.

December 24, 2013 at 7:48 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Not a freedom of speech issue, legally. A sad cultural swing, really. And Ike, if you haven't heard countless stories of universities disallowing con. speaker, you've not been paying attention. Perhaps you hear what you want.

December 24, 2013 at 7:52 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

No, PT, I just don't really care as much about any topic except the sciences. Again, though, I would like some specific examples.

December 24, 2013 at 7:54 p.m.
rick1 said...

Ike, as I said A&E is a private business and decided to take the action they did on Robertson, but Alec Baldwin's comments were not reported 24/7 like Robertson's were. Even after MSNBC let Baldwin go there was barely a mention of his actions or those previous to his firing.

Let's not open students minds to all opinions and opposing views as universities do not want people thinking for themselves. If a scientist does not agree with your views as a science teacher why wouldn't you use the opportunity to have someone present their views even if you think they are wrong and then challenge and debate their position? Let the student use critical thinking and decide who is correct.

Unfortunately schools do not want to teach students how to think they want to teach them what to think and that is why they restrict views they do not agree with.

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/commencement-speakers-conservatives-need-not-apply/

I addressed who is being silenced and it is being done by public universities, which are funded by tax dollars, private universities and the liberal media.

December 24, 2013 at 8:03 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

In the sciences, debate and disagreement does not occur in the classroom, but in scientific meetings and peer-reviewed journals. It makes no sense for a university to give a platform for something that is factually wrong (creationism, flat earth, holocaust denial) and debate regarding cutting edge science is meaningless between people who do not know the actual science.

As for political issues? I am not knowledgeable enough to pass judgement on why a political speaker would be speaking at a university.

As far as public vs private? In science it is the same issue. Crap and crank ideas that have not passed the tests of science have not earned a place at a university forum. Finally, not being given a forum at a university is not being "silenced". Anyone may say anything they like publicly.

December 24, 2013 at 8:09 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Here is another example from science: Walter Brown, a creationist (but not a scientist) wrote and published his own textbook on his "theories" about a young earth and a global flood. He maintains a website and is invited to speak before like-minded people. His views are not given much notice in scientific circles because they are wrong. Very, very wrong. He is not willing to subject his work to peer review or submit it to a scientific journal. He says he'll debate his ideas (usually with laypeople), but that is not the appropriate method to submit or discuss scientific ideas or findings. But he is not in jail, his book is not banned, he continues to get paid to speak. That is his right.

December 24, 2013 at 8:37 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Conservatives also speak of free market capitalism being much better than a socialist government controlling all means of production.

Would you interpret that notion to also be wrong?

Not all conservatives preach at speaking engagements.

December 24, 2013 at 9:01 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Ike. Is being cocksure not a form of intolerance?

December 24, 2013 at 9:10 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I am not qualified to say if straight capitalism is "much better" than a socialist government. I would be hard put to accept such a statement of absolutes anyway, since almost every country represents a mix. And better for whom? The workers? The corporations? The government? That is a pretty complicated topic. I am not an economist, nor am I involved in deciding who gets to speak at a university.

Still looking for specific real examples. And a description of how "not being invited to speak at ___ university" is an example of being "silenced".

December 24, 2013 at 9:12 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

PT: can you tell me in what context and who is being "cocksure"? Or are you referring to me personally?

December 24, 2013 at 9:14 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

You, Ike. Just an observation. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

December 24, 2013 at 9:33 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

How am I being "cocksure"? I made it clear that in many areas I am not qualified to comment. Funny-the specific things I am asking for no one seems to be able to provide.

December 24, 2013 at 9:41 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Rick1, I can't speak for all colleges and universities in the US, but the ones I attended encouraged me "to think for myself". Now my degrees are in mathematics, but I never attended one class where the professors encouraged us to share the same line of thinking as them. Even the courses I took in physics, the professors didn't insist we just learned and accepted everything they taught without questioning and testing methods.

December 24, 2013 at 9:42 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Cocksure implies an arrogance in one's certainty they are right, intolerance is the refusal to consider an alternative idea or view. On the face of it they sound similar, but...

Intolerance can imply fear of something new or new ideas that challenge one's sense of normalcy. Cocksure implies an overly confident or brazen belief (conceit) in the truth of one's ideas. Therefore cocksure implied a foolhardy (hence, fearless or oblivious) willingness to pursue a personal position in the face of other ideas; intolerance usually implies, or admits a fear of something new because it is perceived to be a threat (hence, narrow minded). A subtle but definite difference.

Most but not all of the contributors to the discourse above are overly cocksure, but we have a few who are definitely intolerant, for example joneses and conservative.

December 24, 2013 at 9:43 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Well, I guess that I am "cocksure" about how science is done. Because I am right. Beyond that, no. I have my opinions but they are worth no more or less than anyone else's.

December 24, 2013 at 9:46 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

For one, the remark about the C's (on science) as being wrong. Any talk of science, and you immediately leap on Creationism. Are you obsessed with it? Other remarks over time. Not going to go back to the archives…just a tone. No offense.

December 24, 2013 at 9:46 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

That's a good point. The reason why I beat up creationism is that almost all non-scientific challenges to science come from fundamentalists and attack the areas of geology and evolution. (the next most frequent is regarding climate change but that is a much more complicated picture) Those two areas of science attract the most attention by those with religious agendas. And yes, as science, both young earth and creation are incorrect. Not my opinion. Simple fact. And those that promote these ideas bypass the proper procedure to communicate their ideas-they break the rules. Not my rules, the rules accepted by the entire scientific community. So, they have not earned the place in the university forums. But they are not silenced: again, back to my main point: not being given a university forum is not the same as "being silenced" or losing one's 1st amendment rights. I simply used science as my example, because it is what I know.

December 24, 2013 at 9:50 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Uncle

December 24, 2013 at 9:54 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Rick1, a conservative blog piece and another using Rush Limbaugh's election analysis do nothing to further your argument. Going to college does not make you more likely to become a liberal anymore than it makes you become a conservative. I'm telling you that when I was in the Navy (before I went to college), I was a democrat. After the service, I shifted more towards the right and attending college did not make me shift back towards the left. I rarely (I can't definitively say never, but possibly) discussed politics with anyone while I was in class or on campus. I have plenty of friends that have college degrees that are just as (if not more) conservative as you. There are plenty of students today that walk onto campus as a conservative and graduate as a conservative even after 100's of hours of lectures. People going to college to receive an education had little to nothing to do with Romney losing the last election.

December 24, 2013 at 11:09 p.m.
fairmon said...

Does anyone really give a rat what A&E or the duckers do? A lot of to do about nothing.

December 24, 2013 at 11:12 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

As for the cartoon, I wish it no other way. Merry Christmas and God bless America!

December 25, 2013 at 5:57 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Gassy: You attended college as an adult. You no doubt viewed things from a different perspective than the 18-21 yr olds.

December 25, 2013 at 8:35 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

A very sincere and PC post from PT (from the middle) https://twitter.com/ILamy7/status/415858917600538625/photo/1

December 25, 2013 at 10 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Where was the conservative outrage for "freedom of speech" when the Dixie Chicks criticized George Bush for the invasion of Iraq?

They were pulled from the air at many stations, their tapes burned, and called unpatriotic. Many of the same self styled christian conservatives who applaued the stations actions of the Dixie Chicks now seem incensed with A&E for exercising the same actions.

Of course the conservatives can take solace from the Bible in regards to Bush's actions. The Old Testament is full of God directed, unprovoked attacks on other nations. In their eyes the Dixie Chicks were not only unpatriotic, but also ungodly.

December 25, 2013 at 10:12 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

hotdiggity = Ultimate cynic

December 25, 2013 at 10:20 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sorry, rick. Still don't see anyone losing 1st Amendment rights. Your previous links (only one from a truly balanced source) didn't either. Dixie Chicks didn't lose their rights either. Radio stations, TV networks and universities all have the right to decide what represents them.

Your hnn link shows 6 college classes, (not speakers) that show liberal bias and squelch opposing views. Six. I can come up with twice that number of examples of unfairness, grade discrimination, and incompetence in my own limited experience. There are examples of poor quality college instruction everywhere.

December 25, 2013 at 11:14 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Yeah, Ike, there is no liberal bias, universities are fair and balanced. You get to decide what sources are "truly balanced". No problemo.

December 25, 2013 at 11:29 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Examples, PT? I never said that universities did not have a liberal bias. Most do. But there are conservative colleges too (Liberty is one) But six examples of courses with liberal bias does not constitute a loss of freedom of speech. Nor does it illustrate the claim of conservative speakers denied a forum. That claim was offered up as an example of a loss of free speech.

December 25, 2013 at 11:34 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

I never said there was a "freedom of speech" issue. Speech has consequences. Tough beans. Of Rick's links, which one do you deem a truly balanced source?

