published Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013

Marriage Equality

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

215
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
alprova said...

How many times have I heard, in the past week, that Chris Christie is a Republican turncoat, for deciding NOT to challenge the court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage to go forward in New Jersey?

The more that man does, the more convinced he has a shot at the Presidency, if he runs.

This country needs more Republicans like him!!

October 23, 2013 at 12:27 a.m.
fairmon said...

I like him alprova but some will say we already have a lot of republicans like him, they are called democrats. Bennett sure is a recycler. I won't bother to post my charges against those that have no qualms about discriminating against people who prefer being single but are too greedy to stop the discrimination and take the incentive away. Greed is second only to fear among the greatest motivations of most Americans. Greed has replaced the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the American driver.

October 23, 2013 at 1:26 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "I like him alprova but some will say we already have a lot of republicans like him, they are called democrats."

A party jump may well be in his future, as may in the future of many current Republicans who desire to distance themselves from Tea Party Republicans.

"Bennett sure is a recycler."

Who knew? I do separate aluminum cans myself, which I sell for a few bucks per year.

"I won't bother to post my charges against those that have no qualms about discriminating against people who prefer being single but are too greedy to stop the discrimination and take the incentive away."

You presume that gay marriage is all about tax advantages that come with it. Most people marry out of love.

"Greed is second only to fear among the greatest motivations of most Americans."

I see. So your being upset that you pay more in taxes because you CHOOSE to remain single, is not in any manner associated with greed?

"Greed has replaced the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the American driver."

As I always remind you when you bring up the subject, you know just what to do, in order to boost your bank accounts whenever you file your taxes.

I think it's sad that you prefer isolation and separatism as opposed to the joy of sharing your life with someone else in marriage.

If money is all that motivates you, might I suggest you open a business. I'm sure that you can find all kinds of legal expense deductions that come with such a venture, and that will pad your wallet.

October 23, 2013 at 1:48 a.m.
fairmon said...

alrpova said....

You presume that gay marriage is all about tax advantages that come with it. Most people marry out of love.

alprova..that is not the case since most ot those clamoring for it point out the need to cover a spouse with benefits etc. It is not essential to obtain a state license to be committed or married.

October 23, 2013 at 4:51 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

So your being upset that you pay more in taxes because you CHOOSE to remain single, is not in any manner associated with greed?

I don't consider wanting to keep as much as others with the same income greedy at all. I don't consider objecting to having more confiscated and redistributed than others with the same income as greedy at all.

I think it's sad that you prefer isolation and separatism as opposed to the joy of sharing your life with someone else in marriage.

I am by no means isolated and enjoy the company and companionship of a beautiful lady often. I know more married people that share misery due to codependence than happiness. There is no justification for the discrimination and I think you know that. The blatant discrimination is one of the many reasons I support the fair tax proposal that is getting more attention recently. I have little hope it will ever see the light of day as long as the current congress is in office.

October 23, 2013 at 5:06 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

If money is all that motivates you, might I suggest you open a business. I'm sure that you can find all kinds of legal expense deductions that come with such a venture, and that will pad your wallet.

I am not displeased with my current income and prefer what I do over the headache of owning and managing a business. That has nothing to do with objecting to disparate treatment and seeing more of what I earned squandered by do nothing politicians than those married with a house full of rug rats simply because they are a voting majority. Those who spout off about allowing choices and fairness stop short when they may be adversely affected and lose their favored status. Married is just another special interest group being shown favor by the elected elite.

October 23, 2013 at 5:16 a.m.
MTJohn said...

fairmon said...I don't consider wanting to keep as much as others with the same income greedy at all. I don't consider objecting to having more confiscated and redistributed than others with the same income as greedy at all.

Yet, you would suggest that gay couples who object to having more confiscated and redistributed than others with the same income are greedy. Something in your logic does not compute.

October 23, 2013 at 6:06 a.m.
joneses said...

You people are discussing nothing. It is impossible for a man to be married to a man and a woman be married to a woman. Same sex marriage does not exist. I was introduced once to a same sex couple that said they were married and my thoughts were, "what ever". Did you ever notice that this was not even spoken about until the marriage penalty was removed by President George Bush? This is all about money and nothing about marriage as It is impossible for two people of the same sex to be married.

Time for another hate filled, intolerant cartoon from bennett so we can move on.

October 23, 2013 at 6:10 a.m.
joneses said...

We have all these issues obama has created like the destroying of America's health system, the destruction and weakening of our military and national defense, the weakening of our borders, the addition of 7 trillion dollars to Americas debt, the destruction of families, the destruction of the economy, the continued lies from obama, the most divisive person to ever occupy the White House, the killing of innocent civilians by obama's drones, obama using the IRS to attack those that disagree with him, the lowest unemployment rate among women ever, obama abandoning the brave men in Benghazi, obama supplying arms to the drug cartels in Mexico, and many other failures of this anti-American that occupies the White House. And all the liberals and obama want to discuss is gays and omen's contraception. What is this liberal infatuation with genitalia?

October 23, 2013 at 7:03 a.m.
anniebelle said...

whew, there's so many lies to unpack in your tirade, I'll just leave you in your fantasy land of Beckistan.

October 23, 2013 at 7:17 a.m.
anniebelle said...

We do have a history in this country of denying rights. It wasn't until 1896 that blacks were allowed to marry each other. Much later when they were allowed to marry a white person. Are you so insecure in your ownsexuality, you're afraid you might turn all gay if they're allowed to marry the person they love. Pitiful.

October 23, 2013 at 7:26 a.m.
fairmon said...

mtjohn said...

Yet, you would suggest that gay couples who object to having more confiscated and redistributed than others with the same income are greedy. Something in your logic does not compute.

You will not find where I have ever objected to gay marriage. In fact it is another free choice item I don't think any government should intervene in. What logic did you use to conclude I objected. I understand their motivation and those objecting, which I don't, need to quit discriminating and the issue essentially goes away.

October 23, 2013 at 7:38 a.m.
anniebelle said...

There are certain areas that government needs to stay out of, such as marriage, a woman's uterus, their spirituality and many personal decisions we as humans have to make on a daily basis. Gay couples should have the same rights as any heterosexual couple, which I'm sure only marry each other out of pure love. I believe there's something in our constitution that says "all men are created equal". Now, I'm not talking about the penchant you southern men have for farm animals, I'm talking about marrying another human being.

October 23, 2013 at 7:53 a.m.
fairmon said...

anniebelle said...

Are you so insecure in your own sexuality, you're afraid you might turn all gay if they're allowed to marry the person they love. Pitiful.

I have no objection and I think no government should have or pass a law that denies a liberty or freedom where no harm is done to another citizen. I don't agree the motivation is "love", it is a financial issue. Marriage does not confirm love or strengthen it. Commitment and loyalty can exist between two unmarried people as well and in some cases better than between those married. Do you agree with the over 1000 ways singles are discriminated against? Are you among those this insist people should be married and will craft laws and other ways to encourage marriage? Wonder if that has anything to do with the high divorce rates?

October 23, 2013 at 7:53 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Shall we earnestly pray that the guy on the right does not portray Mr Bennett's own marriage? Shall we call Mr Bennett a monogaphobe bigot who needs to repent? Certainly the evolvers of the "marriage penalty" in any of its forms--I hear tell O'Romneycare has added some new forms--are doing as monogaphobe bigots would do. Have not the subsidizers of fornication heard that Dan Quayle was right?

October 23, 2013 at 7:58 a.m.
fairmon said...

anniebelle said...

There are certain areas that government needs to stay out of, such as marriage, a woman's uterus, their spirituality and many personal decisions we as humans have to make on a daily basis.

That sounds like you don't agree with the discriminatory tax laws and other government intervention in support or denial of marriage.

October 23, 2013 at 8:01 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

What's missing is the dejected Mad Hatter waving a Bible.

Since I always look to the Good Book to find answers to my questions, let's listen to the red-letter words of the Master to find our direction.

Please remain standing and reach into your pockets for a "Love Offering" as your minister needs a new white Cadillac to spread the Good News!

Please don't worry! Here's the sequel and He's coming back!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6B1D0oyBK8

Thank you and have a Blessed Day!

October 23, 2013 at 8:08 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

Dayton, if you would stand up straight, your knuckles won't drag the ground.

October 23, 2013 at 8:32 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

antibelle said: "There are certain areas that government needs to stay out of, such as marriage, a woman's uterus, their spirituality and many personal decisions we as humans have to make on a daily basis." Belle, I think your account has been hacked

October 23, 2013 at 8:33 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

OK, annie, what do you think about legalizing polygamy?

October 23, 2013 at 8:34 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

Alkarma, you can have ol' humpty dumpty.

October 23, 2013 at 8:37 a.m.
conservative said...

Homosexuals/sodomites are sinful wicked people:

But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.Genesis 13:13

October 23, 2013 at 8:45 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

conservative said...

Homosexuals/sodomites are sinful wicked people:

"But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly."

Doesn't that make the Almighty Jumping Jehovah a voyeur, a kind of Peeping Lord?

October 23, 2013 at 8:50 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "alprova..that is not the case since most ot those clamoring for it point out the need to cover a spouse with benefits etc. It is not essential to obtain a state license to be committed or married."

You're right, and there are many who are quite content to have the civil ceremony.

Still others desire to have the right to hold the hand of their spouse who may be dying in a hospital, and yes, to receive certain advantages that come with marriage.

The point being, why deny anyone on the face of this planet, that which you personally do not want, just because you consider it "unfair" that you are taxed a little more?

Are you so selfish with all you have, that you are totally unwilling to pool your assets with another person, presumably a female, to share your lives 24/7/365?

You are aware that if that is what keeps you single, there are plenty of Attorneys who can draw up a little thing called a prenuptial agreement.

If it's not due to your fear of losing assets in a divorce, then what keeps you single?

I believe you related that you had someone in your life, but that you lived in two separate homes.

Whining about your tax situation all the time doesn't seem to make sense, for there has to be some other reason why you prefer to remain single.

In the meantime, you seem to be most willing to side with others who would stand in the way of other people's pursuit of happiness, which by the way is something you raised as an issue just last night in your condemnation of the mandate that is a part of ObamaCare, just because your ticked off that they are most willing to seek an official bond that will provide to them the financial benefits that you reject for yourself.

Personally, I live and let live.

I truly see no reason to not allow people to live their lives as they choose, and I see no reason whatsoever to prevent anyone from making any choice in their life they so desire, as long as it does not in any manner harm another soul.

Gay marriage is spreading around the globe, with the exception of areas controlled by religious zealots.

Might as well get used to it, for no one in this nation will ever attain enough power to stop it.

I'm quite sure, however, that this certain reality will not end verbal and written objections to it.

October 23, 2013 at 9:01 a.m.
conservative said...

Do not be deceived Homosexuals are counted as the wicked:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Genesis 19:4-7

October 23, 2013 at 9:10 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "I don't consider wanting to keep as much as others with the same income greedy at all. I don't consider objecting to having more confiscated and redistributed than others with the same income as greedy at all."

You can take a crap in one hand and wish in the other that you will one day prevail in changing the tax system and all the relevant deductions that are a part of it, but which hand is likely to be filled first?

"I am by no means isolated and enjoy the company and companionship of a beautiful lady often. I know more married people that share misery due to codependence than happiness."

That's nothing more than an excuse for a man unwilling to commit to a relationship.

"There is no justification for the discrimination and I think you know that."

Well then, spend the rest of your single life writing letters to the 535 people in Washington D.C. who can end what you feel is an act of discrimination, cross your fingers, and hope for the best.

"The blatant discrimination is one of the many reasons I support the fair tax proposal that is getting more attention recently."

I too support the Fair Tax, for many reasons, but you don't think for one second that it would ever fly without amendments to it that would reduce taxation on families, do you?

Let's face some reality. The Fair Tax has been bantered by small factions of Congress for two decades and it has gone exactly nowhere.

It would take an entire upheaval of Congress to get it onto the floor for a vote, and it's passage would only be possible if there were a Libertarian majority in Congress.

Do you really see that happening in either one of our lifetimes?

"I have little hope it will ever see the light of day as long as the current congress is in office."

Touché

October 23, 2013 at 9:15 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Conservative: You're peeing up a rope. So is Bennett. Nation has bigger fish to fry than this minnow.

October 23, 2013 at 9:16 a.m.
tifosi said...

conservative is really a closet queen.

October 23, 2013 at 9:19 a.m.
degage said...

Old tired recycled subject. Guess Bennett wants to keep the big problems in the country from being discussed to much.

Sebelus says Obama didn't know what was going on with ACA, nothing new there, seems he never knows about anything. His answer is always "I didn't know".

