published Wednesday, January 8th, 2014

Stripped

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 ...

172
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.
facyspacy said...

No worries... There is global warming.

January 8, 2014 at 12:20 a.m.
fairmon said...

Now what? Does two years of unemployment benefits say anything about our government's work to increase work opportunities? How does this fare with promises by candidates for congress and the president to reduce unemployment to under 6%, cut the deficit in half and healthcare for all? The score is zero out of several. It is a travesty that some folks may have to go to work at jobs below their social status. Where does unemployment money come from?

How many would be willing to be assessed enough to continue all the welfare and free stuff congress has approved spending for?

January 8, 2014 at 2:23 a.m.
AgentX said...

So what should be a reasonable amount of time to be on unemployment? If people were allowed to go on forever getting free handouts from the government, then where is the motivation to find a job (even if the job is "beneath them")? My household has a good income, but should I lose my job, I'll be doing whatever it takes to keep food on the table, even if it means working multiple part time jobs. The unemployment line will be an absolute last resort. Unfortunately, for some, it's the first thing they do. They become used to it, and then it becomes their sole way of life. Guess what? Their children are likely to view the system the same way, and expect to live off government aid. I'm sorry, but if we want America to work, there has to be some motivation. Jobs are out there.

January 8, 2014 at 7:25 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

Oh please give it a break, go talk to someone unemployed, almost everyone of them loathes the situation, and this is a universal feeling. Very, very few people can look their hungry child in the eye and feel good when they have no money.

January 8, 2014 at 8:19 a.m.
conservative said...

Many have been unemployed most of their lives. They also train their children to game the system and to cry for more programs to subsidize their sloth.

Socialist love these people and are most willing to cater to them even going so far as to convince them that they are victims of a capitalist society.

How many times have you read that the rich are stealing from the poor? You would have to be dumber that a box of rocks to not recognize the fallacy of that nonsense.

January 8, 2014 at 8:35 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Why do right-wing comments so often sound like something uttered by Ebenezer Scrooge?

January 8, 2014 at 8:46 a.m.
yddem said...

The rich aren't stealing from the poor, conman, the evangelists are.

What, no wonderful words of wisdom from your bible this morning?

January 8, 2014 at 8:51 a.m.
conservative said...

"They may be on welfare, but that doesn’t stop them from vacationing."

"According to an analysis of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, Maine welfare cash has been spent in every other state in the Union, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands."

"According to HHS records, the top recipients of Maine’s welfare cash are: New Hampshire: $1.4 million; Massachusetts: $360,000; Florida: $206,000; and New York: $100,000."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3109336/posts

January 8, 2014 at 8:58 a.m.
LibDem said...

Unemployment benefits serve at least a couple of purposes - a bridge between jobs and getting money into the economy. If you believe people are voluntarily unemployed, then you've bought 'conservative's' philosophy that your fellow humans are pretty trashy.

(conservative, have you come up with one good thing to say about the kingdom of God? I'm still waiting. Maybe this kingdom has unlimited unemployment benefits? Or, unlimited fry cook positions?)

January 8, 2014 at 9:04 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

In my world (the responsible world) we call this motivation. Guy obviously on he way to work is motivating the dead beat to got get a job and pay for his own stuff instead of begging.

January 8, 2014 at 9:04 a.m.
yddem said...

From your link, conman:

"There are possible reasons a household may be using benefits in another state legitimately. It may be more convenient or cost effective to shop in a bordering state; military families receiving benefits in Maine might be transferred to another state; natural disasters, domestic violence, or divorce, may displace people, making it necessary to seek shelter with out-of-state family members or friends; or families may move to find employment.

Although using welfare cash outside of Maine is currently legal, only residents can apply for and receive benefits. In cases where welfare recipients use their benefits outside the state of Maine for an extended period of time, it may be the case that that individual no longer resides in the state and may be improperly receiving benefits. The state does not currently have any formal mechanism in place to identify such recipients and terminate their benefits. Republican Gov. Paul R. LePage has introduced legislation that would place certain geographic restrictions on the use of EBT cards."

There is probably some abuse in the system, but not as much as in the government contracting business.

Military families receiving benefits? Isn't it shameful that Obama pays the military so poorly?