December 25, 2013 at 11:41 a.m.
rick1 said...

ike, read the below listed article and see how a liberal activist group attempted to have a shut down a talk radio station because they did not agree with their views. Most liberals are anything but tolerant when you do not agree with their views and this group in the article along with other liberal activist groups are hell bent on silencing those who do not agree with them.

http://www.redstate.com/briansikma/2013/06/04/liberals-pressure-obama-admin-to-muzzle-wisconsin-talk-radio/

Studies have shown a majority of the universities in this country are liberal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

http://liberaledu.wordpress.com/about/

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/24/survey-finds-professors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left

December 25, 2013 at 11:42 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

rick I have already agreed that most colleges are liberal. My claim is that is not a first amendment issue. As for radio stations? Conservatives do the same thing.(remember the Dixie Chicks? Are you ignoring that little contrast on purpose?) They also try to ban books, impose sectarian prayer in public schools and push religion in science class. Your point?

PT: hnn. Not townhall, not frontpagemag

December 25, 2013 at 11:56 a.m.
rick1 said...

ike as you said earlier universities have the right to decide what represents them. I have shown in my last post universities are becoming more liberal and this is why they are shutting out the views of conservatives as they do not want the students to hear opposing views. This is why more liberals are giving speeches at graduations then conservatives.

You stated last night "In the sciences, debate and disagreement does not occur in the classroom, but in scientific meetings and peer-reviewed journals."

I'm sorry but that is a crock that students can not debate science in the class room. When you do not have critical thinking and do not allow debates it is much easier to brainwash students into believing what you want them to believe. There was a time when teachers taught students how to think so they had free will to make up their own mind based on all of the facts and data presented to them from both sides. Now teachers tell students what to think and schools shut out opposing views.

December 25, 2013 at 11:59 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Reputable scholars point out crap, whether they are conservative or liberal: https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-barton-lies-conservative-christian-scholars-debunk-christian-nation

December 25, 2013 at noon
PlainTruth said...

Ike: The Chicks paid the price, too. Not a FOS issue. "PT: hnn. Not townhall, not frontpagemag" are you dodging the question, Ike?

December 25, 2013 at 12:02 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'm sorry but that is a crock that students can not debate science in the class room. When you do not have critical thinking and do not allow debates it is much easier to brainwash students into believing what you want them to believe.

Sorry, but you are simply incorrect on this. Teachers at both high school and undergraduate level teach accepted science. They don't have students "debate" pseudoscience as if it deserved the same status. Science is not a "belief" system.

Now let me modify this to include that it is appropriate to let students learn how outdated ideas fell to new evidence. They can also debate science ethics questions. I would have no problem having a "debate" to illustrate how creationism, young earth, clairvoyance, ESP, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are all fantasy, but most schools would balk at science teachers dispelling religious myths in class.

Sorry, PT. That wasn't very clear. Of the three I only consider hnn as reputable.

December 25, 2013 at 12:03 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Ike: How about Salon, Move-On, Slate? Your take?

December 25, 2013 at 12:12 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Not real impressed with any of those. Liberal bias is too strong. Seen some good stuff on Slate, but seen some crap too.

December 25, 2013 at 12:14 p.m.
rick1 said...

ike, I said last night A&E has the right to suspend Robertson if they wish just as radio stations had the right to pull the Dixie Chicks.

But I don't recall any conservative group trying to have a radio license not renewed because they did not agree with them.

Liberal activist groups, and the liberal media will destroy a conservative if they do not agree with their views. Unlike a liberal like Alec Baldwin who had made fag and queer comments in the past and the media looked the other way, or the vile comments Dan Savage has made in the past when he invited Herman Cain to perform oral sex on him, said he wished all republicans were F-ing dead, and in 2011 how he would like to have "hate sex" with GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, and all of this was totally ignored by the media. But Robertson honestly answers a question about gay marriage based on his faith and the liberal media and activist groups are all over it.

Ike, I have to go but I hope you enjoy the rest of your day in sunny Texas.

December 25, 2013 at 12:15 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oh, I am certainly in agreement that outrageous liberals get more of a pass from the media, as the media trends liberal. But conservatives can exhibit all the same outrage and demand all the same censorship. (O'Reilly foaming at the mouth is one example) In either case it is irrelevant to the first amendment. Which of course was my original point. Have a great day!

December 25, 2013 at 12:17 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Fair enough, Ike. I agree the foaming at the mouth cuts both ways. I confess to watching O'Reilly. But he's got to be the most arrogant prick on the planet. (self-punishment, I guess) Enjoy the holidays.

December 25, 2013 at 12:23 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You too, PT!!

December 25, 2013 at 12:23 p.m.
yddem said...

rick1, the American Family Association is perhaps the largest and most active organization urging boycotts of those with whom it disagrees. It is an extremely conservative group.

December 25, 2013 at 12:24 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

So it's a level playing field then. The occupy Wall street crowd defecates on police cars and rapes women in tents.

A tea Party member sneezes too loud and they're labeled "extremists" and "racists".

Where's the liberal "fairness" at?

December 25, 2013 at 3:06 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

The libs are on the wrong side of history. They will see eventually.

December 25, 2013 at 3:13 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Actually, we run-of-the-mill liberals are not. Extremists on both sides are.

December 25, 2013 at 3:27 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

I certainly don't know of any conservative terrorist murderers who hold the title of "visiting scholar" at any college though.

Maybe you can enlighten us and name one.

December 25, 2013 at 3:38 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

limric said...

Oh my god!! Some bearded moron doesn't likes gays. Oh the humanity!!

However, it (it being the hype) is a good indicator of the utter stupidity that is the American public that this has caused the uproar it has. Pathetic!

(Maybe you’re a little short and it went over your head . That it wasn’t really Mr. Robertson or what he said but the attempt by certain groups to impose self censorship on the general public.)

Frank Zappa was right: (Yes he was)

I am the slime oozin out From your TV set." (There is a certain level of slime coming from all pop culture media offerings.)

He he - Merry Christmas Y'all.

I know that you are very proud that you pick up on that bit of witticism but I’m sure you missed the irony of your selection. Zappa was a purveyor pop culture slime through mass media just as the programming he was referencing. The greater irony is that he would most likely be considered a conservative and a defender of Mr. Robertson’s right to speak exterior to his employment without interference from his employer. Even though he would strongly disagree with him on his message.

From Wiki:

Describing his political views, Frank Zappa categorized himself as a "practical conservative", or "independent". He favored limited government and low taxes; he also stated that he approved of national defense, social security, and other federal programs, but only if recipients of such programs are willing and able to pay for them. He favored capitalism, entrepreneurship, and independent business, stating that musicians could make more from owning their own businesses than from collecting royalties. He opposed communism, stating, "A system that doesn't allow ownership [...] has—to put it mildly—a fatal design flaw.

Describing his philosophical views, Zappa stated, "I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."

On September 19, 1985, Zappa testified before the United States Senate Commerce, Technology, and Transportation committee, attacking the Parents Music Resource Center or PMRC, a music organization co-founded by Tipper Gore, wife of then-senator Al Gore.

Zappa saw their activities as on a path towards censorship, and called their proposal for voluntary labelling of records with explicit content "extortion" of the music industry

The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of moral quality control programs based on things certain Christians do not like.

December 25, 2013 at 3:40 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oh, so only liberals are terrorists and murderers now?

December 25, 2013 at 3:42 p.m.
alprova said...

Ikeithlu wrote: "I would have no problem having a "debate" to illustrate how creationism, young earth, clairvoyance, ESP, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are all fantasy, but most schools would balk at science teachers dispelling religious myths in class."

Science has oodles and oodles of evidence to offer during such debates, whereas the opposition has none. The anger and frustration factor would be multiplied by ten from those attempting to convince others of their beliefs.

Therefore, such a debate would never be productive or result with any agreement ever being reached.

I trust science and am fascinated with science. At the same time, I do have my religious beliefs, which I fully know are based on nothing at all that can be proven or disproven.

I do not base my religious beliefs strictly on what can be read in a copy of the Bible, nor based on what a preacher at a pulpit tells me I should believe.

When I desire to form an opinion, it is ALWAYS based on my own research and after great pontification, and I sometimes change an occasional opinion.

Today, many of us are celebrating the birthday of the Biblical Lord. Others are celebrating a more secular holiday. For most of the people in this nation and the world, this day is Christmas.

I wish everyone a very merry Christmas, no offense intented or implied. I am grateful to be here today, for barely a month ago, my presence today looked very bleak.

Even though some believe religion is a fantasy or fiction, I'd rather not miss out if it is not. I don't allow religion to rule my everyday life, and I personally believe that God wants each and every one of us to find a balance in life, so that when we do leave this life, we are loved by many, admired by some, and somehow, leave our own legacy behind on this Earth with as many people as possible.

December 25, 2013 at 3:44 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

This one is:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/23/bill-ayers-is-now-a-feted-visiting-scholar-at-minnesota-state-university-moorhead/

Are you aware of any conservative counterparts in the higher education system? I've searched to no avail. perhaps I've missed one.

December 25, 2013 at 3:46 p.m.
alprova said...

People, everyone is entitled to exercise their First Amendment rights, but no one is promised that when they make a conscience choice to exercise that one particular right, that they will be free from any and all repercussions.

Right, wrong, justified or not, Phil Robertson is merely the latest public person to find that out.

December 25, 2013 at 3:49 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Again, TOE: Only liberals are terrorists and murderers? I am not required to apologize for the judgment of an institution such as MN state, or pass judgment on whether Bill Ayers has been indicted or convicted of a crime. There are horrible characters on the conservative side too. Should I hold you accountable for them?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/

December 25, 2013 at 3:50 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo, you're such a fence walking suck-up. No offense.