October 23, 2013 at 9:20 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Madam Gage: this administration would rather lie than tell the truth. habitual.

October 23, 2013 at 9:28 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "I am not displeased with my current income and prefer what I do over the headache of owning and managing a business."

Okay. Now we know that's out.

"That has nothing to do with objecting to disparate treatment and seeing more of what I earned squandered by do nothing politicians than those married with a house full of rug rats simply because they are a voting majority."

I see. By choosing the words you just related, it is an easy stretch to assume that you hate children, and the tax deductions that come with having them too.

Only 44% of adults in this nation are married. About 44% of women of child-bearing age have no children. Do you know what this means?

The laws of taxation favor a minority of Americans. That should REALLY tick you off.

"Those who spout off about allowing choices and fairness stop short when they may be adversely affected and lose their favored status."

Well personally, I feel that your choice to not work and to live off of the fruits of investing, should be taxed at the same rate, or even higher, than income of those who do work, because you, yourself, are enjoying a favored status.

But I'm sure you don't want to broach that issue for more than a minute, do you?

"Married is just another special interest group being shown favor by the elected elite."

Don't forget the tax deductions and credits that can come without marriage. You can simply sire a kid or a couple of dozen and reduce that bottom line too. You will have to actually be responsible for raising them however.

October 23, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

The administration finally fired someone. This guy fired for "criticizing" policy. Should be given Medal of Freedom.....Jofi Joseph was a director in the non-proliferation section of the National Security Staff at the White House, The Daily Beast reported. For the last two and a half years, Joseph posted snarky tweets that criticized government policies and his bosses, including President Barack Obama. Jofi unlucky. Had he worked for the State Dept or IRS, or HHS, he would have just been reassigned

October 23, 2013 at 9:37 a.m.
alprova said...

joneses wrote: "You people are discussing nothing."

So true. It doesn't involve Obama, so that kinda leaves you with nothing to bash the man for today, does it?

"It is impossible for a man to be married to a man and a woman be married to a woman. Same sex marriage does not exist."

You're absolutely correct. We'll see you in a couple of days, when we are discussing REAL issues, okay?

"I was introduced once to a same sex couple that said they were married and my thoughts were, "what ever"."

What? You didn't immediately tell them that it was "impossible" for them to be married?

"Did you ever notice that this was not even spoken about until the marriage penalty was removed by President George Bush? This is all about money and nothing about marriage as It is impossible for two people of the same sex to be married."

Whatever the timeline may be that involves the movement for gay marriage, it is going to proceed, with or without the consent, foot-stomping, or vein-popping outrage by anyone opposed to it.

October 23, 2013 at 9:43 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Do you agree with the over 1000 ways singles are discriminated against?"

You posed that question to Annie, but I want to wade in on it too.

Yes I do.

"Are you among those this insist people should be married and will craft laws and other ways to encourage marriage?"

Whether or not anyone "should" be married is a personal decision.

"Wonder if that has anything to do with the high divorce rates?"

Now Fairmon, you wouldn't want to stand in the way of a driving force of our economy, now would you?

Divorces represent big business, both for enterprising Attorneys and civil courts. Eliminating a big block of business would displace many people onto the rolls of the unemployed.

We can't have that, now can we?

October 23, 2013 at 9:54 a.m.
conservative said...

Sodomy is unnatural or abnormal sexual intercourse - Your Dictionary.com

October 23, 2013 at 10:12 a.m.
AgentX said...

I disagree with same-sex marriage.

October 23, 2013 at 10:15 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Saudi Arabia severs diplomatic ties with US over response to conflict in Syria

More splendid work by our ace State Dept...Sheesh

October 23, 2013 at 10:18 a.m.
caddy said...

In other news:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-woman-marries-building-protest-demolition-224250710.html

and don't forget: now that we've "opened" this up, the pedophiles are now clamoring for their "rights". After all: if men ( and women ) are born this way, how can we say anything BAD about the pedophile who simply wants to "love" children. Islam is Ok with it and has been for centuries. No one seems to want to get into their business about that though, right ?

October 23, 2013 at 10:28 a.m.
caddy said...

Good Point Andrew:

"Shall we earnestly pray that the guy on the right does not portray Mr Bennett's own marriage? Shall we call Mr Bennett a monogaphobe bigot who needs to repent?"

Apparently Clay preferred women, so he married one, but it would have been "ok" if he had married a man--because that would mean he was born with that proclivity, and let's continue with that logic as above: If he had been born with the proclivity to marry a building or have sex with children, who should be able to tell him: HE is WRONG ?

October 23, 2013 at 10:37 a.m.
caddy said...

Some Notes:

1 of 2

As for being tolerant of the homosexual and the homosexual agenda, I would reply: Let's be honest with each other. We both know gays are the ones who reject what is different from themselves. They reject the challenge of the other sex, God's natural order & choose to disorder themselves. Absolutely, they may be born with certain feminine characteristics and it may very well be they fight an uphill battle due to it. I agree with them being born with "tendencies too". Here's the reasoning, however: Homosexuals ask you to accept them for who they are. They say they were born that way. Ok, and what of the person who is born with the tendency to lie and steal--or worse ? Should we "accept them for who they are ? As I state below: the most loving thing we can do is tell them the truth. God calls it a Sin. They should turn from it the same as I should turn from heterosexual lust--which only serves to strengthen my marriage and honors my wife and God above. Thing is: homosexuals are not interested in honoring any one save their urges. Their whole life revolves around a disordered sexual urge. We were meant to be much more than sexual beings--both on this earth and beyond it.

When i hear: I have a committed gay relationship.

The reality: The committed gay relationship is a myth. Research shows that homosexuals with partners don't stop cruising, they just cruise less.

How often do we hear: You're demeaning my dignity.

I respect your dignity as a human being, but when you practice acts you'd be ashamed for heterosexuals to know about, you demean your own dignity. Again: that which God had ordered--homosexuals disorder, then ask that you accept them and be tolerant of that disorder.

The fallacy: There's nothing wrong with gay love.

The reality: Tell me what's loving about sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain. You might start by explaining the meaning of the medical term Gay Bowel Syndrome, or how people get herpes lesions on their tonsils. Working in the medical field, I can give first hand accounts: Disordered and unnatural sex--especially over long periods of time reeks havoc on the body.

Often you will hear: By what right do you tell me whom to love?

I would reply: I'm not telling you whom to love; I'm telling you that there is nothing loving about mutual self-destruction.

How often have we heard the argument: You're demeaning my love for my partner.

I respect friendship wherever I find it, but sex doesn't make every friendship better. It distorts the friendship of two men, just as it distorts the friendship of a father with his daughter.

October 23, 2013 at 10:40 a.m.
caddy said...

2 of 2

Gay is just as natural for some people as straight is for other people they say.

The reality: Homosexual union is a kind of narcissism. You are trying to unite with yourself in a mirror.

They will say: You hate people like me.

I would reply: You seem to think that love for you requires not telling you the truth. I think love for you requires telling you the truth.

Militant Gays are quick to say: How dare you oppose hate crimes legislation?

Reality: Murder and beating are already illegal. It's hard to see how murdering for hate is worse than murdering for fun or for greed.

Homosexuals say: I believe in equal treatment for every sexual orientation.

Really ? All 23 + ? I thought you might, but sexual lust for kids, sexual lust for the dead, and sexual lust for animals are sexual orientations too. The North American Man-Boy Love Association has been marching in gay pride parades for years. ( You no doubt know about this too, but probably deny anything wrong with it ). You say there is no progression to this sort of thing. Obviously you are a fool, deaf, dumb & blind if you think so. We would not be having this conversation 40-50 years ago. While there is nothing new under the sun & this sin has been around from the beginning, no one in those societies sought normalization and validation. Why ? While they loved their sin, they knew it was debauchery and society should not & would not normalize it.

How often have we heard the past few years: I can't see why marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman, not two men or two women, other variations?

I would ask: Then where do you stop? How about a man and two women? Or a woman and two men? Or a man and a boy? Godless Fools do not see logical progression.

How often have we heard in the news: It's wrong to discriminate according to sexual orientation in employment.

Logic replies: It all depends on the job. If employment discrimination means not letting sodomy advocates near kids, you bet I'll discriminate. I think people should be left to make these decisions for themselves, don't you? You: Probably not.

http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/advancing_a_heterosexual_public_ethic.html

October 23, 2013 at 10:41 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Gays will be gay. Gays will get full rights. Let it go, people.

October 23, 2013 at 10:44 a.m.
caddy said...

"In the late 1950's and early 1960's, I began to notice a drift of men into perversions, and now women also. The men, for example, found that not only marital sex but also adulteries were no longer capable of exciting them. As a result, they were experimenting with anal sex, homosexuality, child molestation, incest, and like perversions as a means of reviving their flagging sexuality. The drift was appearing in their forties, at an early age. The pleasure in sex was in violating God's law and in defiling another person. The mentality of the Marquis de Sade was becoming democratized, with ugly results. The pleasure was in sin, not in godliness. This is an ancient impulse, and we see it, certainly, in the behavior of the men of Sodom (Gen. 19:1-19). The attitude of all too many is that of Caligula; when confronted with God's law, their angry response is, "Who dares teach me?" After all, who can teach a god, and, since fallen man is his own god, who can qualify to teach him? Given this premise, the modern educational goal is to teach children that they have a right to create their own value systems, and also to refuse to be bound by them."~ RJR

October 23, 2013 at 10:45 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

It's always special when Bible-Bangers quote the Old Testament for morality from Jehovah.

There's nothing like a deity that promoted rape, genocide, incest, war, slavery, and bloody sacrifice to get quality moral instruction.

Don't forget to carry your poop-paddle with you today.

"Deuteronomy (23:13) "Thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:"

(23:14) "For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp."

I bet Conservative and Caddy are wearing their Jehovah-approved poop-paddles now.

I guess that law came about when Jehovah was wearing open-toed sandals and sneaking about camp late one evening. Do you supposed when Jehovah stepped in it He exclaimed, "Jesus H. Christ?"

October 23, 2013 at 11:08 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Give it a rest, DD.

October 23, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
alprova said...

I suppose it is time to remind everyone that nowhere in the Bible, does any direct quote appear, from God or his Son, in condemnation of homosexuality.

Now that is a fact that not one person will ever refute.

Such Biblical condemnations that anyone can dig up, are ALWAYS quotations of words allegedly written by those who felt that they were empowered to offer any and all condemnations on behalf of God.

Take a few Biblical quotations out of the argument about homosexuality and gay marriage, and that leaves nothing to argue about.

I would like to propose a conciliatory proposal.

If two men or two women who desire to marry promise that they will not have sex if allowed to marry, will you homophobes and closet queens drop your objections?

I know...I know...but it was worth a shot...

October 23, 2013 at 11:25 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

PlainTruth said...

"Give it a rest, DD."

No, I won't. It's important for people to know what's in the Bible, not just the "God is love, Jesus is love, Merry Christmas and Happy Easter" stuff.

There's more laughs in the Bible than a Sunday morning faith-healing extravaganza. So if you're going to claim the Bible and Jehovah as Supreme Leader to always be followed, you've got to do the rest of the stupid stuff too!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/blogging_the_bible/features/2006/the_complete_book_of_deuteronomy/moses_turns_into_jackie_mason.html  

October 23, 2013 at 11:28 a.m.
Walden said...

We are all God's children. We have all fallen short of His desires for us. I for one am a humungous (sp?) sinner. I'll cast no stones. God created us all, and I personally believe He will save us all. It is only through His grace that we have a chance.

October 23, 2013 at 11:32 a.m.
alprova said...

Oh..my..goodness...

I have never seen that particular quotation of scripture...ever.

Good one Dayton...

And I have to hand it to you, I had to laugh when viewing the two videos a while ago.

Since we are all images of God, I'm sure that they also have fine senses of humor and got a chuckle from watching those too.

Who wouldn't find such a parody funny.

Whomever put that together deserves a spot on SNL.

October 23, 2013 at 11:32 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

ALPO: You are nothing if not predictable. Was waiting for you to side with DD.

October 23, 2013 at 11:57 a.m.

Stupid and predictable cartoon. To equate "gay" rights with the black struggle to just be viewed as human beings in this country is offensive.

October 23, 2013 at 12:02 p.m.
caddy said...

daytonsdarwin

Fair enough. On WHAT moral Basis are 22 sexual "orientations" wrong or right based upon homosexual reasoning that THEY were BORN that way ?

http://takebackcanada.com/22orientations.html

If they are Born that way, so are the other people born that way who prefer buildings, animals, children,etc -- to people of the opposite sex.

This should be good...

October 23, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Hey DD! You spout your stuff in public? Anyone ever take a swing at you? Or is it just a keyboard indulgence?