January 8, 2014 at 9:09 a.m.
conservative said...

"Have card will travel" must be the slogan of welfare abusers from the state of Maine:

"Measured by transactions, Maine EBT cards have been used 11,328 times in New Hampshire over the past three years. EBT cards have been used 2,918 times in Massachusetts and 1,252 times in Florida during the same period."

"Neither Maine nor the federal government places restrictions on the geographical use of TANF welfare cash."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3109336/posts

January 8, 2014 at 9:11 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Conman, you do understand that New Hampshire borders Maine? Maybe the groceries are a bit cheaper across the state line? Shouldn't we applaud them for being frugal with their benefits?

January 8, 2014 at 9:22 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

moon4cat asks "Why do right-wing comments so often sound like something uttered by Ebenezer Scrooge?" Better question is "Why do left-wing comments so often sound like something uttered by Al Franken"?

January 8, 2014 at 9:40 a.m.
conservative said...

"On Aug. 1, 2011, one or more EBT cards were used within a three-minute time frame to access nearly $500 in welfare cash at an ATM in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. That particular ATM happens to be located almost on top of the campus of Disney World Resorts."

"On March 1, 2011, at 3:20AM, a Maine EBT cardholder accessed an ATM in Cape Canaveral, Florida, twice, withdrawing $400. The address of the ATM corresponds with Ron Jon Cape Caribe Resort."

"Additional Sunshine State transactions occur at the Kennedy Space Center in Orlando, the Family Fun Center of Lakeland, and at North Miami Beach, Miami Beach, Vero Beach, Ormond Beach and Daytona Beach – all hotspots for Mainers on vacation."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahjeanseman/2014/01/07/maine-welfare-cash-being-spent-in-disney-world-and-hawaii-n1773200

January 8, 2014 at 9:42 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say "I am going to ride my unemployment until that horse is dead", I could retire 10 years earlier. When I was poor and on government assistance, I knew several folks who were unemployed "on purpose" or just chose not to work so that they could get and stay on assistance.

You are crazy if you think that the majority of folks receiving assistance want to get out. Most of them are complacent and just wanting to survive.

I am living proof that assistance can be a means to better yourself but unfortunately it is NOT the norm.

January 8, 2014 at 9:43 a.m.

Bennett's cartoons are becoming more and more pathetic. Yeah, that's the way it is.

There're less and less participating in the work force under Obama.

Bennett, like all lefties, wants a perpetual nanny state.

January 8, 2014 at 9:46 a.m.
LibDem said...

nurseforjustice, You need a better class of associates. Have you tried taking showers and brushing your fangs?

January 8, 2014 at 9:55 a.m.
Maximus said...

The man in the long johns without a coat looks so so gay. So stupid he does not have the sense to get out of the cold on his own. Typical Democrat, Barry The Welfare Pimp voter. Dependent, victimized, gullible, and most of all, lazy.

January 8, 2014 at 9:58 a.m.
Maximus said...

Nurseforjustice.....yes you are right. Millions are on relief and have accepted the EBT, disability, and unemployment lifestyle as a permanent vacation without the accountability that comes with a soul crushing day job, I.e. showing up on time for work every day. For the welfare set every day is Saturday and they are their own boss. This will destroy our economy and our country. Of course Obama especially loves the welfare state because HE is large and in charge. His wet dream.....we all have a photo of him in our homes and we pray to him each day. No doubt about it.

January 8, 2014 at 10:04 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

I'll go along with the Nurse. Hey LibDem, I'm guessing the nurse does far more for "humanity" than you and 90% of the talk only Left. Just a guess.

January 8, 2014 at 10:07 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Libdemon.... typical jerky response.

January 8, 2014 at 10:08 a.m.
Hunter_Bluff said...