December 25, 2013 at 4:04 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I did not detect any more fence-walking in alprova's posts than in mine. Guess that makes me a suck up too.

December 25, 2013 at 4:06 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

The point here is that you claimed conservative speakers are disqualified because you think they're "wrong".

However, Bill Ayers and the like get to speak freely and without harassment.

So in your opinion, is a convicted bomb maker and self proclaimed domestic terrorist more qualified to speak than a conservative who you arbitrarily feel is just "wrong"?

December 25, 2013 at 4:10 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

The point here is that you claimed conservative speakers are disqualified because you think they're "wrong".

Show me where I made a blanket statement regarding conservative speakers.

December 25, 2013 at 4:15 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

crickets chirping

Yeah, that's what I thought. You clearly misunderstood my posts. I cannot pass judgment on conservative vs liberal speakers on most subjects (which is what I said). However, in the realm of science, those that identify as conservative come with an agenda. Scientists' political leanings are not a factor in science, so a scientist that claims that they were blackballed because they were conservative invariably are coming to challenge evolution on religious grounds. The only exception would be a discussion of scientific ethics, and for all I know this has happened. But young earth/creationism is simply wrong. Not my opinion. FACT. and it does not deserve a place in a university until creationists adhere to the proper procedures dictated by science (they won't because the evidence refutes their "theory").

December 25, 2013 at 4:28 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

I'll stick to what I said, Ike. His sucking up to non-believers seems apparent to me. Not to you, I guess. So be it.

December 25, 2013 at 4:28 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Here is a piece about a conservative, religious biologist who is in great demand as a speaker: http://news.brown.edu/features/2012/02/miller

December 25, 2013 at 4:43 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Alpo, you're such a fence walking suck-up. No offense."

No offense taken at all, but I am confused, since you claim to be a moderate yourself. Isn't that one who walks fences too?

Sir, I am a very liberal Christian. We do exist. I reject most Christianity rooted in conservatism, for I have every reason to believe that the man of the day was just as liberal as I am.

That evidence can be found in the Bible.

I am not a Catholic, but I find myself admiring the new Pope, because he focuses on the poor. He is shaking the foundation of the Catholic Church to it's very core.

CNN did a biopic the other night in which Paul Ryan, one of the most conservative politicians in this nation, has publicly declared that he is rethinking some of his prior positions, based on utterings by Pope Francis.

Liberalism is taking root around the world this day, and that is VERY GOOD THING!!!

Join us or be miserable for the rest of your life.

No religious conservative candidate will become President anytime in the near future, and it's time that some of you realize it.

Religious conservatives are going to lose next year too, if they continue to spout those chosen lines in a campaign speech.

Jesus was one of the first liberals, even before the word was uttered for the first time.

Enjoy your Christmas, but never forget that the man whom whose birth we are celebrating today left some very specific commands for all of us to follow.

Your choice is to heed those words or deny them.

December 25, 2013 at 4:49 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "I'll stick to what I said, Ike. His sucking up to non-believers seems apparent to me. Not to you, I guess. So be it."

Dir, with all due respect, the last thing I have ever done, is to force feed my opinions on others.

What you call "sucking up" is my respecting them to be allowed to hold whatever opinion they so desire. We are all put here on this Earth with a God given right to practice free will.

God himself invented the concept.

I'm merely following his example.

December 25, 2013 at 4:54 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

From TMZ:

A&E will continue to profit off Phil Robertson and his family during Christmas week -- despite the fact that they benched Phil for his recent anti-gay comments -- because the network will be airing SEVERAL huge "Duck Dynasty" marathons.

DD is pretty much taking over A&E's Christmas schedule. The network will air 4 separate rerun marathons of the show in 4 days (December 22-25) totaling 35.5 hours of air time.

Ironic ... A&E, on the one hand, is indignant over Phil's comment but not mad enough to pass up a buck ... not to mention the fact that they knew exactly how he felt before they hired him because he publicly preached about his beliefs for years.

December 25, 2013 at 4:59 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

What we do see here, and this goes to the viewers' question about political correctness, the new biggest American entitlement is the entitlement to go through life without being offended. People think they have a right not to have their feelings hurt, not to have their sensibilities in any way exacerbated. I'd refer them to Jefferson who said, it does me no harm if my neighbor believes in 20 gods or one god, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. We have worked for millennia to get to a point where we say the law will protect our possessions and our persons, but not our feelings and people just have to get over it.

George Will

December 25, 2013 at 5:01 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

But things are complicated by the fact that progressive activists and agitators aren’t interested in comity or stasis or accommodation. Instead, they view division and conflict as necessary steps to achieve their progressive goals (which seem to be the dismantling of any traditional value or institution.) If you’re a redneck in Louisiana who believes homosexuality is a sin, you will be made to care.

At some point, this became a zero-sum game. You’re either in the “Duck Dynasty” camp or the “Pajama Boy” camp. Somebody will lose.

No matter how hard you try, you simply cannot be a conscientious objector in the culture war.

dailycaller.com

December 25, 2013 at 5:02 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have no problem with this Jt6, as long as we acknowledge that it happens on both sides. A lot.

But things are complicated by the fact that progressive activists and agitators aren’t interested in comity or stasis or accommodation

You could replace Progressive Activists with Religious Right and it would hold true.

Of course, in the end it is the bottom line that determines the course of action. Money speaks the universal language.

December 25, 2013 at 5:02 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

It does my heart good to see that almost all posters here support unlimited “At Will Employment”. That the employer is always right in terminating an employee for any or no cause at all. A most refreshing state of affairs.

December 25, 2013 at 5:11 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Rev. Rick Warren:

Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.

December 25, 2013 at 5:12 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Charles Joseph Chaput, Archbishop of Philadelphia:

Evil (? Fleabaggers - Jt) talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it. So it always has been. So it always will be. And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God (?).

December 25, 2013 at 5:13 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

That the employer is always right in terminating an employee for any or no cause at all. A most refreshing state of affairs.

No one says that an employer doesn't have to have a cause. But that cause can be a myriad of possibilities, including statements that are not considered representative of the values of the company. If it is in the contract of employment and is violated, the employee can be terminated.

December 25, 2013 at 5:25 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo, my point is …you say you are a Christian. If so, you don't have to justify it to anyone….least of all, anyone on here.

December 25, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
jesse said...

A&E is so down on Phil they decided to go ahead with the Duck Dynasty marathon ! I guess they figured what the hell, if ya gotum smokeum!!

December 25, 2013 at 6:05 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Camille Paglia:

“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech,”

“In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I one hundred percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right of religious freedom there.”

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

“I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility. This is not the mark of a true intellectual life. This is why there is no cultural life now in the U.S. Why nothing is of interest coming from the major media in terms of cultural criticism. Why the graduates of the Ivy League with their A, A, A+ grades are complete cultural illiterates, etc. is because they are not being educated in any way to give respect to opposing viewpoints.”

“There is a dialogue going on human civilization, for heaven sakes. It’s not just this monologue coming from fanatics who have displaced the religious beliefs of their parents into a political movement. And that is what happened to feminism, and that is what happened to gay activism, a fanaticism.”

December 25, 2013 at 6:17 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

lkeithlu said...

“That the employer is always right in terminating an employee for any or no cause at all. A most refreshing state of affairs.”

No one says that an employer doesn't have to have a cause.


From Wiki:

Supreme Court of California:

“[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.”

At-will employment disclaimers are a staple of employee handbooks in the United States. It is common for employers to define what at-will employment means, explain that an employee’s at-will status cannot be changed except in a writing signed by the company president (or chief executive), and require that an employee sign an acknowledgment of his or her at-will status.

December 25, 2013 at 6:51 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Okay, I stand corrected. Are you suggesting this is a) a good thing or bad thing and b) liberals are responsible? Has this always been true or is it a new thing?

Are you suggesting that what happened to Robinson is not okay but to the Dixie Chicks is okay?

December 25, 2013 at 7:21 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

lkeithlu said...

Okay, I stand corrected. Are you suggesting this is a) a good thing or bad thing and b) liberals are responsible? Has this always been true or is it a new thing?

Are you suggesting that what happened to Robinson is not okay but to the Dixie Chicks is okay?

A&E had every right to fire Mr. Robertson as long as they did not violate his contract with them and the same for the Dixie Chicks. My problem is with third party political correct interference in the two party contract dealings of the employer and employee.

For those that support what transpired in this situation where was your support for socially conservative or religious groups trying to censor or force art or media from the public square they disapproved of?

December 25, 2013 at 7:47 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Rich1, I'm not sure where you went to college. There is a broad span of opinion in liberal arts curricula and you are likely to find extremists on liberalism and conservativism there, but universities do not "decide what to teach" except the few like life university and others closely allied or supported by religious groups, you might throw Loyola I there. In the sciences and engineering, debate on science comes via experimentation and interpretation, that is, it is based on objective hypotheses testable by observations. The exemplary times when a scientist used falsified, or undue bias in interpreting data stand as widely known and embarrassing events. For example, the idea one's cranium size determines intelligence, the idea parallel lines cannot meet, the idea intelligence is racially biased are a few false scientific conclusions that stand out.