October 23, 2013 at 12:19 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

PlainTruth said...

"Hey DD! You spout your stuff in public? Anyone ever take a swing at you?"

Sure I do. I've had a few Bibles waved in my face, a couple of crazy tongue-talkers start their gibberish, even a nut-job carrying a cross assume the Jesus pose and "cast me out" of his make-believe heaven. It's lots of fun. Maybe some of these Bible Banging apoplectic red-faced clod-hoppers with bad breath and one rotten tooth will have a cardiac arrest and I can sing the Last Rites for them.

"Always Look on the Bright Side of Life." That's sure to get them into the Kingdom.

October 23, 2013 at 12:35 p.m.
caddy said...

Dear Mr. Chesterton,

I would assert that our notions of right or wrong have evolved since the benighted times of the Middle Ages, when men were more brutal, and not as well-off financially as man is today. I’d call it an improvement.

Signed,

A Progressive

Dear Progressive,

It is not true that the idea of right and wrong changes. The particular concentration on a certain sort of right changes; the relative toleration of a certain sort of wrong changes. Men in mediaeval times tolerated more ruthless punishments; men in modern times tolerate more reckless and irresponsible financial speculation and control. But a mediaeval man did not think mercy a bad thing. A modern man does not think dishonesty a good thing. The proportions differ in practice; the ethical expression differs in emphasis; but virtue is virtue and vice is vice, in all ages and for all people, except a few lunatics.

Your Friend,

G.K. Chesterton

October 23, 2013 at 12:37 p.m.
caddy said...

It never fails. Whenever some conservative takes a stand on a moral issue, some liberal somewhere will indignantly claim, “You can’t legislate morality!” How many times have you heard that worn-out phrase? Incredibly, it’s not even true. As the Apostle Paul declared in 2Cor. 10:5, Christians must “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.” It’s time we demolish the pretension, “You can’t legislate morality.”

Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s what laws put into legal form. Can you think of one law which doesn’t declare one behavior right and its opposite wrong? The truth is all laws legislate morality (even speed limits imply a moral right to life). And everyone in politics — conservatives, libertarians and liberals — is trying to legislate morality. The only question is: “Whose morality should be legislated?

October 23, 2013 at 12:39 p.m.
conservative said...

You got it all right Caddy. I have refuted Liberals in print and on talk radio for about 30 years on their lie that we can't legislate morality.

They keep trying to deceive the frail of mind, it is the nature of the wicked.

October 23, 2013 at 1:12 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Do not be deceived Homosexuals are counted as the wicked" - conservative

It's a shame con-man wasn't alive in the days when witch burning was not only legal but encouraged, at least among those who were as pious, pompous, and God-fearing as himself. He would have been on a constant high as he rounded up witches and sodomites alike, feeling all smug and pleased in his holiness as he watched them go up in flames. He probably would have had his own business as he traveled about in his horse-drawn wagon with signs on the sides that read: "Witches, homosexuals, sodomites of all kinds - you bring 'em, I'll burn 'em." As it is today he can only point his holy finger at the gays, spout a Bible quote or two, and then look forward to the day when he can gaze down from his front row seat in heaven and watch them burn in hell. Poor ol' con-man - truly a person born into the wrong time and the wrong place. He would have made a witch burner (with plenty of sodomites thrown in for good measure) his God would have been proud of.

October 23, 2013 at 1:20 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

Well personally, I feel that your choice to not work and to live off of the fruits of investing, should be taxed at the same rate, or even higher, than income of those who do work, because you, yourself, are enjoying a favored status.

But I'm sure you don't want to broach that issue for more than a minute, do you?

I have said before and repeat; Repeal all the exceptions and stop the discrimination against singles and everyone pay the published rate and I will gladly pay that rate on all income. There is no logical reason why taxes could not be reported on one page or a post card size document.

I am sure you heard the news about the billions the IRS has in error refunded in the welfare portion of the tax codes called earned income credit. The IRS is losing credibility and now they are tasked with a critical part of the AHA. It is hard to fault them when you look at the 4ft high manual if it contained every page in the tax codes. No human could fully comprehend and manage the mess congress has created over time attempting to manipulate people and the economy. They use it to punish and show favor.

October 23, 2013 at 1:27 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

Divorces represent big business, both for enterprising Attorneys and civil courts. Eliminating a big block of business would displace many people onto the rolls of the unemployed.

Fewer or unemployed attorneys and less crowded courts would be a good thing. The money would still be spent and most likely better spent as an economic catalyst in the purchase of manufactured products. Those attorneys and courts only move money around creating no value to anyone other then that which they skim off as the money moves. Money movement does increase tax revenue but it doesn't really improve the economy.

October 23, 2013 at 1:34 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

conservative said.. "They keep trying to deceive the frail of mind, it is the nature of the wicked."

A perfect summation of fundamentalist Bible-Bangers with Conservative being the Head-Thumper.

Pity the poor Mrs. Conservative.

October 23, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
caddy said...

There is a very good reason why capital punishment for such sins were instituted during the Patriarch's & Prophet's time. If these Sins gained a foot hold in society they could ruin it. We are seeing just that. Of course progressives would not say so, but again, I am yet to see some one attempt an answer concerning the other 22 sexual orientations ( given all are there at Birth ) and why ALL should not be allowed.

There's a good reason why. Romans 1 suggest ALL men know the truth, they'd rather stand on the opposite side of truth. ALL men know, children do not come from homosexual union and that Penis's were not created to go into rear ends--and that there is a Spiritual as well as Pragmatic reason WHY Children shouldn't be married to Adults nor looked on as sexual toys and conquests.

Even most liberals would agree with the last sentence. Thing is: They have absolutely no moral grounds to argue their case-given their reasoning that homosexuality is a choice. Hogwash.

Educate yourselves.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/

October 23, 2013 at 1:48 p.m.
caddy said...

Among the consequences of the unchanneled sex drive is the sexualization of everything — including religion. Unless the sex drive is appropriately harnessed (not squelched — which leads to its own destructive consequences), higher religion could not have developed. Thus, the first thing Judaism did was to de-sexualize God: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” by his will, not through any sexual behavior. This was an utterly radical break with all other religions, and it alone changed human history. The gods of virtually all civilizations engaged in sexual relations.

October 23, 2013 at 1:55 p.m.
limric said...

It’s too bad the debate about today’s cartoon is all about.....

GAYS BAD!!

Whether it’s a civil rights issue or not is kind of missing the true nature of Clay’s message. That is, the despondency of Republican/Christian rights waning influence on ‘their’ perceived absolutes of morality and influence on society as a whole. The Constitution was once a ‘revolutionary’ outrage to the rights of kings, the civil rights movement considered an outrage too. The later of the two was (as in marriage equality today) also considered abhorrent, anti-Christian and would bring about the demise of the republic. It didn’t.

I think that the loudest critics aren’t as angry about people of differing sexual orientation than their own being seen as equal, as they are having largely lost control of keeping the herd within the confines of their rules - and ONLY their rules.

Even if I find homo’s quite icky (except lipstick lesbians), I’m not willing to deny anyone their rights.

October 23, 2013 at 1:59 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

caddy said...

"Among the consequences of the unchanneled sex drive is the sexualization of everything — including religion."

That explains yours, Conservative's, and Orr's continual sexual obsession with men's butts and penises.

Do you have as much gay "research" material as Conservative and Orr? Do you study it as religiously as they do?

October 23, 2013 at 2:05 p.m.
RShultz210 said...

Anniebelle said:"I'm not talking about the penchant you southern men have for farm animals, I'm talking about marrying another human being." I had always considered you reasonably civilized and above making a statement like this, until I saw this today. Now I can see you're just as nasty and barbaric as many who post in here. You just hide it a little bit better than others.

October 23, 2013 at 2:08 p.m.
RShultz210 said...

Hey Darwin...Just curious about something. Plain Truth asked you: "Hey DD! You spout your stuff in public? Anyone ever take a swing at you?" You don't HAVE to answer me but lets say that actually happens and the person you shoot your mouth off to just HAPPENS to be a ni-dan black belt in Tae Kwan Do and he clocks you so hard that it breaks your nose AND your jaw. OK so there you are sitting on your smart ass coughing blood, blinded by the blood that splashed in your eyes when your butt hit the ground, and the dude just walks to his car and drives away. Now this is the part you don't have to answer but I'm curious so let me ask you. What ARE you going to do?

October 23, 2013 at 2:19 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Did Bennett post his toon on orders from the Messiah? Sure deflects attention from the colossal screwups made by this lame adminstration. Ah, but let's talk about sheep sex and so-forth. Regardless of the topic, DD can opine about religion. (the man coulda made a fortune as a tele-evangilist.)

October 23, 2013 at 2:24 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

I miss the banter of CHET123. HA HA HA HA!!

October 23, 2013 at 2:27 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

RShultz210 said...

Hey Darwin...Just curious about something. Plain Truth asked you: "Hey DD! You spout your stuff in public? Anyone ever take a swing at you?" You don't HAVE to answer me but lets say that actually happens and the person you shoot your mouth off to just HAPPENS to be a ni-dan black belt in Tae Kwan Do and he clocks you so hard that it breaks your nose AND your jaw. OK so there you are sitting on your smart ass coughing blood, blinded by the blood that splashed in your eyes when your butt hit the ground, and the dude just walks to his car and drives away. Now this is the part you don't have to answer but I'm curious so let me ask you. What ARE you going to do?"

Get his license number, have him arrested, and win a fabulous court settlement.

Feeling froggy?

October 23, 2013 at 2:37 p.m.
anniebelle said...

RShultz, touch a nerve there, huh? I read it in our local paper all the time. I remember a letter printed by this paper by one June Griffin in which she said I love my azalea and she wanted to marry her azalea. I can understand that would be a step up, but we're talking about human beings. Rick Santorum even suggested, 'next we'll be marrying our dogs'. Your ilk is the one that wants to make it somehow unseemly about two men or two women who love each other getting married. Not the Democrats.

October 23, 2013 at 2:59 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

antibelle. you are right. it soytainly ain't the Dems.

October 23, 2013 at 3:07 p.m.

I'm tired of hearing, reading and listening to talk show hosts discussing "gays"..enough already. Homosexuality is not a new issue, it's old as time, but the way "gays" now are demanding that they be viewed in a similar manner as "heterosexuals" is ludicrous. No matter how often it's promoted as "normal" it will never be viewed as that. Marry already, and divorce if you want, whatever, but the battle is to force, force, everyone to except it as normal. That will never happen. A man inserting his you know what in another man's you know what will never sit right with the majority of the population. Nothing can be done about that.

Whenever Obumblehead needs distractions from the absolutely crappy job he's doing his posse, including folks like Bennett, drag out the "gay" issure, or the phony topic of women being kept from getting contraception.

Obumblehead is successful at only one thing, well, maybe two, and that's vacationing, and with help of the media, making it seem as if he's not been POTUS for the last 5 years and is still campaigning.

The media is constantly trying to distract us by bringing up "gay rights" and how we've advanced because they're allowed to marry.

October 23, 2013 at 3:13 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

zablee makes some points.

October 23, 2013 at 3:16 p.m.
caddy said...

I would posit that ALL men are Bad D-to-D. Homosexuals merely identify their Sin with WHO they are.

That would be like a Kleptomaniac coming into your home and asking YOU to just accept them -- as they rob you blind -- because that is their particular Makeup they were born with.

All men are born with Proclivities to particular Sins. No one gets a pass. Not even the godless illogical atheists, Darwinist.

October 23, 2013 at 3:19 p.m.
caddy said...

Sodomites are not new. You are right Z. Nothing NEW under the sun. Even godless Rome--a hotbed of sodomites--didn't NORMALIZE this debauchery though they practiced it everywhere. Why ? They did not seek to normalize something they "knew" was un-natural. Seems the Romans were conflicted. See Romans 1.

No one gets a pass. All men understand the truth. They just don't like the truth.

October 23, 2013 at 3:21 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Tea Party could indeed be kaput. All of The Organizer's problems are self-inflicted. Can you imagine the damage that could be done by a united R party? Wow.

October 23, 2013 at 3:32 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Those attorneys and courts only move money around creating no value to anyone other then that which they skim off as the money moves. Money movement does increase tax revenue but it doesn't really improve the economy."

You've made that nonsensical statement before and this time I am calling you on it.

The movement of money from one pocket to another is most vital to any economy. In fact, it is exactly what makes an economy thrive.

What's wrong with this country at the moment is that most of the wealth that could and would be spent, is languishing in the bank accounts of too few people.

Call me a Socialist, but until there is a reversing of what has plagued this nation since at least the 1890's, when the middle class began to be dismantled, this nation is going to suffer along with tightened belts, revenue into the Government that could be used to pay down the National debt will be woefully lacking, and people like yourself are going to be popping veins worrying about it.