Con/Max - when you actually know what you're talking about, when you've walked in the footsteps involuntarily unemployed, you make speak with some intelligence. Repeating Rush's talking points doesn't qualify. I have walked in the moccasins of the unemployed. I know of which I speak. My job became redundant at the age of 50 - no job needing the skills of last years' Salesman of the Year at Tennessee's largest chemical company. Curiously, I was 50, male and right at the point when that chemical company was going to really start having to put money into my retirement pension. My dismissal meant more profits for the senior executives. Brilliant strategy here's another $2 million in bonus for them. I was on unemployment. It was the nadir of the worst economic downturn since 1930. $275/week (that's WITH the generous EXTRA $25 that Obama made available). On this I had to pay income taxes like everyone else. Whoo hoo, what a wonderful time I had. So much money, so much cash. And the happy knowledge that I was "putting it to the man". Mitt Romney has nothing on my new life of leisure. Grow up. Get a grip dude. $275 a week = $14,300/year. Of course at the minimum wage of $5.75/hour $14,300 = 2,487 hours of work. That's only 62 weeks. Too bad a year only has 52 weeks, I guess that's why these whiners on minimum wage can't make a living either.

January 8, 2014 at 10:10 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Yea, I would love to "ride unemployment until the horse is dead". What do you get 250.00, 275.00 a week before taxes? Living on ~13,000 a year for many people would be impossible.

"If I had a dollar for every time I heard...I could retire 10 years early." Let's say you make 30,000 a year (just a figure, I am not insinuating that this is your yearly earnings), you would have to have heard that 300,000 times to fulfill your early retirement plans. You remind me of that movie when the guy says "If I had a nickel for each year I worked at Sturdy Wings, I would have a quarter". (Name that movie for the big prize).

Maximus, I see your gaydar is fully functional, even in the extreme cold. Maybe it's time for you to exit the closet?

January 8, 2014 at 10:13 a.m.
LibDem said...

"Libdemon". Clever as well!

January 8, 2014 at 10:24 a.m.
alprova said...

inquiringmind wrote: "Oh please give it a break, go talk to someone unemployed, almost everyone of them loathes the situation, and this is a universal feeling. Very, very few people can look their hungry child in the eye and feel good when they have no money."

You wouldn't be exaggerating things a wee bit, would you?

What percentage out there of people do you believe are looking into the eyes of a hungry child?

I've got to join my Republican/Conservative foes on this one. Anyone chronically unemployed for more than a year, with very few exceptions, is unemployed for some reason other than there being absolutely no job for them.

That aside, I also have to question the myth of starving children in America. Unless an adult is purposely starving a child, it isn't happening.

January 8, 2014 at 10:26 a.m.
Maximus said...

Hunter, if you are such a GREAT salesman....Get Another Job. And Gaus....these relief bums are not just on unemployment. They are gaming the system you idiot. They cash in on all of Barry's relief programs while doing a little of this and that under the table. A good picture of this lifestyle is depicted in the TV series, if you have cable, Shameless. It's about a white welfare family in Chicago let by a con man welfare cheat drunk father played by William H. Macy. Check it out, it's funny but sad. The entire family including small kids are on the take at every turn.

January 8, 2014 at 10:28 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Max, I guess you are of the mindset "I saw it on TV, so it has to be true". Ever heard of Hollywood sensationalism? I know you are the successful business owner/multimillionaire, and I am sure that you utilize tax write-offs (as do I) to pay less in taxes. Well, there are many people that take advantage of write-offs using fraudulent measures. Should you and I be punished because people are cheating the government?

January 8, 2014 at 10:38 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Many have been unemployed most of their lives. They also train their children to game the system and to cry for more programs to subsidize their sloth."

Any concern you may have once ever had for the poor, went out the window a long time ago, didn't it?

"Socialist love these people and are most willing to cater to them even going so far as to convince them that they are victims of a capitalist society."

Catering to them? Is that what you call assisting those who have nothing? Those who are poor have been around since Biblical times and they are referred to repeatedly in that Bible that you cling to. Jesus, your Lord and Savior, commands you to show compassion for them...not to judge them.

"How many times have you read that the rich are stealing from the poor? You would have to be dumber that a box of rocks to not recognize the fallacy of that nonsense."

Your ingnorance isn't an act, is it? You cannot have lived in this nation for the past decade, and not witnessed the massive wealth shift that has occurred and that was instrumented by the Republican Party.

How does it feel to now be in a minority for once in your life?

January 8, 2014 at 10:40 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Hey Left! Why have any end-date on unemployment benefits?

January 8, 2014 at 10:42 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Inquiringmind is not only a qualified global warming scientist, but, lo' and behold, an expert in socio-economics.