As for "creationism" the fundamental core of Judaism and Christianity is that we cannot know how we are created as objective science or the mind of God; else faith is meaningless.

December 25, 2013 at 7:50 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

A&E had every right to fire Mr. Robertson as long as they did not violate his contract with them and the same for the Dixie Chicks. My problem is with third party political correct interference in the two party contract dealings of the employer and employee.

From both directions: from the left urging A&E to cancel the show, from the right saying his rights were violated.

December 25, 2013 at 8:07 p.m.
fairmon said...

The employer or employee can terminate the employer and employee relationship for good reason, bad reason or no reason that is not due to age, sex, handicap or race. So what is all the fuss about? Why are many trying to participate in the decision? Would there be as much outrage if A&E had expressed an opinion that resulted in the family quitting the network? Would I be getting an email with a petition to keep what's his name from quitting the network and ending the series? Would the sympathy for the network swell like a tsunami?

December 25, 2013 at 8:24 p.m.
fairmon said...

Gay is not as easily identified as those of a different race, gender, age or handicap but some want the same protection so they can participate in the discrimination against singles.

Gays should not be abused nor should they have employment protection. They should, like every other person, be protected from harm but no one is and should not be required to accept, befriend, socialize with or approve of anyone else.

December 25, 2013 at 8:40 p.m.
TOES02800 said...
 lkeithlu said at 7:19 -  "Unfortunately, in my area (science), "conservative" speakers are usually wrong. Factually wrong".
December 25, 2013 at 9:20 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Why is the left so intolerant of religion? Who gets harmed by people seeking happiness from a higher power?

December 25, 2013 at 9:37 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

So you didn't even read my posts, did you? I clearly explained what I meant in terms of science speakers, and made it clear that I could only address SCIENCE speakers. I explained clearly that the political orientation is unrelated to science. I elaborated what I meant at 4:28. So your reading skills are either sub par or you are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I say. Which is it?

Why is the left so intolerant of religion? Who gets harmed by people seeking happiness from a higher power?

I am not "intolerant" of religion, just people who lie in the name of religion.

December 25, 2013 at 9:51 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

PT recommends Values.com.

December 25, 2013 at 10:12 p.m.
yddem said...

Toes, the "right" is as intolerant of those who shun religion as the "left" is of those who embrace religion. People have every right to seek happiness from what they believe is a "higher power" just as others have every right to think otherwise.

December 25, 2013 at 10:16 p.m.
soakya said...

lkeithu, are you intolerant of progressives who lie for years in order to pass major legislation because if they had told the truth they would not have been reelected? how about progressives who lie about credentials again for years because they think they are adding creditability to their statements? tell us how intolerant you are of folks who continue to lie for years and even continue in the lie even when busted.

December 25, 2013 at 10:17 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Yes, I am intolerant of anyone, left or right, who lies. Including Obama and any other politician. I hope you are not suggesting that only liberals lie; conservatives do too.

December 25, 2013 at 10:24 p.m.
yddem said...

PT, I was suspicious of the values.com site when a colleague mentioned it a few years ago because of the views of the founder of the 501 Foundation, but I concluded that there is no hidden purpose and the folks are sincere. What could be wrong with trying to inspire people?

December 25, 2013 at 10:31 p.m.
soakya said...

lkeithlu, how and why did you make that assumption? I simply gave you two examples of the progressive liars. One that post on here and continues in the lie, I didn't scroll thru your past comments but its good to know you condemn his lies on this forum. and its good to know you condemn the presidents habitual lies of the past 3 years.

and just so you know I believe all politicians are liars, regardless of party affiliation just can't think of any one else like the two I mentioned who continued in their lies for years.

December 25, 2013 at 10:37 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

What else am I to think when you specify how I feel about PROGRESSIVES that lie? I don't like liars at all.

December 25, 2013 at 10:39 p.m.
soakya said...

likeithu, why don't you cut and paste your previous condemnation from your post on here of the two liars I mentioned or point me to the post where you did so.

December 25, 2013 at 10:43 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have no idea what you are talking about. I feel like I missed something. Why don't you state a name and a lie?

December 25, 2013 at 10:44 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

"Science has oodles and oodles of evidence to offer during such debates, whereas the opposition has none."

Psst, hey al, look around you.

al's plan of salvation: "Even though some believe religion is a fantasy or fiction, I'd rather not miss out if it is not. I don't allow religion to rule my everyday life, and I personally believe that God wants each and every one of us to find a balance in life, so that when we do leave this life, we are loved by many, admired by some, and somehow, leave our own legacy behind on this Earth with as many people as possible."

The Bible's plan of salvation: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6.

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." - Acts 4:12.

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." - Matthew 7:13.

Of course, if you're like al, you don't "strictly" believe those words, and your plan for getting into heaven is buying enough lottery tickets.

December 25, 2013 at 10:50 p.m.
soakya said...

lkeithu,well you already mentioned Obama. the other liar is alprova concerning his credentials. his name does not appear in any state board of accountancy as a cpa yet he continues to insist he is a cpa. if your name does not appear, you are not a cpa. there isn't a cpa any where who would continue to allow the state board of accountancy to have his name off the list. if your name is not on the list the public has no way to verify your cpa status. so it quite simple, just point me to your previous condemnation of the two liars. I have a feeling you have never previously condemned either of these lies but rather supported them but I do hope you prove me wrong.

December 25, 2013 at 10:54 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

hotdiggity said...

Where was the conservative outrage for "freedom of speech" when the Dixie Chicks criticized George Bush for the invasion of Iraq?

They were pulled from the air at many stations, their tapes burned, and called unpatriotic. Many of the same self styled christian conservatives who applaued the stations actions of the Dixie Chicks now seem incensed with A&E for exercising the same actions.

Of course the conservatives can take solace from the Bible in regards to Bush's actions. The Old Testament is full of God directed, unprovoked attacks on other nations. In their eyes the Dixie Chicks were not only unpatriotic, but also ungodly.

President Bush - “I mean, the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say. And just because -- they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street. But I have -- don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq, by the way.”

Several country artists spoke out in defense of the group's right to speak their opinion. There was not a concerted organized effort by a special interest pressure group to deny them their career as most of it was grassroots reaction and individual radio station management.

From Wiki - By May 2013, with 30.5 million certified albums sold, and sales of 27.2 million albums in the U.S. alone, they had become the top selling all-female band and biggest selling country group in the U.S. during the Nielsen SoundScan era (1991–present).

Sure looks like they were basically unharmed by any efforts to damage their brand and probably aided ... you don’t think they were tired of the country market and were ready to move to the rock side and they .... well you know what I mean ... Right?

December 25, 2013 at 10:58 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your investigation into alprova's background is not sufficient in my mind to "prove" that he isn't what he claims to be. I will not label anyone a liar based on hearsay by another. You want to make your case you'll have to do better, with actual proof. You could just as easily claim I am a liar. I would do the same if it were you being accused by another without sufficient proof. Alprova has a good track record on this forum (over the several years I have been here) and deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

December 25, 2013 at 10:59 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sure looks like they were basically unharmed by any efforts to damage their brand and probably aided

And Robinson is already rich and famous. I don't see this episode having a detrimental effect on him.

December 25, 2013 at 11:01 p.m.
soakya said...

lkeithu, you think the state board of accountancy which issues the license and makes it public information isn't good enough proof? where do you go check to see if your doctors license is valid? do you believe they would have the correct information? do you think any doctor would allow his license number not be posted? how would that work when a patient comes into his office and says I couldn't find you listed. the state board of accountancy is the actual proof, that is not hearsay from anyone. that is exactly why they list the cpa license, to verify they are indeed a cpa as they say they are. if someone decided to sue alprova the sate board of accountancy is the source where the evidence would come from to prove he is not a cpa. so you tolerate alprova's lie. now show me your previous condemnation of Obama's lie.

December 25, 2013 at 11:05 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have not excused Obama's lies, and I still don't buy your claim of proof. You don't like that? Tough. You are holding me to higher standards than everyone else if you expect me to post condemnations of every liberal lie when I don't see you or anyone else doing this for every conservative lie. You'll have to demonstrate that you have the expertise to investigate alprova's credentials, which would probably mean revealing your real identity here, along with your own credentials. When you are ready to do this and to document the evidence for all to see, then you will have a leg to stand on.

December 25, 2013 at 11:10 p.m.
soakya said...

lkeithu, so, as I expected you have condemned neither Obama nor alprova of their previous lies. and you refuse to accept the state board of accountancy as valid proof he does not have a cpa license. if one was questioning his credentials in court this is where they would go to prove he is not a cpa but you refuse to accept it, how scientific of you, to dispute the evidence. you do understand they issue the license and as I said they are public information so one can verify the license status. where do you suggest one goes to verify a cpa's license status other than to the group that issues them? what other source is there? so, as I suspected you are not so intolerant of lies of the progressives just the lies of those you disagree with. I don't expect anything from you, you said you were intolerant of those who lied in the name of religion, I believe that was how you said it, so I was curious if you were also just as intolerant of those who lied for other reasons especially those that agreed with your overall ideology, and you answered that question for me.