There is no way to deny that the most prosperous years in this nation, when a thriving middle class kept this nation humming along like clockwork, occurred during the 40 year rein when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.

October 23, 2013 at 3:41 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

zableedofisterix said...

"A man inserting his you know what in another man's you know what . . . "

Can't even say the words! How funny! So much for adult conversation with this child.

October 23, 2013 at 3:55 p.m.
alprova said...

Wow!! Who knew that there are uber-Christians out there who feel that anyone rejecting their tripe, with no desire to listen to it, should be "clocked so hard that it breaks your nose AND your jaw," by someone who "just HAPPENS to be a ni-dan black belt in Tae Kwan Do?"

But then, violence and murder is indeed a part of the Christian uprising that now dominates the Western world.

Thankfully, most Christians I know, would never resort to such violence when their beliefs are rejected.

Some people just can't take a hint that their beliefs are not shared, nor welcome for discussion.

So, instead of going door to door to spread their views, where they know it will often result in having doors slammed in their face, they infiltrate discussion forums, where they believe they can infect minds with the crap that is rolling around in their heads all day long.

October 23, 2013 at 4:02 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpolian says "Some people just can't take a hint that their beliefs are not shared, nor welcome for discussion" So Alps, would you put DD in that group? Hmmm?

October 23, 2013 at 4:06 p.m.
alprova said...

No I wouldn't, and here's why...

I have never witnessed an Atheist setting up on a street corner in a any major city, trying to snag the attention of anyone passing by, through the preaching of anti-Christianity messages or by stabbing or burning Bibles.

It is for certain that he is the polar opposite of a couple of people who frequent here, but he never fires up first.

It is always a fundamental who initiates the exchange by dragging the Bible into the conversation every single time the issue comes up.

October 23, 2013 at 4:24 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Daytonsdarwin - Rickaroo - Tifosi et al,

You’re trying to reason with religious people. If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't be any religious people.

October 23, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Caddy, I thought we were all born sinners? Have you discovered some new texts?

If we follow your line just to see where it goes, why single out homosexuality for special condemnation and ignore or forgive other named transgressions like charging interest on loans, or name calling, or criticizing/condemning someone else's sin ??

October 23, 2013 at 4:36 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

THE FOX (news) AND THE PARROT (Joneses)

The FOX: Tax cuts for the rich stimulates the economy.

The Parrot: Tax cuts for the rich stimulates the economy.

The FOX: Democrats are Socialists.

The Parrot: Democrats are Socialists.

The FOX: Obama is solely responsible for the deficit.

The Parrot: Obama is solely responsible for the deficit.

The FOX: Liberals are so dumb they’ll believe whatever they’re told.

The Parrot: Liberals are so dumb they’ll believe whatever they’re told.

:by Eric Perlin

October 23, 2013 at 4:38 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo: That is an absolute lie. DD has jumped in many times on his own. You, pal, seem to see only what you want to see. Not good, Tony. Not good.

October 23, 2013 at 4:46 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

We may be off topic. I have no issue with gays being married. In fact I would have no issue with allowing them to be bigamist. It is a fact they won't proliferate which is certainly a plus.

Call me a Socialist, but until there is a reversing of what has plagued this nation since at least the 1890's, when the middle class began to be dismantled, this nation is going to suffer along with tightened belts, revenue into the Government that could be used to pay down the National debt will be woefully lacking, and people like yourself are going to be popping veins worrying about it.

I assure you I won't pop any veins or even worry about it since I will not be affected more than I can handle but I do hate to see the country go down the tubes as both parties expend more effort protecting their positions than being effective leaders. Term limits are way passed due but will not happen.

The demise of the middle class is consistent with the reduction in jobs other than services, reduced manufacturing, mining, farming, fishing. The emerging markets with a growing middle class are increasing their manufacturing and exports.

I don't credit either party with anything other than impeding growth and being a blood sucking barnacle with the highest tax rate in the world with more exceptions for banks, brokers, insurers and other favored supporters than for those employing Americans and paying them a decent wage although some few of those pay the published rate. Two more large companies recently moved their headquarters to Ireland for the 15% rate to protect their foreign profits which will add to the rate of increase of the 1.5 trillion already held by internationals in foreign accounts. Our government could repeal all exceptions and set a 17% rate and see a major economic boom with increased tax revenue.

October 23, 2013 at 4:49 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

RShulz, what a ridiculous scenario! Daytonsdarwin answered exactly as I would. Maybe a scene like you describe could play out in the movies or in the minds of you libertarian/anarchists who wish that we could settle all differences with a gun or with fists, but in the real world the guy might drive off but he wouldn't get very far. He committed felonious assault. Not only would he probably serve time but he would most likely be sued by the victim for everything he had. You and the Christian taliban might think it's perfectly okay to "clock" somebody on account of someone saying things they don't want to hear about their religion, but someone who reacts so violently to mere spoken criticism is obviously a very unstable person and whatever belief or ideology they claim to be fighting for must lack depth or merit if it can't stand up to some verbal jousting from detractors.

Yes, there ARE nuts out there who are ready and eager to punch out somebody's lights for somebody merely saying something that rubs them the wrong way. But I seriously doubt that DD stands on street corners or in crowded bars or other public places yelling anti-Christian sentiments. I certainly don't and I don't know of any other atheists or non-believers who do either. In fact I seldom even talk about religion unless someone brings it up first or I know the person I happen to be with is amenable to talking about it. Or if we are on forums such as this where it's openly discussed.

October 23, 2013 at 5:05 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

This is set up as a public opinion forum. I will participate as I see fit unless banned by the TFP.

The above situations I mentioned have taken place in public AFTER some born-again Bible-Banger or pretend Jesus asked me, "Have you been saved? Do you know Jesus?" and the other assorted BS that's usually spewed by holy rollers.

I've had them show-up at my front door after failing to read the "No Solicitations" signs. They are politely told to leave. If they persist, I confront them and run them off my property.

I don't go door-to-door and ask people, "Have you been un-saved? Do you know about science? Have you heard the good news about evolution? Will you let reason into your mind and give up the folly of fundamentalism?"

For some reason, particularly in the South, fundamental Christian religious BS trumps private property, criticism, science, and any contradiction of someone's wacky religious beliefs.

I've yet to have a liberal Christian impose his beliefs on me, fail to read my signs, stop me on the street waving a Bible and drenching me in spittle, threaten me with hell and damnation, and telling small children they're doomed to die and burn. I've had many polite and informative conversations with non-fundies of all beliefs and learned much from them. The same can not be said of exchanges with the type of Bible-Thumpers prevalent on this forum.

I don't consider religious beliefs as sacrosanct and untouchable when they are expressed in a public forum whether it's here, public schools, or government.

I have no problem with faith. But faith is not science, not evidence, nor necessarily moral as the Bible is full of examples of Jehovah's own immorality.

I have found that most fundamentalists know little about the very Bible they claim as God's Word. Most seem stuck in a second-grade Sunday School system of "Jesus had a little lamb" fluffiness.

They have the right to be ignorant. But they don't have the right to force their ignorance in public schools and government.

I'll continue to say what I want, when I want, without approval or anyone's permission until the TFP bans me.

You fundies can continue your Holy Humping Circle Jerk and I'll continue to laugh at you.

October 23, 2013 at 5:11 p.m.
conservative said...

Christians accept that unbelievers/Atheists/heathens will practice and defend the gross sin of Homosexuality and sodomy.

However, it is both absurd and evil for anyone to profess that he is a Christian while practicing and/or defending Homosexuality and sodomy.

Furthermore, it is also absurd and evil to actually use Scripture to defend the practice of Homosexuality and sodomy.

October 23, 2013 at 5:17 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Well said, DD.

The other day two Jehovah's Witnesses came knocking on my door. One was a guy about my age (63) and there was a little girl - his granddaughter, I assumed - who looked about 10. I let him know right away, and politely, that I am an atheist, and the first thing he said was, "You do know that hell is for real, don't you?" I couldn't help but feel sorry for that little girl having to be raised among parents and grand-parents who were instilling such horrific, sadistic beliefs in her mind. Nevertheless I was willing to give him the space of having his beliefs but he was persistent in trying to educate me on the "reality" of hell. He had the cajones to come knocking on MY door, telling me that I am going to burn in hell if I don't repent. I'm sorry but you people complaining about us atheists/agnostics trying to shove our beliefs down the throats of others have it completely ass-backward. I have yet to see atheists knocking on doors pushing their beliefs on others or standing on corners trying to de-convert Christians. You Bible thumpers stop thumping your Bibles in our faces and pointing your crooked self-righteous fingers at gay people and others that you deem "unsaved," telling them they're going to hell, and we would have no need to be so vocal about our personal beliefs or religion in general.

October 23, 2013 at 5:38 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

Wow!! Who knew that there are uber-Christians out there who feel that anyone rejecting their tripe, with no desire to listen to it, should be "clocked so hard that it breaks your nose AND your jaw," by someone who "just HAPPENS to be a ni-dan black belt in Tae Kwan Do?"

I think you have that backwards as usual. The post you are referencing posed a question about someone rejecting the atheist's tripe with no desire to listen to its bigoted and intolerant message and attacking him/her violently. However your false version does seem to work better with the message you are promoting.

But then, violence and murder is indeed a part of the Christian uprising that now dominates the Western world.

Christianity's influence on Western Civilization has definitely had a detrimental effect on its culture and resulted it being relegated to lower levels of advancement in science, human rights, economics, etc. than other cultures ... Right?

October 23, 2013 at 5:43 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

I have never witnessed an Atheist setting up on a street corner in a any major city, trying to snag the attention of anyone passing by, through the preaching of anti-Christianity messages or by stabbing or burning Bibles.

This is our street corner, so there is that but unlike your intolerant close minded attitude all viewpoints are welcome for discussion. Many of us don’t live in fear as you do that someone may post something that will shatter your ideological foundations.

October 23, 2013 at 5:58 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

DD, the thing is, the circle of "fundies" on this forum is very small. Yet you rant as if you're talking to the entire board. WTF, man? You're one man against a (tiny) few on here.

October 23, 2013 at 6:02 p.m.
alprova said...

It's extremely clear that some people, in their haste to respond with inflammatory commentary to anything written by people they consider to be an enemy, demonstrate very clearly that they have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

October 23, 2013 at 6:07 p.m.
limric said...

Comprehension skills about what?

OHHH THAAT! :-D

October 23, 2013 at 6:14 p.m.
limric said...

A very interesting 4:49 p.m. post Fairmon

Paraphrased: ”I assure you I won't pop any veins or even worry about it (the plagued dismantling the middle class) since I will not be affected more than I can handle. (?) The demise of the middle class is consistent with the reduction in jobs other than services, reduced manufacturing, mining, farming, fishing.” Regarding the latter, precisely!

Aristotle wrote: ”The rise of an oligarchic state offers two routes, The impoverished masses either revolt to rectify the imbalance of wealth and power or the oligarchs establish a brutal tyranny to keep the masses forcibly enslaved.”

What do you feel in the pit of your stomach Fairmon?

The absurd utterances of promises of hope and glory are endlessly pumped out by an ever more idiotic entertainment industry, the political, the economic elite, jesters who pass themselves as journalists and think themselves a class above; self-help no nothings like Oprah or Dr. Phil and religions that assure followers that God will always protect them. It is pseudo cooperative self-delusion, a retreat into an automaton like non-thinking state. Are we, as from ‘Oryx and Crake’, “Doomed by hope.”

In “Hotel Savoy” a friend (Fairmon) asked Joseph Roth ( limric), a Jew who fled Nazi Germany for Paris, “Why are you drinking so much?”

[Reprise: ”I won't pop any veins or even worry about it since I will not be affected more than I can handle.”]

Limric answered: “Do you think you are going to escape? You too are going to be wiped out.”

Hmm….

I posit the second of Aristotle’s options has been chosen for us.

~Hedges,Aristotle,Atwood,Boorstin

October 23, 2013 at 6:19 p.m.
joneses said...

alpos

That is the pot calling the kettle black,

October 23, 2013 at 6:24 p.m.
conservative said...

To continue:

Unbelievers/Atheists/heathens who are obviously ignorant of Scripture will sometimes try to use Scripture to justify the practice of Homosexuality and sodomy.

They will go to one of many websites who will feed them with lies twisting words or Scripture that they might use to defend the practice of Homosexuality and sodomy.

One tactic of these websites is to bamboozle their willing victim with such nonsense as God or Jesus never condemned Homosexuality or sodomy.

Here is a clear refutation of that lie:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,....

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.Leviticus 20:1,13 KJV

October 23, 2013 at 6:26 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Limric, with all due respect to Aristotle, a far greater mind than I could ever hope to be, there is a 3rd route, and I believe that we are experiencing it: a significant segment of the population so brainwashed by the propaganda fed to it by the oligarchs themselves that they are oblivious to the fact that there even is an oligarchy, thus obviating any sort of brutal tyranny to keep them enslaved. They have been rendered meekly subservient by the enslavers already.

October 23, 2013 at 6:32 p.m.
tderng said...

Rickaroo said... Well said, DD.

The other day two Jehovah's Witnesses came knocking on my door. One was a guy about my age (63) and there was a little girl - his granddaughter, I assumed - who looked about 10. I let him know right away, and politely, that I am an atheist, and the first thing he said was, "You do know that hell is for real, don't you?"

hey Roo...I must call bull$hit on that story. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in Hell. They believe that those not raised into Heaven or allowed to live in Paradise on Earth will "die the second death that is eternal". Or in other words they will be annihilated as if they never were. If this truly happened to you perhaps someone was casing your house for a home invasion. They were certainly not J.W.'s

October 23, 2013 at 6:37 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

There is no way to deny that the most prosperous years in this nation, when a thriving middle class kept this nation humming along like clockwork, occurred during the 40 year rein when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.

Correlation does not imply causation. The most prosperous years for this nation was immediately following WW2 and had virtually nothing to do with who held political office. The rest of the industrial world was in tatters and we had not only the total american market to ourselves but most of the world as well. We didn’t have to be creative, productive, or farsighted in our economic preparedness. What we turn out for the most part had to be accepted.

Over the following decades the previous industrial nations rebuilt their countries’ economies and then many of the previous 3rd world countries became developing nations. We were and still are asleep at the wheel as these other countries take our economic power from us. We were so rich and powerful that we began to put our economic health at risk due to placing social issues at an unreasonable advantage above it. We began to place excessive governmental drag on our manufacturing base to the point that it is simply picking up and leaving us unemployed.

Much of that is the legacy of 50 years 1945 to 1995 of left wing anti-business political activities and complacent corporate management and non-existent long range planning.

October 23, 2013 at 6:45 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

tdering, all I know is, as soon as I said the word "atheist" this guy was quick to bring up the notion of hell for non-believers. Whether he truly was a JW or not or whether he actually believed in hell or not is not really the point anyway. Most Christians certainly do believe in a literal hell and they don't hesitate to preach their hellfire and brimstone sermons to anyone within shouting distance of them.

October 23, 2013 at 6:53 p.m.
conservative said...

to continue:

Christians expect Unbelievers/Atheists/heathens to fall for the lie that God and Jesus never condemned Homosexuality but no Christian would ever believe or deceive others to believe such blasphemy.

There has been at least one deceiver on this site who has actually professed to be a Christian and said such.

October 23, 2013 at 6:55 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Rickaroo said...

tdering, all I know is, as soon as I said the word "atheist" this guy was quick to bring up the notion of hell for non-believers. Whether he truly was a JW or not or whether he actually believed in hell or not is not really the point anyway.

Of course it’s the point as you are resorting to posting lies to advance your viewpoint. Any point you try to make after doing that has no credibility.

Most Christians certainly do believe in a literal hell and they don't hesitate to preach their hellfire and brimstone sermons to anyone within shouting distance of them.

Why didn’t you tell one of those stories if they are so common or maybe you're just trading on tired stereotypes straight from the Fleabagger list of talking points.

October 23, 2013 at 7:05 p.m.
conservative said...

Sodomy:

Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality. American Heritage Dictionary

October 23, 2013 at 7:14 p.m.
alprova said...

And just like clockwork, here comes conservative, making wild claims about something he knows nothing about.

The entire book of Leviticus was not written by Moses. It is a compilation of writings that span a period from 538 B.C. to 332 B.C.

The holiness code section of Leviticus, which contains the infamous sentence that conservative is so fond of sharing, has no special traditional religious significance, and traditional Jews and Christians do not regard it as having any distinction from any other part of the Book of Leviticus.

And why is that, one might ask?

Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifice ended in AD 70, with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. References to sexuality therein applied to those seeking entry into the long ago destroyed Temple as priests.

Remember conservative, every single quotation of scripture has a context in which it was presented, and every single word written in the Bible was written by someone as human as you and I are.

Without question, personal beliefs of all kinds have been inserted into the book you consider to be "God's word," by human beings just like you and I.

The Bible never has been the word of God and you will never make it so.

October 23, 2013 at 7:18 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

daytonsdarwin said...

"But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly."

Doesn't that make the Almighty Jumping Jehovah a voyeur, a kind of Peeping Lord?

Voyeur - "one who looks". It’s the X-ray vision powers so he can’t help but look thus you shouldn’t have any expectations of privacy. You can only imagine how upsetting it is that he/she is trying to eat lunch and some guy is pounding fudge. Plus the dogs and cats tell him everything.

October 23, 2013 at 7:18 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Jon Stewart On Obamacare Rollout: "How Are Democrats Going To Spin This Turd?"

October 23, 2013 at 7:20 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

"You can only imagine how upsetting it is that he/she [Jehovah] is trying to eat lunch and some guy is pounding fudge. Plus the dogs and cats tell him everything."

Yeah, Jehovah prefers watching Lot screw his daughters, having His chosen people rape women, and slinking around impregnating under-age virgins. Praise Jebus, He's a morally upright Holy Dude!

October 23, 2013 at 7:35 p.m.
alprova said...

There will be no back and forth between you and I conservative. That has never produced any meaningful dialogue.

Your opinion as to the state of my soul is just an opinion and nothing more, and it means nothing.

Cherry-picking the Bible and quoting scripture taken completely out of the context it was written, will never change anyone's mind or send them any faster to Hell than you might be destined for yourself for using your Bible to consistently condemn others.

October 23, 2013 at 7:35 p.m.
joneses said...

Obama is single-handedly preventing entitlement and discretionary spending reform, without which America will face financial catastrophe. There is less than zero question that he is doing that on purpose, regardless of whether you think he is otherwise intentionally damaging America. There is no question that he is acting as though he has a vendetta against the oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power industries. There is also little question that he is intentionally dividing Americans on the basis of race, economic class, gender, sexual orientation and, sometimes, religion.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the damage Obama is doing to the republic, and we haven't even touched on his unconstitutional and lawless usurpations of authority. The question isn't whether he is intentionally destroying America. The question is whether he is intentionally pursuing a set of policies that are definitely damaging America, irrespective of his motives.

The answer is -- irrefutably, emphatically -- "yes."

October 23, 2013 at 7:45 p.m.
joneses said...

Conservative,

I really does not do any good to quote the word of God to a liberal as they lack the intellect to accept the fact there is a power greater than themselves. They really think they are "it", Look at who they believe cannot do any wrong and who they worship even though obama continues to lie time and time again to them.

Ten Reasons why liberals hate Christians.

1) Liberals are relativists and hate Christians because Christians believe in absolute truth. 2) Liberals do not want anyone to say that immorality is immoral. 3) Liberals are selfish and are more interested in their "feelings" then they are with what is right for others. 4) Liberals misunderstand what Christians really believe. 5) Since liberals see themselves as the superior enlighten ones they do not recognize that taking a position against their position is not automatically hate. 6) Liberals do not want to listen to what makes sense, they would rather listen to what makes them feel good. 7) Liberals ignore the clear evidence of the result of their philosophical positions influence on the last 40 years. It had been a social disaster and they do not want to hear it. 8) They see Christianity as another governing body that gets in the way of their communist philosophy of complete control. 9) Liberals see Christians as wanting to impose their religion on them when in truth it is the liberals who have used the courts system to impose their secular humanism religion on all of us. 10) Liberals are spiritually lost and blind so much they lack the intellect to believe there is a power greater than man.

October 23, 2013 at 7:49 p.m.
conservative said...

And Alprova knows all his lies because he got them from such sites as Wikedpedia where unbelievers/Atheists/heathens write their lies for fellow fools to swallow and deciminate on the internet.

Of course Alprova is totally unaware that Jesus often quoted Scripture, the same Scripture that God inspired Moses to write and that Alprova says does not exist.

Of course Alprova believes that some unbeliever/Atheist/heathen and anti Christ such as himself writing on the internet has the truth simply because it appears in print and enables him to somewhat mask his quilt, as if he can just repeat a lie often enough so that his quilt might just go away. Instead your guilt will only grow Alprova.

But consider Alprova, that fool who wrote his blasphemy on Wickedpedia can only die in his sins, can not and has not and never will refute the Bible, the word of God and neither will you. You will be judged by the word of God, that word and person you reject.

Your words, "The Bible never has been the word of God and you will never make it so" are the words of a pitifully ignorant man, and a deceiver as well, who seeks to escape the truth by denying that the truth of God exists, the truth that you will be judged by.

And you spew your blasphemy and contempt while calling yourself a Christian!!!

October 23, 2013 at 8:07 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Conservative blathered: "You will be judged by the word of God."

And that word is "malarky."

October 23, 2013 at 8:19 p.m.
volsam said...

joneses, the destruction by this president obvious.It' intentional.Think about how much further along we would be if the TEA PARTY had not got enough conservatives elected in 2010 to give the house back to the republicans.2008 thru 2010 was by far the biggest spending congress in the history of the republic.Unfettered, with super majority's in both houses,their reckless spending and the damage it's causing is going to hurt the nation for years to come.Obama care is another socialist program we can't afford.Single payer is their goal and they won't stop until they get it unless 2014 is as good to the conservatives as was 2010.

October 23, 2013 at 8:32 p.m.
alprova said...

volsam wrote: "Single payer is their goal and they won't stop until they get it unless 2014 is as good to the conservatives as was 2010."

It won't be.

Conservatives are going to the back of the bus, unless they change their tune.

October 23, 2013 at 8:47 p.m.
rick1 said...

Yesterday anniebelle said she got some quotes from ObamaCare for her children and said tell me again about how bad Obamacare is for America.

To bad those quotes you received were not accurate. Industry analysts point to how the website lumps people only into two broad categories: "49 or under" and "50 or older." Prices for everyone in the 49-or-under group are based on what a 27-year-old would pay. In the 50-or-older group, prices are based on what a 50-year-old would pay.

CBS News ran the numbers for a 48-year-old in Charlotte, N.C., ineligible for subsidies. According to HealthCare.gov, she would pay $231 a month, but the actual plan on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina's website costs $360, more than 50 percent higher. The difference: Blue Cross and Blue Shield requests your birthday before providing more accurate estimates.

The numbers for older Americans are even more striking. A 62-year-old in Charlotte looking for the same basic plan would get a price estimate on the government website of $394. The actual price is $634.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57608843/healthcare.gov-feature-often-lists-wrong-prices-for-coverage/

October 23, 2013 at 9:35 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, there are several Democrat senators up for re-election in 2014 who are now wanting to delay ObamaCare until after the election. They now this law is a turd as Jon Stewart referred to it and are worried about not getting re-elected.

Are these Democrats hostage takers, and terrorists like the liberals were calling Ted Cruz and others who wanted to defund ObamaCare?

October 23, 2013 at 9:39 p.m.
tifosi said...

WOW!!! Looks like the GOP benefitted from the recent compromise to keep America going.

October 23, 2013 at 9:58 p.m.
fairmon said...

Limric I have an escape plan and have moved adequate resources to be accessed if needed. You are right about what may come and most don't see it. I am leaving this forum for today before all these preachers pass the offering plate.

October 23, 2013 at 11:12 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "The difference: Blue Cross and Blue Shield requests your birthday before providing more accurate estimates."

Sorry rick, whoever wrote that is full of dookey.

When navigating the ObamaCare website, the birth dates of those whom you are seeking to cover are among the first few questions asked, BEFORE you get to the offerings.

Now I'm not saying that there may not have been glitches that kept some information from being retained, and passed on properly, or that could be interpreted incorrectly, because my signup steered me in an incorrect direction itself, based on the information I entered.

At one time it proceeded with the signup despite not being able to correspond some information with what records were on file, which I caught and corrected.

If all entered information is not 100% correct, and you do not catch it by reading every single message of confirmation to verify that you have entered it correctly, you ARE going to get an incorrect result.

The site will be fixed, ObamaCare will be moving forward, and in time, those having a cow or celebrating over the glitches will eventually move on with their lives while the rest of the nation quietly signs up for the plans.

October 24, 2013 at 1:59 a.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Al, there are several Democrat senators up for re-election in 2014 who are now wanting to delay ObamaCare until after the election."

ObamCare does not have to be delayed at all. The mandated period for signup should be extended for as long as it takes to get the website fixed.