December 25, 2013 at 11:20 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo has a long history of deception on this forum. For years he mentioned the CPA legend. Apparently he was ashamed to admit he owned and ran a used car lot. Ike must have been under sail when Alpo and Easy falsely and maliciously, not to mention viciously, attacked me with totally bogus information. This went on for a week or two. To his credit, Alpo finally admitted he was wrong and apologized. I never saw much condemnation of his malevolent conduct by Ike, or many others.

December 25, 2013 at 11:36 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

yddem said, with respect to Values.com "What could be wrong with trying to inspire people?" Not a thing.

December 25, 2013 at 11:38 p.m.
soakya said...

lkeithlu, how can you be an advocate for science but refute direct evidence, not circumstantial not hearsay but direct evidence that disproves a claim that every court in the nation would accept as absolute proof. your liberal bias and intolerances for those you disagree with are quite evident.

December 26, 2013 at midnight
TOES02800 said...

Social and economic equality is as impossible to prove as the existence of god. Social and economic equality is a pipe dream. A false utopia.

By passing laws as a means to this end, all people of this nation are indeed harmed. (more entitlements, higher government spending, higher taxes..)

I know of no religious institution of those capabilities.

December 26, 2013 at 12:02 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

lkeithu seems to only be intolerant of the intolerance of being intolerant.

December 26, 2013 at 12:06 a.m.
fairmon said...

Although the CPA exam is uniform, licensing and certification requirements are imposed separately by each state's laws and therefore vary from state to state.

soakya said...

lkeithu, you think the state board of accountancy which issues the license and makes it public information isn't good enough proof?

Have you checked all 50 states or the 58 Obama said he visited?

I don't know if alprova is or has ever been a CPA or not nor do I care. I don't agree with his bleeding heart big government opinion in most cases. However, credentials do not give an opinion more or less validity. As correctly stated opinions are like a$$ holes, everybody has one.

December 26, 2013 at 2:02 a.m.
soakya said...

didn't need to. I believe he originally said he was licensed in the south then he change his story. cpaverify checks almost all states. if he didn't think it added creditability to his statements what was the purpose in lying. People lie for a reason, either to gain an advantage, to give a better impression of oneself or to avoid punishment. Why did Obama and the majority of democrats lie for over 3 years, Obama lied because he knew if he told the truth about obamacare he would not have been reelected. He avoided the punishment of being rejected by the American people for a second term. I'm simply pointing out lkeithu bias and intolerance for those she disagrees with especially religious folks. She will tolerate the lies of Obama and alprova and apparently despite her requirement for scientific proof her respect for direct evidence means little when it comes to the left.

December 26, 2013 at 6:51 a.m.
fairmon said...

Obama has lied about a long list of issues or proven he is the most out of touch incompetent president ever. It looks like he is a George Soros and Valerie Jarrett puppet in his second term that is being used to increase a government dependent base of support. They and others will not hesitate to compromise or sacrifice him to achieve their objective.

December 26, 2013 at 6:53 a.m.
soakya said...

lkeithu, I'm using the pronoun she if that's wrong I do apologize.

December 26, 2013 at 7 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

No, I am a she. But again, if you posted evidence (not "you saw" or "you checked" but evidence such as documents, links, etc) I missed it. I asked that your present it again. Can't you? And your credentials as a PI or as a fellow CPA? I am still waiting to hear. You could try to check my credentials as a teacher, but unless you knew how to do so you would probably come up empty handed. And I stand by my position: I do not come here and announce every lie I hear from a liberal politician or POTUS, and you nor anyone else comes here and does the same for conservatives. You are holding me to a higher standard. I have not defended any liberal lies, although I have seen people defend lies from both sides, depending on their point of view. If you want me to come here and announce every liberal lie, you must pledge to do likewise.

TOES, I am waiting for evidence from you that you can actually read and understand my posts, since you misrepresented them repeatedly and accused me of saying things I didn't and have not acknowledged this. Until then our conversation is over.

December 26, 2013 at 7:25 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

lkeithlu, these writers, soakya, fairmon, Toes2800, PT, conservative, jt6 and the like, draw you into a big exercise of mental masturbation with the same over worn, desiccated complaints, over and over and over for the thrill of argument. Some times you have to let folks alone who choose to gnash their teeth in darkness.

Use your energy where it can do some good.

December 26, 2013 at 7:58 a.m.
soakya said...

you said "I am not "intolerant" of religion, just people who lie in the name of religion. " so I posed the question as to why you are not intolerant of those on the left who spew lies such as alprova and Obama. you can reject direct evidence if you choose too but cpaverify is set up for the very purpose of verifying the credentials. I have posted the link but it is easy to find. just apply the same standard.

let me ask you this then. if someone knew your name they could easily check for verification. so if your students parents wanted to check on the status of your license and went to https://apps.tn.gov/eli-app/search.html assuming you are a TN teacher and your name wasn't listed would you correct this problem. would you get on the phone to get your license information posted so the parents of the students could verify your status as a teacher. just checked a couple of teachers I know and their name was listed. even checked the status of a suspended teacher and the name and suspended status was there.

if someone's name was not listed at the above site would you accept this site as evidence that they were not a teacher in the state of TN. I am assuming you would not accept that as evidence since you reject the cpaverify.

December 26, 2013 at 8 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I can certainly see that, inquiringmind. Their credibility suffers when they don't deal with what is actually posted. I try to ask people to clarify if I don't understand something they post, or ask for links or specifics. I in turn am happy to do the same. Of course, no one here ever changes their mind based on what is said in such a forum. However, I have learned some stuff; my own understanding of the world is limited to science and my own personal experience, so the postings of veterans, businesspeople, LEO's, and others is helpful.

December 26, 2013 at 8:02 a.m.
soakya said...

the hypocrisy of the left is stunning and so easily revealed

December 26, 2013 at 8:09 a.m.
jesse said...

I don't think i would include Fairmon in that group!But i would lump Al, Tifosi,iqm and a few others in there!!

December 26, 2013 at 8:21 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Soakya, where is your evidence? You said you would produce it. At least give me the cartoon comment thread you posted your links, documents, etc on so I might go back and see them.

December 26, 2013 at 8:32 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

IQM, don't think for a second Ike doesn't like a little "thrill of argument" herself.

December 26, 2013 at 8:43 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

PlainTruth said...

hotdiggity = Ultimate cynic

That's rich, coming from you. Hello pot, meet kettle.

December 26, 2013 at 8:45 a.m.
rick1 said...

It did not take Jessie Jackson long to jump on the band wagon over Phil Robertson's comments.

In an announcement sent out Tuesday, Jackson Sr. compared Robertson's recent comments about African-Americans, gay people and women to comments made by the driver of Rosa Parks' bus.

"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law," he said in the release. "Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was 'white privilege.'"

Jackson Sr. and the leaders of the other groups are demanding a sit-down meeting with Cracker Barrel and A&E in the next couple of days.

"It is unacceptable that a personality who has been given such a large platform would benefit from racist and anti-gay comments," the group leaders state in the release.

The vast majority of liberals will attack those with a different opinions as being racists, anti-gay, gay bashers, etc. in order silence them.

Jesse Jackson is nothing but a race baiting whore who only cares about shaking down A&E and Cracker Barrel for money. Jesse doesn't give a damn about the blacks or gays.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/jesse_jackson_senior_thinks_duck_dynasty_suffers_from_white_privilege.html

December 26, 2013 at 8:51 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

PT, you are right. I confess. ;)

December 26, 2013 at 8:53 a.m.
rick1 said...

Excellent article on what has become of the media in our country.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/12/rise-of-mediacracy.html

December 26, 2013 at 8:56 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Rick, it's hard to imagine any African American looking at Jesse Jackson as a leader. The White Left probably does as the race baiting plays right out of their playbook.

December 26, 2013 at 8:57 a.m.
soakya said...

I didn't say I would provide the link again. I said I had provided the link however since you can't google here's the link http://www.cpaverify.org/participating-states/

Are you going to answer the question about accepting https://apps.tn.gov/eli-app/search.html as evidence that someone's name not appearing on this site as proof that the person is not a teacher in TN or if your name did not appear here and you were a teacher would you want it corrected to show you are in fact a teacher.

December 26, 2013 at 9:09 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Seems Rush Limbaugh, the mouthpiece of conservatives, is no fan of Pope Francis or the teachings of Christ. Go figure.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rush-limbaugh-blasts-pope-francis-latest-statement-article-1.1535303

Jesus had Marxist type ideas?

December 26, 2013 at 9:09 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

No, because I did not teach with a state certification.

rick1, here's more: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/12/22/6-of-the-worst-media-scandals-of-2013/197368

I will look at the site, soakya, but I will also want to know from a cpa why one MUST show up on that site to be a cpa.

December 26, 2013 at 9:12 a.m.
rick1 said...

PT, sadly I believe there are a lot of blacks who look at both Jesse Jackass and Al Not So Sharpton as leaders. You are absolutely right on the White Left being race baiters.

December 26, 2013 at 9:19 a.m.
rick1 said...