"They now this law is a turd as Jon Stewart referred to it and are worried about not getting re-elected."

But of course. Jon Stewart is a jerk to you conservatives 99% of the time, but because he has decided to join some of you in criticizing the roll out of ObamaCare, he is suddenly a hero to the conservatives.

"Are these Democrats hostage takers, and terrorists like the liberals were calling Ted Cruz and others who wanted to defund ObamaCare?"

Given that we are nearly a month since ObamaCare, with glitches that have prevented a successful signup for many or even most who have sought it, certainly is a good reason to delay the period that people must sign up for plans by whatever time it takes to get the site ready to do business, but there is no reason to delay it all.

In fact, in my opinion, I feel a good compromise would be to delay the mandate a full year, but allow people to sign up for plans during the entire year of 2014, and choose the time during year 2014 they desire to start the implementation of their new insurance.

The Republicans would love nothing more than to fully delay all of ObamaCare for another year.

That will never happen.

October 24, 2013 at 2:10 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....

I feel a good compromise would be to delay the mandate a full year

The right thing to do is jerk some people through their as$ and get the darn site working accurately and implement the AHA as it is scheduled. Pelosi said we will have to pass it to see what is in it and now we will have to get the sign up process working and other requirements met timely so people will know what they have and don't have. Both parties and their supporters are speculating as to the wonderfulness or awfulness of the AHA but none know for sure.

You think it so wonderful people will have an orgasm when they see cheaper insurance, reduced healthcare cost and improved health for all. I think it is another budget busting transfer of wealth program considered an entitlement that increases deficits, debt and taxes to unanticipated high levels. We can't know until implemented in it's entirety so it is time to get on with it. There is a shrewd reason for subsidies for those with incomes under $94,000.

October 24, 2013 at 3:04 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon, I have tried repeatedly to make you understand that subsidizing premiums is far cheaper than subsidizing hospital bills.

Under ObamaCare, EVERYONE pays something towards their health care expenses, even if the amount they pay is a co-pay.

Insurers eat most of the subsidies that many will qualify for. It is not money paid by the Government on behalf of Americans.

You will never hear a Republican refer to what has been renamed RomneyCare, and for good reason. Six years down the road, it is working out well for residents of the Bay State;

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0929/Romneycare-vs.-Obamacare-Lessons-for-today-s-shutdown-debacle-video

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/16/study-romneycare-lowered-uninsured-rate-didnt-increase-hospital-costs

http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/10/12/who-are-winners-losers-health-reform-goes-national/M3OMovvf1OkbHLMnYIhgjP/story.html

October 24, 2013 at 3:34 a.m.
degage said...

Al, do you ever sleep?

October 24, 2013 at 5:47 a.m.
joneses said...

Does anyone notice how absurd alpos is? He said conservatives need to change their tune and I am assuming he thinks they should be misled like liberals. alpos is that stupid. if the conservatives were like liberals they would not be conservatives. Man he is stupid.

October 24, 2013 at 6:32 a.m.
joneses said...

gegage,

Alpos does not need sleep. When one lives their whole life regurgitating the same lies over and over they become a walking, talking bubble head like the rest of the liberals. Alpos does not even need sleep to work at his job selling used cars. Like on here he has all the lies down and tells the same ones over and over again to his customers. He is just another brainwashed liberal that says the same lies over and over again.

October 24, 2013 at 6:37 a.m.
joneses said...

conservative,

These liberals lack the intellect to understand a simple concept about God. If you and I are wrong, which we are not, there are no consequences. If they are wrong, which they are, they are screwed.

October 24, 2013 at 6:40 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

Insurers eat most of the subsidies that many will qualify for. It is not money paid by the Government on behalf of Americans.

Surely you don't believe that. Insurance companies are not that benevolent. They will pass any cost to them on to consumers. Most means there is another source to pay for the subsidy, who is that source?

October 24, 2013 at 6:46 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

Fairmon, I have tried repeatedly to make you understand that subsidizing premiums is far cheaper than subsidizing hospital bills.

You have repeated that hypothesis often but repeating a SWAG does not make it accurate. We will have to wait and see once the number still not insured remains about the same and the experience of those providing care to the uninsured is known.

October 24, 2013 at 7:01 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

BLACK and WHITE

CONSERVATIVE DEFINITION: Black is the color of coal, ebony, and of outer space. It is the darkest color, the result of the absence of or complete absorption of light. It is the opposite of white and often represents darkness in contrast with light.

CONSERVATIVE DEFINITION: White is the color of fresh milk and snow. It is the color produced by the reflection, transmission or emission of all wavelengths of visible light, without absorption. As a symbol, white is the opposite of black, and often represents light in contrast with darkness.

LIBERAL DEFINITION: Black is a word pertaining to a race of oppressed people demeaned by rednecks, Tea Party members and other Causasian idiots.

LIBERAL DEFINITION: White is a racist word used by rednecks, Tea Party members and other idiots to convey a bigoted and false claim of Caucasian supremacy.

October 24, 2013 at 7:13 a.m.
anniebelle said...

So now the know nothings are moving off their regular comedy news, (FOX) to Comedy Central, lol. For all the latest, best breaking news, try The Onion.

October 24, 2013 at 7:44 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo is the worst kind of zealot. That is, he can make himself believe anything he wants.

October 24, 2013 at 7:59 a.m.
PlainTruth said...
October 24, 2013 at 8:16 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

joneses said...

conservative,

"These liberals lack the intellect to understand a simple concept about God."

Which god? "God" is a generic term. There's at least 3,000 different gods so it would be helpful if you could tell us which specific god you have in mind.

While you're at it, explain the simple concept you have about your god.

October 24, 2013 at 8:22 a.m.
conservative said...

And just like clockwork, here comes alprova, making wild claims about something he knows nothing about.

alprova goes to Wickedpedia and believes the lies of some heathen who is paid for his inventions so that he might deceive other God hating heathens into desseminating his concoctions.

There is no proof that no one other than Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible yet Atheists/unbelievers/heathens/alprova say otherwise.

One of alprova's favorite ploys is to contend that unless JESUS said something then it is not so. Of course alprova got those marching orders from heathen/Atheists/unbeliever's websites.

alprova is totally clueless that Jesus in rebuking the unbelieving Jewish leaders said " You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.John 5:39-40

Note, Jesus referred to Scripture, the Scripture that alprova says does not exist.

Jesus then said this " For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:46-47.

There directly from the mouth of Jesus that Moses wrote of Jesus and those writings are Scripture, contrary to the vile ranting of alprova.

October 24, 2013 at 8:23 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Surely you don't believe that. Insurance companies are not that benevolent. They will pass any cost to them on to consumers. Most means there is another source to pay for the subsidy, who is that source?"

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1001/Obamacare-101-how-the-federal-subsidy-works-video

October 24, 2013 at 8:27 a.m.
degage said...

No, annie, we are not now tuning into Jon Stewart we just think it is hilarious he is turning on his god Obama. And I saw it on the internet not the show. Even Msnbc has something negative about all this,I did see that on TV.

October 24, 2013 at 8:28 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Frau Gage: AntiBelle has only one way of looking at things. Like most Libs, she has become what she professes to hate.

October 24, 2013 at 8:31 a.m.
alprova said...

joneses wrote: "Does anyone notice how absurd alpos is? He said conservatives need to change their tune and I am assuming he thinks they should be misled like liberals. alpos is that stupid. if the conservatives were like liberals they would not be conservatives. Man he is stupid."

Regardless how you view me, there are a few fundamental facts that people like yourself need to face.

Only about 30% of Americans are on board with your points of view.

Recent elections indicate that Republicans are losing elections right and left.

Cory Booker beat out a Tea Party candidate to join the Senate as the second African-American.

New York City is most likely going to elect it's first Democrat Mayor in 20 years. Bill de Blasio, came from behind earlier this year to now lead Joe Lhota 68 percent to 24 percent.

Democrat Terry McAuliffe is most likely going to be elected Virginia's next Governor over Ken Cuccinelli, with yesterday's polls showing McCauliffe up 46 percent to 39 percent.

His election will be be a reversal of the movement that made Virginia a red state in 2010.

jonesie, it makes no matter to me whether or not any Republicans distance themselves from the right-wing conservatives. In fact, I hope none of them do.

You Sir, are among many who should be hoping for Republicans to move towards the center. Centrist Republicans are about the only candidates who stand a chance in their reelection bids, that is unless the vast majority in their voting districts are like yourself, and the chances of that are very slim for most Republicans.

It's going to be a few months before everyone starts running for election, but you mark my word....

The Tea Party and all the PACS associated with the movement are way down in terms of what they have to spend and the donations are drying up.

You Sir are in the minority and that is only going to get worse.

October 24, 2013 at 8:54 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Wow, Alpo. A Dem won a senate seat in that crazy right wing state of New Jersey. Amazing. Terry McAuliffe is the worst kind of party hack...a crook. Be proud.

October 24, 2013 at 9:06 a.m.
alprova said...

Since Jon Stewart is currently a temporary Republican hero, take a look that the three segment interview that he did last night with Charles Krauthammer.

The dialogue between those two is EXACTLY the dialogue that is not happening in Washington D.C.

Every single Representative and Senator could learn a thing or two from watching this 20 minute interview.

So could some people who frequent this forum.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

October 24, 2013 at 9:37 a.m.
conservative said...

Alprova in echoing a heathen/Atheist/unbeliever's ranting on Wickenpedia wrote this regarding the writer's invention of a "Holiness Code":

"has no special traditional religious significance, and traditional Jews and Christians do not regard it as having any distinction from any other part of the Book of Leviticus."

Well actually alprova didn't echo the heathen/Atheist/unbeliever's lying concoction he COPIED it instead!!

Here word for word are the word's that alprova plagiarized from the Wickedpedia website:

"It has no special traditional religious significance, and traditional Jews and Christians do not regard it as having any distinction from any other part of the Book of Leviticus"

What a fraud! What a phony!

Perhaps alprova was so clueless and lacking of understanding about what he was reading that he thought it might be better to just pass his plagiarism off as his own words.

I'm sorry, I just can't pity or cover for such a deceiver who would so mislead others about the Bible, the word of God.

October 24, 2013 at 9:52 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alps: Jon stewart is no hero to me. But I will agree with you that more people should listen to Krauthammer.

October 24, 2013 at 9:58 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Last week I was racist for wanting the OCare mandate delayed. Now I'm a pragmatic Democrat! This country is so SkaRooed.

October 24, 2013 at 10:15 a.m.
caddy said...

inquiringmind said...

Caddy, I thought we were all born sinners? Have you discovered some new texts?

If we follow your line just to see where it goes, why single out homosexuality for special condemnation and ignore or forgive other named transgressions like charging interest on loans, or name calling, or criticizing/condemning someone else's sin ??"

Not singling out. I'm commenting on the Post at hand.

Truth is: Sodomites identify with their Sin as "who they are." There is a reason why Death was instituted for MANY heinous sins under the Old Covenant. When sin infiltrates a society, the whole society suffers.

Do I care that Progressives fail to understand that ? No, not in the least. Progressives just want their way: they want their cake ( their sin ) and they want to eat it to. Well, in this society, they've pretty much GOT that.

How's that working out for them ?

October 24, 2013 at 11:05 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

PLEASE! Not another day on sodomy, beliefs or non-beliefs. Good grief, people.

October 24, 2013 at 11:09 a.m.
prairie_dog said...

When I was a kid, being pregnant out of wedlock was one of the worst stains a family could bear. Homosexuality was shameful and had to be hidden.

Now, it doesn't matter. Gay marriage doesn't matter. Nothing matters.

Black kids are going around shooting people for fun. So much for civil rights. Things have only gotten worse, despite the freedom to get better.

Our society is in the same decline that doomed Rome, and it's because of substance abuse, the breakdown of the family, and a lack of civic responsibility overall.

I think we've finally found the lowest common denominator. Human weakness and irresponsibility are now lauded as "freedom."

Right.

The next thing I want to see is the ability shop for groceries on the internet, and have them delivered to me so that I don't have to leave home. It's not safe to go out anymore. The shootings have crossed I-75 and they're moving "this" way.

Signing off from Fort Apache. Please call ahead, so that I won't answer the door with a gun in my hand. Thanks.

October 24, 2013 at 11:10 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Sheesh, dog. Don't you recognize progress?

October 24, 2013 at 11:12 a.m.
conservative said...

A few words about Wikipedia. It seems to me to be a sort of open forum where just about anyone can register,log in and add to or edit any existing article on any subject.

Therefore any kook especially one with an ax to grind such as the heathen who came up with the nonsense of a "Holiness Code" can exploit other heathens in an attempt to justify Homosexuality and sodomy.