Ike, it is sad as to what has happened to journalism, it appears they have all gone morally bankrupt including Media Matters.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/

December 26, 2013 at 9:28 a.m.
jesse said...

Ike, i think it's so folks can verify the qualifications before they trust them with their data!A bad book keeper can land your arz in the slammer!Kinda like nurses ,doctors and lab techs have to be state board certified!

I have an uncle who is a C.P.A. and been retired for 20 years and he is still listed!

December 26, 2013 at 9:44 a.m.
soakya said...

you need another cpa to explain to you why a cpa must show up on cpaverify to be a cpa? you do understand the state is the entity that issues the license just as they do the teachers license. cpaverify is simply most state boards reporting the names.

just curious, how does one teach without a license or at least attempting to obtain a license? I thought in certain subjects this was allowed as long as you were working on obtaining a license.

December 26, 2013 at 9:50 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

I think some private schools don't require a state license to teach.

December 26, 2013 at 10:12 a.m.
rick1 said...

soakya, here is what Al posted earlier this year in reference to his CPA license. Notice the part where he says if it is a firm, that you need the firm name. Then he posted "Firm or Last Name"

Seems Al is busted as he said Firm or Last Name. I know you have stated you have checked the data base with his last name with no record.

alprova said...

workinjay wrote: "Also, all you need is a last name to verify license. If you go to http://www.tn.gov/regboards/tnsba/ which is the TN Board of Accountancy, and click on Tennessee CPA License Search, just type in the last name."

You missed the fact that if it is a firm, that you need the firm name. "Firm or Last Name"

When you put in the firm name, then all is revealed.

But...given all this ridiculous attention you folks are paying to it, I'll be dead and buried before I would cough up an ounce of proof to satisfy those of you so desperate to tear me down.

July 29, 2013 at 3:32 p.m.

December 26, 2013 at 10:16 a.m.
soakya said...

your right rick1. licenses are issued in the individuals name not the firm. firms must register but an individual is a cpa not the firm. and all you need is a last name.

if he is ever sued his license would be checked either by cpaverify or the individual state board for proof of license, it is the direct proof he is not a cpa yet he and others on here give him a pass for lying for years about his occupation and continuing in his lie yet won't tolerate those who lie in the name of religion. they even reject this direct proof he lied. he and Obama have been given a pass on lying by those on the left on this forum.

December 26, 2013 at 10:29 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Rick: Y'all checking GA too?

December 26, 2013 at 10:38 a.m.
soakya said...

thanks pt didn't know that about teaching.

December 26, 2013 at 10:39 a.m.
soakya said...

pt, cpaverify is a database where most state boards report and ga is one that does.

December 26, 2013 at 10:42 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

soak: ah, thanks.

December 26, 2013 at 10:45 a.m.
prairie_dog said...

Why do people make such a big deal out of it when politicians are caught in a lie? They're just people. People lie. Unfortunately, we have to elect most of them before we pay the consequences of their lies, and then vote them out.

The state of government glides along on what the dumbest voters believe until things get tough for them, and then they vote for somebody different.

December 26, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

librul said...

Happy Holidays to all you quackers down in the swamp in the 'Quacker Compound'. Too bad you'll have to go when the mothership returns.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2013/12/freespeechLAC-500x500.jpg “The people saying that A&E has no right as an employer to control what an employee says (Despite a contract) are the same people saying hobby lobby, as an employer, has the right to control an employee's birth control.”

Hobby Lobby should not control an employee’s birth control and from the details of the case I have seen they are not attempting to do so. They simply say they should not be required to pay for it out of their own pocket and against their religious beliefs.

December 26, 2013 at 3:27 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

GaussianInteger said...

Dog the Bounty Hunter

Fishing shows

Reruns of FLW events

Bill Dance

Golf Channel

Big Break

What? .... No paint drying or grass growing?

December 26, 2013 at 3:31 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

GaussianInteger said...

People say that A & E suspended Phil for his beliefs which is a perceived attack on Christianity. Just like someone may go to their employer and say "I can't work on the Sabbath as it is against my beliefs" and the employer turns around and fires the employee. Would that not be a perceived attack on Christianity in some people's eyes?

Yes it is but the employer should have the right to do so and besides who would want to work for an a## like that anyway?

December 26, 2013 at 3:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

Assuming there is not a valid contract specifying otherwise the employer, A&E, has the right to cancel the show and the family has the right to quit the show. A&E reacted to an interview of the family patriarch where he opined on a life style of some people by exercising their right to suspend him and not allow him to participate. Those out of line are those third parties trying to interfere in the decision by either the employer or employees.

They should tell Jesse Jackson to take a flying leap and they should not accept any third party petitions. Make a decision and live with it. I don't think anyone will be able to get the man to change what he believes or apologize for saying what he thinks.

December 26, 2013 at 4:35 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

So Gassy, what's your point?

December 26, 2013 at 4:41 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Here is the basis for the Fleabaggers concept of tolerance. Read the whole article as it is very enlightening.

From Wiki:

Herbert Marcuse .... in the late 1960s and the 1970s he became known as the preeminent theorist of the New Left and the student movements of Germany, France, and the USA. His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and '70s, both in the U.S. and internationally.

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice.

Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.

Tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery.This sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested.

But society cannot be indiscriminate where the pacification of existence, where freedom and happiness themselves are at stake: here, certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude.

Universal toleration becomes questionable when its rationale no longer prevails, when tolerance is administered to manipulated and indoctrinated individuals who parrot, as their own, the opinion of their masters, for whom heteronomy has become autonomy.

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.

(cont)

December 26, 2013 at 6:31 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

(cont)

Given this situation, I suggested in 'Repressive Tolerance' the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed.

Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for 'the other side', I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.

December 26, 2013 at 6:32 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

▲▲▲▲ brilliant

December 26, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
alprova said...

ikeithlu wrote: "Your investigation into alprova's background is not sufficient in my mind to "prove" that he isn't what he claims to be. I will not label anyone a liar based on hearsay by another. You want to make your case you'll have to do better, with actual proof. You could just as easily claim I am a liar. I would do the same if it were you being accused by another without sufficient proof. Alprova has a good track record on this forum (over the several years I have been here) and deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty."

Thank you for that!!

His entire case is built on the premise that because he CANNOT find me in a very incomplete database located on the net, that I am a liar.

The more he whines, the more I laugh.

December 26, 2013 at 8:49 p.m.
alprova said...

soakya wrote: "lkeithu, so, as I expected you have condemned neither Obama nor alprova of their previous lies. and you refuse to accept the state board of accountancy as valid proof he does not have a cpa license."

Look you moron, I have stated more than once that the database you have used to determine my credentials is incomplete, for there are several states that do not participate in the listing of license holders on that site.

Additionally, that site clearly states that it is aware that not every license holder's name appears on that site. It is an incomplete listing.

You have most of my name, but not all of it, and for that reason, you will never find me on that site. The state where I am currently licensed also does not participate as well.

If you were as smart as you think you are, you could indeed find my listing in the appropriate database, but I have no intention of pointing you to it...not after all this crap.

You're making a fool of yourself and the more you keep holding onto this theory of yours, the more I laugh my ass off.

What I do for a living has nothing at all to do with my participation here. I do not market my services publicly and I never have. I've never had any need to do so.

So happy hunting!!

"if one was questioning his credentials in court this is where they would go to prove he is not a cpa but you refuse to accept it, how scientific of you, to dispute the evidence."

Sir, if one were to haul me into court to question me about my credentials, I could and would very easily produce my current license in court.

No one would depend on the findings contained in an incomplete third-party Internet site in a court of law.

"you do understand they issue the license and as I said they are public information so one can verify the license status."

If you know where to look for it, that it very true. You're looking at a very poorly compiled website that is only as good as the information that was copied and pasted into it.

"where do you suggest one goes to verify a cpa's license status other than to the group that issues them? what other source is there?"

From CPA Verify;

"The information contained in the database at this web site is collected from various public and private sources, including the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (“NASBA”) and various government databases including those operated by NASBA’s member boards. It is not intended as nor is it a comprehensive listing of all accounting practitioners. NASBA does not guarantee that the information found in this database is complete, accurate or reliable. Access to this database is provided as a public service and shall not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of the persons or businesses included in the database, nor is it necessarily to be construed as adverse information about persons not included in the database."

Read that paragraph until you understand it completely.

December 26, 2013 at 9:19 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Alpo has a long history of deception on this forum."

This...coming from a guy who has changed his name in this forum at least three times.

"For years he mentioned the CPA legend. Apparently he was ashamed to admit he owned and ran a used car lot."

That took place in December of 2011 and although I did not disclose the nature of the business, I most certainly referred to it at the time.

My accounting firm is still active and it will remain so, even if I die. My daughter runs it full time.

"Ike must have been under sail when Alpo and Easy falsely and maliciously, not to mention viciously, attacked me with totally bogus information."

You claim it was bogus, but where is the proof? I could easily state with confidence that the name of the person who filed for bankruptcy was the same as yours, and you could not prove otherwise. I can point to your name in the TFP and post the copy of an email I have in my possession and illustrate a perfect match.

Could you refute it? Not on your life.

See how this works?