It is obvious alprova has been a willing agent going so far as to plagiarize in order to present himself as authoritative when he blasphemes God, His word and the person of Jesus Christ.

All this while professing to be a Christian!

October 24, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.
caddy said...

PlainTruth. I'm addressing a question that was asked of me yesterday.

I don't LIVE on this site like some do.

October 24, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

don't be catty, caddy.

October 24, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
caddy said...

Well said, Praire Dog. Blacks commit 52 % of the homicides in this nation, but we rarely talk about that. The next time you hear of a white being killed on TV, recognize that the color ( if perp was black ) wont' be mentioned. Why ? Well, that just wouldn't fit with society's multicultural agenda now would it ?

As for Progressives, this is what progressives think of their White leaders. They hang them out to dry--and to Die:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151893653505256&set=a.52795055255.61450.596655255&type=1&theater

October 24, 2013 at 11:19 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

Gee, Caddy you say, "The truth is: Sodomites identify with their Sin as "who they are." There is a reason why Death was instituted for MANY heinous sins under the Old Covenant. "

So you say folks, who identify as bankers or pawn brokers, or check cashing CEO's who charge interest on loans, and who denigrate their peers are the same as "sodomites," right? You ought to read Paul carefully, if you want to (try to) live under the Law, I feel badly for you. Read Leviticus 19 quite carefully, and try the NT for a change.

October 24, 2013 at 11:32 a.m.
caddy said...

No one can live under the law, because NONE of us can Stand if we do. The law has a purpose, however, and Christ stated very plainly that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, inquiringmind. Now, for those of US who believe on Christ, we are made to LOVE THAT LAW with all our hearts, even though we KNOW we can't keep it. We want to abide by the law. We want to shun our Sin. We want to be whole again. Of course we know we can't keep it, but Christ helps us to keep it. As we age in the faith, our Sin(s) should lessen. That is the express effect of the Sanctification process. We'll NEVER shed all our sin in this life, but our desire will be that we love Him above even our sin and those things that bind us to this earth.

The law is not bad, Inquiringmind. It drives us to Christ. And for those who are not driven to Christ will suffer the full effects of the Law when they stand before him. All men are guilty, deserving of death and hell. Some God gives what they never deserved, could never earn. He gives forgiveness. To those who deem they need NO mercy from the law, Christ would give them the chance to stand before Him in their own righteousness.

Now we all KNOW how that will go don't we ?

October 24, 2013 at 11:43 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Caddy wrote: "And for those who are not driven to Chris will suffer the full effects of the Law when they stand before him."

Can you walk to Chris? Can you sit in front of Chris? What's the law of Chris?

I didn't know that Chris Rock was that important to you.

More nonsense from the fundies.

October 24, 2013 at 11:55 a.m.
degage said...

Inquiringmind, So I take it if you had a business where you loaned money you would not want to make a profit. Banks loan money and charge interest to pay employees and investors, Pawn broker loan money on articles of value and charge interest to hold on to it until the person can retrieve it. You seem to believe they should do this for free. Right?

October 24, 2013 at 12:02 p.m.
caddy said...

Dumb-to-dumber: You make no sense. Read what I wrote again, and quote it accurately.

October 24, 2013 at 12:13 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

If money lenders weren't needed, they wouldn't be any. Not complicated.

October 24, 2013 at 12:13 p.m.
joneses said...

The media says over and over again how bad Republicans are then they do a poll and the results show Republicans are bad. alpos is so stupid he thinks this is an accurate poll based on science.

alpos continues to show what a fool he is.

Notice how alpos says the same thing over and over again just like the rest of the liberals. The liberals think the Republicans disagreeing with one another is a weakness. They are so intellectually challenged they cannot comprehend disagreement. Do you notice how they all say the same thing over and over and none of them ever disagree with their messiah obama even though obama has earned the name Liar in Chief? These liberals continue giving obama and all his disciples a pass on everything and are scared sh!tless to hold them accountable. It is weird that they are that stupid.

October 24, 2013 at 12:39 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Notice how alpos says the same thing over and over again just like the rest of the liberals." - joneses

I can't think of one post from joneses that is not centered around his visceral hatred of all liberals and liberalism. How many times have you posted that long and laborious tirade of yours, joneses, about all the things that liberals supposedly hate? Good lord, man, keep posting your anti-liberal rubbish if you want to but don't make a further fool of yourself by complaining about someone else saying the same thing over and over. You are the king of repetition and unoriginality.

October 24, 2013 at 1:23 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

"They know this law is a turd as Jon Stewart referred to it and are worried about not getting re-elected."

But of course. Jon Stewart is a jerk to you conservatives 99% of the time, but because he has decided to join some of you in criticizing the roll out of ObamaCare, he is suddenly a hero to the conservatives.

anniebelle said...

So now the know nothings are moving off their regular comedy news, (FOX) to Comedy Central, lol. For all the latest, best breaking news, try The Onion.

No he’s still a jerk, he’s not a hero to Conservatives, and we unlike you do not depend on him as a real news source. We only quote loons like that because you do view his type as reliable sources of your news and we know how it grates on you that they would undercut your B.S. viewpoints and arguments.

October 24, 2013 at 1:47 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"So I take it if you had a business where you loaned money you would not want to make a profit." - degage

Where do you righties get the notion that we libs are so opposed to anyone making a profit, or opposed to business people in general? Nothing could be further from the truth! I have always had a healthy respect for entrepreneurs and small-business owners, at least as long as they treat their employees with respect and offer their goods and services to the public at a fair price. But there is big difference between making a profit and taking advantage of the market for extravagant personal gain (otherwise know as greed).

There used to be laws against usury, and the amount these quick-loan places are making off interest rates is actually more than what used to be considered usury in times past. Some try to make the argument they are serving a much needed purpose for people in need and who could not get help from the regular banks. But the fact is that they are preying on their vulnerabilities and forcing them deeper and deeper into debt. They are as bad as drug pushers, the way they get their clientele hooked on their services.

PT, you say that "If money lenders weren't needed, they (sic) wouldn't be any." And that is correct. But the fact that there is such a proliferation of them is indicative of how rotten our entire system is. Instead of insisting on creation of jobs that pay a decent living wage, so that fewer of these places are needed in the first place, we seem to be content to stagnate in this pathetic system of squalor for a huge segment of society at the bottom. And we allow big companies to go on paying a skimpy minimum wage that no one can live on, and then the government subsidizes those under-paying companies. (Government hand-outs and tax breaks for big companies are okay but they're not okay for the poor?) All the while the income disparity grows and grows, with the CEOs and fat cats at the top getting obscenely richer. These places are a blight and should not even exist, or at least not to the extent they do now. Hell, they outnumber fast food joints! That's insane.

October 24, 2013 at 1:57 p.m.
degage said...

Roo, that was in answer to inquiringmind, mentioned twice in his posts. I said it seems inquiring had that stand, not all liberals. Get a life! It takes so little to get your panties in a wad.

October 24, 2013 at 2:29 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Whatever your personal opinion on the matter might be, degage, the consensus of most of the right-wingers who post on this forum, and of most conservatives in general, it seems, is that we libs hate personal profit and the free market entirely. The erroneous attitude prevalent among the tea party crowd and other rabid righties today is that we long for some kind of utopian socialist/Marxist paradise, devoid of individual achievement or personal gain. But nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know of one liberal - not one - who yearns for any such thing. Rather we believe in a balance of government regulation and free enterprise. It's as simple as that. The government is not some evil entity that exists outside our purview. As long as we have freely elected representatives who hail from our very ranks we are still a government of, by, and for the people. In other words, our government is US, not some outside entity. Or at least that's how it should be. But if our government today is corrupted - and it is - it is because our representatives have been bought and sold by big business and the powerfully wealthy. The oligarchs own them and they are pulling their strings to enact legislation in their favor. We do not have true capitalism. What we have is an oligarchic system of governance. Government does not need to be "drowned in a bathtub," it needs to be purged and reformed.

As for my panties... I appreciate your concern, but my panties are soft, smooth, and wad-free, thank you.

October 24, 2013 at 2:55 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Pelosi: "Let's Not Get Too Bogged Down In What Happens If They're Not Able To Fix It (ACA)"

October 24, 2013 at 3:13 p.m.
anniebelle said...

jt, get some facts once in your life before you spit out your human waste. I have never watched jon stewart, don't have a teevee and I find real news sources for my information, not fake news fox, comedy central or the lush limbo.

October 24, 2013 at 3:36 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

For degage, Caddy and maybe Rickaroo:

Actually degage go back and read the post of caddy and my replies. The person advocating this position (charging interest is as great a sin as sodomy under the Law) is Caddy who wants to go back to the OT law. Charging interest is strictly forbidden in the Law, in modern Islam, and in literal Christianity. Caddy can't win this argument, at least not based on using sound reasoning.

BTW, I have meticulously avoided stating my position, focusing my effort on understanding the implications of caddy's contradictory religious position...you may infer what you will. I definitely do not claim to state the position of or speak for "all" liberals or "all" conservatives.

And if you want to carry Caddy and PT to the logical end (using the Bible to proof-text your position), yes, if someone is in need and you have more than you need, you are expected to share it unconditionally according to Paul and the OT Law. Both the OT and Paul's epistles say, "the one who has much does not have too much and the one who has little does not have too little."

In fact, Paul says in Romans nothing is intrinsically bad, it is whether the thing does spiritual harm to you or those around you that makes it bad (or not). These passages appear also to obviate PT's idea that moneylenders are needed to supply a service, you should read them. To make it clear, if you follow Caddy's argument and adhere to the Law to define morality, yes a pawn shop that charges interest is immoral because it violates the Scriptural OT Law. Running a business selling merchandise or labor exchange to make a living, however, appears just peachy, presuming you don't cheat your vendors.

Those readings of Paul say it is the way you use your profit (blessings) that is the measure of your spirituality. When you think about it, charging interest is making a profit off another person's need, desire or problem. If you take the Christian teaching earnestly, you are doing a disservice to the one in need by charging interest.

My point here is that most folks, like Caddy, who rely on fundamental/literal interpretation choose to ignore literal scriptural imperatives that run counter to their "modern," comfortable expectations (so do many liberals). Caddy negates his own argument by reducing it to the absurd through contradictory moral precepts or premises.

By the way, some trivia: I believe it was John Calvin who unilaterally decided charging interest was OK, in spite of the spectacles he used.

October 24, 2013 at 3:44 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

RickRoo says "Most Christians certainly do believe in a literal hell and they don't hesitate to preach their hellfire and brimstone sermons to anyone within shouting distance of them." *Really, Roo? I'm around quite a few Christians (and otherwise), and I never hear that.

AntiBelle: For someone that doesn't watch Fox News, how do you know so much about it? Or are you just reciting #9 Dem talkig point?

October 24, 2013 at 3:56 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Surely you don't believe that. Insurance companies are not that benevolent. They will pass any cost to them on to consumers. Most means there is another source to pay for the subsidy, who is that source?"

alprova provided a link about the AHA and California affect....

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1001/Obamacare-101-how-the-federal-subsidy-works-video

I read the text and watched the video. The text explained who was eligible for a subsidy which I already knew but didn't say how it would be paid for. It does say people can take a tax credit but it doesn't address who will make up the tax short fall created by the subsidies. It does not suggest insurance companies will take a loss to for subsidies.

California is not a good model. Did you see where they built a home for the hearing impaired and someone sued because they did not have a certain percent that were not hearing impaired and the court ruled they must allow a number of those not needing the accommodation to live there. I may have it wrong but I doubt nothing weird coming from the granola state.

October 24, 2013 at 4:28 p.m.
anniebelle said...

PT It's how I know a lot about things I don't see on teevee. I read, read, read, you ought to try it sometime -- it opens a whole new world of knowledge. Oh and in case you're unaware, I'm sitting in front of a computer that is loaded with all kinds of information.

October 24, 2013 at 5:04 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Belle, you should try Fox News. You will doubtless see coverage of things the Court Eunuchs won't follow. Give it a try.

October 24, 2013 at 5:25 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

PT, yes, there are many Christians who do not proselytize. I have no bones to pick with them as such. But the vast majority of Christians, whether they're preachy about it or not, do indeed believe in a literal hell and think that salvation depends on the acceptance of it and the belief in Jesus as the messiah who died for their sins, ensuring them of eternal life. That indeed is the basic tenet of Christianity. But there are plenty - too many, in fact - who are extremely zealous in pointing out other people's "sins" and telling them they are going to hell. It is they who are especially obnoxious, regressive, and small minded and who deserve to be called out for it.

October 24, 2013 at 5:39 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Roo, I think you painting a stamp with a paint roller.

October 24, 2013 at 5:47 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

I knew with enough research I'd find the female counterpart to Gawd's personal Cabana Boy, Conservative.