In the past, I have given you the benefit of the doubt and taken your word that you are not that person, and retracted and apologized for that past accusation, which you graciously accepted, and here you are cranking up again with this crap.

You Sir, are the one who has changed your name at least three times when your welcome has worn out in here. Not me.

You're too stupid to butt out of things you have no business meddling into, so I renew my accusation that it is very likely that you are the person whose name appeared on this very site last year, who filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

And there is no way for you to prove otherwise. Your denial is noted for the record, but just as you consider me to have lied, so have you.

December 26, 2013 at 9:38 p.m.
workinjay said...

Ikeithlu said to Soakya, "You'll have to demonstrate that you have the expertise to investigate alprova's credentials,......"

All you have to do is call this number, 1-888-453-6150. Ask her anything you want, any way you want, and she will emphatically tell you that Alprova is in no shape, form, or fashion a CPA anywhere in the USA, nor ever has been. Beg her to say that there is even a remote chance that there is some kind of mistake, and she will still tell you the same thing.

It doesn't take any expertise or credentials to make the call. The entire conversation will only take 2 minutes. That's much less time than you have spent trying to defend Alprova's lies.

Oh yeah, he doesn't even own the car lot that he claims to own. He just manages it. That can be easily found online too. No credentials or expertise needed to find that out either.

December 26, 2013 at 9:39 p.m.
alprova said...

soakya wrote: "I believe he originally said he was licensed in the south then he change his story."

That's exactly where you took the wrong off-ramp when traveling the Internet highway. You ASSumed I am licensed in the South.

You're putting all your confidence in a site no more dependable than Google is.

In your case however, because it is NOT on the Internet, it must NOT be true.

I sure hope you never enter a courtroom to argue a traffic ticket. You'll surely be convicted.

December 26, 2013 at 9:46 p.m.
alprova said...

soakya wrote: "the hypocrisy of the left is stunning and so easily revealed"

You are a legend in your own mind.

December 26, 2013 at 9:49 p.m.
soakya said...

so your name isn't listed and you are not concerned that it is not listed but you cared enough to post you are a cpa but don't care to have the data base corrected. Right, sorry al but its you who are the fool if you believe any objective person is buying you bs.

December 26, 2013 at 9:52 p.m.
workinjay said...

Alprova, the compulsive liar, said, "You're putting all your confidence in a site no more dependable than Google is. In your case however, because it is NOT on the Internet, it must NOT be true."

Hey lard ass, screw the internet. Reference my previous post. Others may be using the net, but not me. I went straight to the source. Not the source of the lie, because that would be you.

December 26, 2013 at 9:53 p.m.
soakya said...

you can only practice in the state you are licensed in. are you practicing in tn or ga. where is your office located? it has to be one of them and you are not listed.the longer you carry your deceit on the bigger the fool you become. be a bigger man than your messiah and admit you tried to deceive the people on this forum for years.

December 26, 2013 at 9:53 p.m.
workinjay said...

Soakya, I have and idea as a way for Alprova to get out of his lie. Since he isn't man enough to admit to the truth, he could say that he originally posted that he was a CPA because he planned on passing the exam to get a license, but then because of his health, was unable to take the exam. Then he could say that he continued to say he was a CPA just to give us something to waste our time on. What do you think? I'd buy that if he'd post it. Heck, he could even copy and paste it. He sure knows how to do that function.

December 26, 2013 at 10:03 p.m.
workinjay said...

Alprova. Where did you go buddy?

December 26, 2013 at 10:06 p.m.
soakya said...

workingjay, that would certainly be more believable than the lies he has told for years concerning his license. come on alprova what state are you practicing in? where's your office?

December 26, 2013 at 10:10 p.m.
workinjay said...

Alprova, Are you pouting because I called you out on your lies again, or because I called you lard ass? I'm sorry for calling you lard ass. Seriously, I am. Now come back out to play.

December 26, 2013 at 10:13 p.m.
alprova said...

workinjay wrote: "Oh yeah, he doesn't even own the car lot that he claims to own. He just manages it. That can be easily found online too. No credentials or expertise needed to find that out either."

Okay...okay...enough of this crap.

I own nothing. I manage nothing. I am a one legged man with nothing to my name. I am drawing disability. I'm currently a Georgia Medicare receipient. I've got an Obamaphone. I owe my soul to every creditor imaginable. I spend all my money on booze and expensive cigars. My food stamps keep me in the lifestyle I have become accustomed to. I weigh 500 lbs. I depend on the government for every cent I have. I live in a section 8 apartment. My internet is even paid for by the Gov't. I am a leach, sucking from the Government teat. I would thank all you fine people for going to work each day to support my fat ass, but I feel you owe me, 'cause I'm so poor and can't do no more.

I'm learning to ride up and down the sidewalk on my new $6,000 electric wheel chair that was bought and paid for by the Gov't. I like to see how much traffic I can back up here in my little town each day.

Obama is the man!!! He feels MY pain and he takes care of me.

Will the above satisfy you hyenas, allowing you to feel superior to someone else and allow the conversation to return to the subject at hand, rather than to discuss how it is that I earn a living?

No one is going to run me off, nor will any of your accusations ever be proven, but please feel free to refer to my above "confession" if it makes you feel better. Feel free to cut and paste it, post it once a week, if it raises your self-esteem.

December 26, 2013 at 10:21 p.m.
alprova said...

soakya wrote: "so your name isn't listed and you are not concerned that it is not listed but you cared enough to post you are a cpa but don't care to have the data base corrected. Right, sorry al but its you who are the fool if you believe any objective person is buying you bs."

Sir, I have never had any need to market my services to the public. My services are very private and they will remain so.

Believe what you wish. My life will go on just fine whether or not you consider me to be a liar.

December 26, 2013 at 10:25 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo is a congenital liar. Period.

December 26, 2013 at 10:26 p.m.
soakya said...

its already been proven you lied and continue to lie. you just need to come clean. I guess your progressive buddies will now come to your rescue since you are the victim of your own doings.

December 26, 2013 at 10:28 p.m.
alprova said...

workinjay wrote: "Hey lard ass, screw the internet. Reference my previous post. Others may be using the net, but not me. I went straight to the source. Not the source of the lie, because that would be you. "

You went to the source? What source is that?

Do you really believe that there is one person or agency anywhere in the entire United States that has access to every licensed CPA throughout the entire nation?

You're delusional. No such person or agency exists.

Anyway, I've offered my personal "confession." There's nothing to argue about anymore. You win. I'm just another bum.

Let me root through the garbage in peace.

December 26, 2013 at 10:29 p.m.
soakya said...

your comments prove you are not a cpa. you are clueless as to the procedure involved in licensing. states license cpa's. it is public record. they supply cpaverify with cpa's in their state. or you can go to each individual state and check a license status. a license is only good for the state you are practicing in. you live in ga, you must be practicing in ga or tn so you have to have either a tn or ga license and neither state board list you. give it up al.

December 26, 2013 at 10:35 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

The license does not exist. If it did, Alps would have posted it on here long ago. He's caught in this massive deception and can't extricate himself. As for me, I think it's funny as hell.

December 26, 2013 at 10:36 p.m.
alprova said...

soakya wrote: "you can only practice in the state you are licensed in. are you practicing in tn or ga. where is your office located?"

Nunya. You're full of ASSumptions, but no proof whatsoever. THe fact is you have no idea where I practice and you never will, unless you start stepping up your method of research, 'cause right now, it sure sucks.

December 26, 2013 at 10:37 p.m.
soakya said...

so you travel to another state to practice. do you do this on a daily basis. so the state laws of accountancy do not apply to you. why are you doing this to yourself?

December 26, 2013 at 10:40 p.m.
alprova said...

soakya wrote: :"its already been proven you lied and continue to lie. you just need to come clean. I guess your progressive buddies will now come to your rescue since you are the victim of your own doings."

What proof? You have not an iota of proof. Do you have any idea what the word "proof" means?

You guys are acting like anyone but the three of you gives two hoots about what I do for a living.

They don't.

It has nothing at all to do with my posts or my positions, and no matter how hard you try to tear it down, my credibility will remain intact.

December 26, 2013 at 10:42 p.m.
soakya said...

you are tearing yourself down. you have no creditability. lets see, the agency that license cpa's says you are not a cpa, you say you are, who to believe? and your asking me do I know what proof is? have you been diagnosed insane?

December 26, 2013 at 10:47 p.m.
alprova said...

soakya wrote: "your comments prove you are not a cpa. you are clueless as to the procedure involved in licensing. states license cpa's. it is public record. they supply cpaverify with cpa's in their state. or you can go to each individual state and check a license status. a license is only good for the state you are practicing in. you live in ga, you must be practicing in ga or tn so you have to have either a tn or ga license and neither state board list you. give it up al."

You have no idea whatsoever where I am listed, where my practice is, and you don't even have the correct name in which to look me up properly.

And you never will. I am a fiction of your imagination. I have no identity. I am as easily dismissed as déjà vu. I am a man in black.

I am often referred to as "A"

December 26, 2013 at 10:50 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo's credibility = 🚽

December 26, 2013 at 10:52 p.m.
soakya said...

so your name is not Anthony Provancher? if it is just need the last name. if that's your name you are not a cpa. if its not then I will let it be but that's what your profile says.

December 26, 2013 at 10:54 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo, the Man in Black. aka "A". Funny stuff right there.

December 26, 2013 at 10:55 p.m.
workinjay said...

Alprova,

I don't think you're a bum, nor do I think you buy expensive cigars. I just think you're a liar. You proved it and continue to prove it and make yourself look more foolish with every post you make trying to defend your lie. And who said anything about running you off?

December 26, 2013 at 10:55 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Don't leave, Alps. You give me great yucks.

December 26, 2013 at 10:58 p.m.
alprova said...

pt wrote: "The license does not exist. If it did, Alps would have posted it on here long ago."

Why would I? To satisfy the curiosity of a few hyenas who can't stand me? Do any one of you believe for one second that I care what you believe? You're idiots in my book.

You'll never put so much as a penny in my hand and we'll never share a table in a restaurant, so what do I care if you believe me to be deceiving anyone?

"He's caught in this massive deception and can't extricate himself. As for me, I think it's funny as hell."

It is funny as hell, and you're the biggest joke embroiled in all of this, and I can post the proof, if you want me to. You filed bankruptcy last summer and I can prove it. You sent me an email that can be traced to your very address, and it matches perfectly that which was posted in the TFP.

Can you prove what I typed above is not the case?

Ya' just don't know when to keep those fingers still, do ya'?

December 26, 2013 at 10:58 p.m.
workinjay said...

PlainTruth, now that is funny.

December 26, 2013 at 11 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

A big lie and you know it. Post what you like you buffoon.

And Alpy, remember, Oh what a tangled web we weave…and so forth.

December 26, 2013 at 11:03 p.m.
workinjay said...

Alprova, I'm done for tonight. I'll leave you alone until next time.

I'm out fellows. God bless those who tell the truth and please have mercy on those who don't.

December 26, 2013 at 11:03 p.m.
alprova said...

soakya wrote: "so your name is not Anthony Provancher? if it is just need the last name. if that's your name you are not a cpa. if its not then I will let it be but that's what your profile says."

That's all you're gettin' from me, Sherlock Holmes. I confirm or deny nothing. You're the sleuth and you believe you have a case to present to the jury.

So far, your case hasn't even risen to the level as circumstantial evidence, because you haven't presented any evidence.

You cannot prove a negative, yet you believe you have.

December 26, 2013 at 11:05 p.m.
soakya said...

tell you what alprova I'm done with it any way. I have already proved you are nothing more than a liar who refuses to come clean and if you can live with yourself so be it, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you because you are just destroying any creditability you may have had. you don't even know the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence. please seek help you need it.

December 26, 2013 at 11:06 p.m.
alprova said...

pt wrote: "A big lie and you know it. Post what you like you buffoon."

Well...why not? You do, and you asked for it this time. Don't expect me to retract this time. I've tried repeatedly to make peace with you and it never works.

"And Alpy, remember, Oh what a tangled web we weave…and so forth."

You spun the web on the web and unlike my name being absent on the web, yours is easily found and I can prove it.

December 26, 2013 at 11:10 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

You can find a name like mine. Glad my name isn't Jim Smith. You and little Easy would have a field day.

December 26, 2013 at 11:12 p.m.
alprova said...

Moe and Curly, the other two clowns, are hiding behind their anonymous nics. What chickens they are.

C'mon guys...post YOUR names and let's do some checking into who you are and what you do for a living, how many times you have been arrested, whether or not you are on some county's sex offender lists, etc.

You slither with the snakes and you both know it.

December 26, 2013 at 11:14 p.m.
soakya said...

see alprova this is why you have no friends. you were exposed on this forum after remaining anonymous for years and now you call others chicken for doing what you did for years, remained anonymous. the only reason your name is known is because you were put in a position that you had to reveal it otherwise you would still be anonymous. typical hypocrisy of the progressive. seek help alprova you need it.

December 26, 2013 at 11:20 p.m.
alprova said...

pt wrote: "You can find a name like mine."

Hey, if I had filed bankruptcy, I would tell that tale too. It's really not something many people would be proud to admit.

Too many people remember that you originally posted under your real name, and your posts ARE still in the archives.

Connecting the dots would take about five minutes, if that.

But...I'm not going to do that. As far as I know, you respected my privacy, even though you truly don't like me at all.

But, since you have called me a liar one time too many, I claim to have proof that you did indeed file for bankruptcy.

Anyone can consider it true or false based on my word, because that's all I am offering...my word that it is true and that I do have proof that it is true.

Lots of people file for bankruptcy. Why not admit that you were one of them? No one knows you on a personal level.

You can prove me wrong, can't you?

See how this all works?

They can't find me in a silly database that could never in any way have the name of every licensed CPA across this great nation, but they believe they have latched onto proof positive that I have lied, and you are certain that they are correct.

I'm truly done with this issue, but there is no way that you are going to get a retraction this time from me. You don't care if you trash me cyber reputation, so I'm happy to return the favor.

'nighty nite...

December 26, 2013 at 11:28 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Come on Al you SOS pull the trigger.

P.T. if he does so and it is actionable and you need investors I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to chip in for a cut of what you extract from his a##. Which in my estimate would be very little or none but we would have the satisfaction of legal discovery.

December 26, 2013 at 11:40 p.m.
alprova said...

soakya wrote: "see alprova this is why you have no friends."

I have lots of friends. Ten of them got together and built me a ramp to both my home and my office. No charge. They even bought the lumber.

Those are REAL friends.

"you were exposed on this forum after remaining anonymous for years and now you call others chicken for doing what you did for years, remained anonymous. the only reason your name is known is because you were put in a position that you had to reveal it otherwise you would still be anonymous."

Others in this forum corrected you to that particular lie of yours last week. I revealed my name of my own free will. Most would still not know it, had I remained anonymous. You would not know that name had I not posted it and changed my profile.

No one 'outed me.'

Sir, it's time to quit playing with you. You are now permanently on my troll list, for you have no desire to post anything resembling facts. You keep telling the same lies over and over, even when others attempt to correct you.

Post what you will. It will be promptly ignored, like that of a couple of other people.

You are indeed a pathetic coward, for you enjoy hiding behind your monitor while lobbing unsubstantiated accusations, without ever achieving an ounce of proof to a thing you post.

I'm sure it would be a hoot to check you out in the same manner you believe you have me.

C'mon...post YOUR name. Let's see what I can find out about you, cluck cluck...

December 26, 2013 at 11:56 p.m.
alprova said...

The resident troll Supreme wrote: "P.T. if he does so and it is actionable and you need investors I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to chip in for a cut of what you extract from his a##. Which in my estimate would be very little or none but we would have the satisfaction of legal discovery."

Oh my...I'm quaking in my bunny slipper at the thought that the best cutter and paster, the most anti-social poster, not to mention now a declared armchair Attorney, is gleefully rubbing her paws in anticipation of getting in on some imaginary legal action.

It's only actionable if it is not true, but you'll never know Mommie Dearest, for I have already declared that I have no intention of posting such proof.

Stand down Bobbie Leah Cook...

December 27, 2013 at 12:05 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

You're FOS, Alpy. And the ultimate forum liar.

December 27, 2013 at 8:20 a.m.
soakya said...

I'm medical doctor but don't expect to find me on some silly data base the state keeps so people can check the status of their license. Of course I'm not a doctor but that's how insane you sound. seek medical help you are desperate need.

December 27, 2013 at 10:45 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

soakya, I would still like to hear from a CPA regarding this "golden list" and whether all CPA's in the country must be on it.

December 27, 2013 at 12:39 p.m.
soakya said...

lkeitlu,

golden list? states issue licenses. you can go to each individual state to check the status of a cpa license just as you can a educator license or you can go to cpaverify where I believe 38 states report. cpa's are not like educators while you may be able to teach at a private school without a educators license you cannot even hold yourself out as an accountant in the state of TN without a cpa license. cpa's are the only people who are allowed to perform and sign off on financial audits. these golden list are so the public can check the status of a license holder and to make sure if someone says they are a cpa they are a cpa. its not a list where cpa's volunteer to be on, if you are a cpa you are listed, and if you are not listed and you are a cpa you would correct the problem.

December 27, 2013 at 10:11 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Still want to hear from a cpa that everyone who is a cpa is on the list.

December 28, 2013 at 8:47 a.m.
soakya said...

you need to be a cpa to understand this? you are an educator and you can't understand this! there is a former cpa on this forum don't recall who but why don't you ask her. also ask her if her name isn't on the state board list would she correct the problem? be hard to prove to clients you are in fact a cpa if the agency that issues licenses says you ain't.

December 28, 2013 at 11:10 a.m.
soakya said...

if you find her I bet her name is on the "golden list"

December 28, 2013 at 11:34 a.m.
soakya said...

i'm not sure but it might have been anniebell. I believe she rescues animals now.

December 28, 2013 at 11:48 a.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

“Forgive, O Lord, my little jokes on Thee And I'll forgive Thy great big one on me.”

― Robert Frost

“All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry.”

― Edgar Allan Poe

stanleyyelnatsDotCom

December 29, 2013 at 3:32 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

last word: Quack...

December 29, 2013 at 3:36 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.