Watch as another wacko fundy spews forth her own brand of Christian Faux-News Science.

Just like Orr, Caddy, and Conservative, here's another hard-hitting expose of sheer nuttiness.

I'll admit I did wait for her head to spin around and smoke to pour out of her ears at the end.

October 24, 2013 at 6:12 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin has said that a House GOP Leader told President Obama, "I cannot stand to look at you" during negotiations on the budget shutdown. Of course the MSM and the Fleabaggers immediately claimed the statement was racist not that Obama,s visage just makes many people sick.

October 24, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

anniebelle said...

Now, I'm not talking about the penchant you southern men have for farm animals

Could be worse ... they could be lying down with and acquiring many antibiotic resistant diseases from the odoriferous Femina-Pulex Irritan-bagerous.

October 24, 2013 at 6:37 p.m.
fairmon said...

anniebelle said...

PT It's how I know a lot about things I don't see on teevee. I read, read, read, you ought to try it sometime -

anniebelle...Thanks. That explains a lot. Fiction is stranger than truth and it can result in illogical thinking. For example facing reality around the deficit, debts and various dependency increases.

October 24, 2013 at 6:43 p.m.

Speaking of girly men, has anyone seen the new unisex hats Obama wants the Marines to wear? Looks like Michelle designed them. They look like meter maids instead of marines. Is nothing sacred since Obama has come into office. Let's just call them surrender hats.

October 24, 2013 at 6:46 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Wait! ... What!! ... here’s the latest on my above post and it looks like these lying Fleabaggers’ idiocy knows no bounds.

By MIKE FLYNN

Over the weekend, IL Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin took to Facebook to make the outrageous claim that a House GOP Leader told President Obama, "I cannot stand to look at you" during negotiations on the budget shutdown. Aides to House GOP leaders swiftly rebutted the claim. Their statements were verified by WH Spokesman Jay Carney, who said the alleged exchange "didn't happen." Durbin, nevertheless, is sticking by his story.

Max Gleischman, a spokesman for Durbin, said, “Durbin stands by his comments.”

The meeting where this slur allegedly occurred was on October 10th. Sen. Durbin was not part of the meeting. So, on the one hand, we have people who were in the meeting, i.e. House GOP Leaders and the White House, saying this exchange never happened. Against, a partisan Democrat who wasn't in the meeting who says it did happen, although he demurs on naming the actual culprit.

Durbin and many on the left (Including the Fleabaggers on this web site-Jt) simply want to believe that this ridiculous exchange happened. It fits their world-view. Their minds are so befuddled that they view policy differences as evil intent. You will never meet a more intolerant person than a leftist who disagrees with you on a policy issue.

Even though no one made this statement I can believe that the majority of the people in this country including not only Republican leaders but Democrat ones as well can't stand to look at Obama.

October 24, 2013 at 6:51 p.m.

Obama is nothing but a prick and a control freak. Can't keep his nicotine stained fingers out of anything.

October 24, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
rick1 said...

zableedofisterix, we don't have enough money to buy bullets, but Obama can find the money to spend on covers that look like women's hats. The Marines deserve better but we have a narcissist in the Oval Office who has nothing but hatred for our men and women of the military.

October 24, 2013 at 7:05 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

The Gyreens will never wear that wimpy chapeau.

October 24, 2013 at 7:12 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Durbin should apologize. This bunch of Dems can't even leak misinformation.

October 24, 2013 at 7:34 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Rickaroo said...

Where do you righties get the notion that we libs are so opposed to anyone making a profit, or opposed to business people in general? (I’m sure it couldn’t be just about every word that comes out of you Fleabaggers’ mouths anytime you address economics or business.-Jt)

Nothing could be further from the truth! I have always had a healthy respect for entrepreneurs and small-business owners, at least (You mean “But” as there is always a ”But”... Right?-Jt) as long as they treat their employees with respect and offer their goods and services to the public at a fair price. (To be determined by Fleabagger standards .... Right?-Jt) But there is big difference between making a profit and taking advantage of the market for extravagant personal gain (otherwise know as greed). (Ditto my previous ... Right?- Jt)

There used to be laws against usury, and the amount these quick-loan places are making off interest rates is actually more than what used to be considered usury in times past. Some try to make the argument they are serving a much needed purpose for people in need and who could not get help from the regular banks. But the fact is that they are preying on their vulnerabilities and forcing them (What?-Jt) deeper and deeper into debt. They are as bad as drug pushers, the way they get their clientele hooked (What?- Jt) on their services.

I thought you Fleabaggers were all against the war on drugs and they should be legalized. That it would be better to educate and treat addicts but now you want to start a war on the loan industry that you equate with illegal drugs.

BTW no mention of the consumers’ responsibilities for placing themselves in these positions.

PT, you say that "If money lenders weren't needed, they (sic) wouldn't be any." And that is correct. But the fact that there is such a proliferation of them is indicative of how rotten our entire system is. (I know what you mean as the profit driven capitalist system is just evil ... Right? -Jt)

Instead of insisting on creation of jobs that pay a decent living wage (What?-Jt), so that fewer of these places are needed in the first place, we seem to be content to stagnate in this pathetic system (profit driven capitalism? - Jt) of squalor for a huge segment of society at the bottom.

And we allow big companies to go on paying a skimpy minimum wage that no one can live on, and then the government subsidizes those under-paying companies. (Minimum wage is an artificially set entry level wage and anyone trying to support more than themselves on it should be institutionalized for gross stupidity for even having a family with no more earning power than the minimum wage. - Jt)

Government hand-outs and tax breaks for big companies are okay but they're not okay for the poor? (47% pay no federal income taxes? - Jt)**

October 24, 2013 at 7:53 p.m.
degage said...

Rick1, You forgot that Obama is planning a 5 week fund raising tour around the country to raise money for 2014 democrat campaigns. Wonder how much of the money we don't have he will be using to fly all over hells half acres in Air Force 1.

PT, It was probably Reid that put Durbin up to that. Remember his lie about Romney not paying taxes. I believe he said it was an anonymous person. That proved to be untrue also.

October 24, 2013 at 8 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Frau Gage: you are probably right. Reid is an evil weeny.

October 24, 2013 at 8:09 p.m.
alprova said...

What were two Republicans thinking, calling Obama 'tar baby' and 'boy'?

"Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado and commentator Pat Buchanan, a former candidate for president, both apologized Wednesday for using racially charged terms to refer to Obama."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0803/What-were-two-Republicans-thinking-calling-Obama-tar-baby-and-boy

October 24, 2013 at 8:21 p.m.
alprova said...
October 24, 2013 at 8:27 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpy can't go one day w/o yelling racist.

October 24, 2013 at 8:29 p.m.
rick1 said...

degage with all of the fundraising and golfing Obama does it is no wonder why he never knows what is going on, like his signature legislation of OvomitCare not being ready to go on October 1.

It's amazing we hear all the time from the left how knowledgeable Obama is, yet he never knows anything when the crap hits the fan.

Dick Turbin Durbin is a lying scumbag. Obama is taking such a beating over this piece of crap OvomitCare that Durbin is desperate to blame the republicans. The democrats biggest fear is that Ted Cruz will be proven to be right in wanting to defund Obamacare and remember the House wanted to delay the individual mandate for a year and the Durbin and his buddies in the Senate aid no. They are scrambling now and Durbin and the rest will do what they do best. LIE.

October 24, 2013 at 8:29 p.m.
conservative said...

I noted earlier at 9:52 an instance of gross plagiarism by alprova in his poorly failed attempt to justify Homosexuality and sodomy.

He also copied word for word at 7:18 yesterday this from the same Wickedpedia article:

"Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifice ended in AD 70, with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman."

That is a true statement but has nothing to do with the condemnation by God of Homosexuality.

In alprova's next sentence he uses some of the same words in the article (the concoction of a "holiness code")in his vain attempt to justify Homosexuality and sodomy:

" References to sexuality therein applied to those seeking entry into the long ago destroyed Temple as priests"

Of course that is a lie for the condemnation applied to ALL the people, not just the priests.

Now the pathetic and funny part is that these condemnations against Homosexuality and sodomy in Leviticus were written HUNDREDS of years (in the neighborhood of 400) before the first temple was even built in Jerusalem!

ALPROVA EITHER GOT DUPED INTO CARRYING WATER FOR SODOMITES OR HE DELIBERATELY SET OUT TO DECEIVE.

October 24, 2013 at 8:30 p.m.
alprova said...

pt wrote: "Roo, I think you painting a stamp with a paint roller."

You seem to be stuck typing Ebonics lately.

I'm thinking you've never attended a good old fashioned Evangelical Baptist Church in your life, if you've never heard a fire and brimstone sermon on a Sunday.

October 24, 2013 at 8:33 p.m.
alprova said...

pt wrote: "Alpy can't go one day w/o yelling racist."

And you can't go a day in total denial that it does indeed exist among many Republicans and their cheerleaders.

October 24, 2013 at 8:35 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative, I have made in that same point about Biblical Scholars and their interpretations of Leviticus at least a dozen times in the past. Do you ever use a concordance? Holiness Code is universally referred to as Scripture appearing in Leviticus 17-26, and I assure you it applies only to Jewish citizens who desired to enter the then in existence Temple as Priests.

The Holiness Code is an intrinsic section in the Torah.

You're free to believe whatever you so desire, but you are cannot refute the above facts I have offered. Every single sentence of Scripture has context, which you prefer to ignore as a matter of routine. That Sir, is your problem...it is not mine.

So here's a reminder of the facts you should be chewing on and trying to dissect;

FACT : We can read the words of Jesus, typewritten in red, throughout the New Testament. Nowhere in those red texts does Jesus condemn homosexuality.

FACT : Nowhere in the Old or New Testament does a direct quote from God appear, condemning homosexuality.

FACT : Every word written in the Bible was written by men who were as human as you and I are.

Now you can keep posting your silly tripe or you can get busy refuting the above facts.

I'm confident that you're going to keep posting your tripe, because there is no way under Heaven that you can begin to refute the three above posted facts.

Good day Mr. Kook...

October 24, 2013 at 8:43 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al,

Racism exists among many Democrats and their cheerleaders as well. To deny that would be an outright lie.

October 24, 2013 at 8:49 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Right you are, alps. Never been on one. Not getting the Ebonics thing, btw.

October 24, 2013 at 8:50 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

So Anthony, you have determined that Buchanan and Lamborn are racists?

October 24, 2013 at 8:53 p.m.
alprova said...

PT, don't know a thing about either one of them, other than they chose words that are indicative of one who harbors an undetermined amount of seething bigotry.

I merely pasted a link to the story. It is up to everyone who reads it to decide what they are.

Apparently, they were made to realize that what they said was wrong, for they offered apologies to the President.

October 24, 2013 at 8:59 p.m.
yddem said...

The story by Faux News and others that President Obama has been involved in a change in the uniform of the U.S. Marine Corps is beyond stupid. The lies some will spew - and which many believe, because they want to - should serve as notice that many other supposed "facts" they are stating are lies, as well.

The Marine Corps has been considering, through a panel comprised of senior enlisted personnel, a change to the cover ("hat" to the amateurs) worn by female personnel, not a "uni-sex" cover worn by all. Any change would be made by the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

By the way, the proposed change would be to the cover worn by Dan Daly, who was twice awarded the Medal of Honor. Call him a "girlie man," you cretins.

October 24, 2013 at 9:10 p.m.
alprova said...
October 24, 2013 at 9:15 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

In fairness, it's silly to think The Messiah would be involved in selecting hats.

October 24, 2013 at 9:41 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Postmaster General asking to borrow Air Force One to aid in the delivery of insurance cancelation notices.

October 24, 2013 at 10:14 p.m.
yddem said...

In fairness?!? You're the bozo who referred to Sgt Maj Daly's "hat" as wimpy. You wouldn't have been allowed the honor of shining his shoes.

October 24, 2013 at 10:15 p.m.
fairmon said...

Q. What is the constitutional justification for any government having a law regarding who can or cannot marry?

Same sex marriage has no adverse impact on society in general.

Q. What is the justification for laws against polygamy? Who is harmed if the bigamist and spouses are self sufficient and not dependent on government to support them?

Both parties and their supporters think they are the morals police. One party saying yes you can and we will require others to help support you financially. The other saying no you can't and we will make it illegal for you to galley exercise your rights.

October 24, 2013 at 10:53 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

yddem: wimp this.

October 24, 2013 at 11:42 p.m.
yddem said...

no truth in her

October 25, 2013 at 12:31 p.m.
caddy said...

Equality for ALL ! It's the Progressive way, Right ! ?

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517

October 26, 2013 at 9:36 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

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