Is there no bounds to your great knowledge and wisdom oh great one?

And alpo, I'll admit it, you nailed it at 10:26.

January 8, 2014 at 10:42 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Well doesn't that make you look like a blooming idiot Gassy. When you live in the projects and draw a check for doing nothing, you can live on $13,000. You milk everyone around you and beg, borrow and STEAL your way.

It is not a great living but as I said, some are just content to survive or get by with the least effort possible.

You calling me a liar only makes you look stupid since I have lived it.

January 8, 2014 at 10:42 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

I will put it this way. Some folks work very hard and NOT working.

January 8, 2014 at 10:46 a.m.

Alprova, you're ignorant. You're blinded by your loyalty to the Democrat Party. The Powers that be in D.C. are composed of both parties. They're interested in lining their pockets, and rubbing elbows with the "wealthy". There's barely a dimes worth of difference between the two. This ridiculous notion that the Democrat Party is saintly and truly cares about the poor, is a bunch of crap. The Democrat Party doesnt' do squat unless they benefit in someway, and gain more power from it.

How about we round all the unemployed and the cows and form a huge wall from coast to coast and have them let out a huge, collective fart to blow the "polar vortex" away from our borders.

January 8, 2014 at 10:46 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Paying people not to work is a great way to create jobs.

January 8, 2014 at 10:54 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Toes ^^^ and to keep that voting bloc intact.

January 8, 2014 at 10:57 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative quoted""Measured by transactions, Maine EBT cards have been used 11,328 times in New Hampshire over the past three years. EBT cards have been used 2,918 times in Massachusetts and 1,252 times in Florida during the same period."..."

How many Tenesseans use their EBT cards in Georgia, living here in a border city? I'll bet it's far more than 11,000 times EVERY YEAR.

"Neither Maine nor the federal government places restrictions on the geographical use of TANF welfare cash."

How could any state do that? Every state borders at least one other State, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii. Of course there is going to be money speant in adjoining states.

Where is the mystery?

January 8, 2014 at 11 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Nurse, reread my comments. When did I ever call you a liar? There are plenty of people that are on unemployment (for whatever reason) that don't live in the projects. I was on unemployment for three weeks after I was honorably discharged from the Navy. I would suspect that the majority felt as I did; I wanted to find a job and get off unemployment.

January 8, 2014 at 11:05 a.m.
LibDem said...

alprova, If there weren't a wee bit of exaggeration on both sides, there'd be little to argue here. However, as long as we contend that the President isn't creating jobs (not sure how presidents do that), then it follows that there are insufficient jobs for those seeking. I've been retired longer than most people have lived and know nothing about the current market. Is it true that you can get a job whenever you wish?

January 8, 2014 at 11:06 a.m.
nucanuck said...

The world is awash in would-be workers. Out-sourcing, technology, and overwhelming numbers of people have made full employment a view in the rear view mirror. The transition to a needs based economy will continue to put downward pressure on consumption as will down-trending earnings/buying power for the large majority among us.

The government can neither cure unemployment nor provide succor when the numbers become too large. Economic growth has topped out and even massive infusions of government debt have failed to stimulate Main Street. Funny money has lifted the stock and housing markets back into bubble territory, but real growth is no where to be found.

We are finding that compassion is a luxury.

January 8, 2014 at 11:11 a.m.
alprova said...

Z-man wrote: "Alprova, you're ignorant. You're blinded by your loyalty to the Democrat Party."

Uh huh...

"The Powers that be in D.C. are composed of both parties."

Uh huh...

"They're interested in lining their pockets, and rubbing elbows with the "wealthy". There's barely a dimes worth of difference between the two."

Uh huh...

"This ridiculous notion that the Democrat Party is saintly and truly cares about the poor, is a bunch of crap. The Democrat Party doesnt' do squat unless they benefit in someway, and gain more power from it."

Perception is reality. Ever heard of the concept? Whether or not what you state has an ounce of truth, it's always the Democrats who push the bills into Congress to help those who are not extremely wealthy, and the opposite is true for the Republicans.

Case closed, until the Republicans start to realize that there are not enough rich folk to keep them in power.

January 8, 2014 at 11:11 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

It's been 50 years since the democrats began their "war on poverty". The results are negative. Besides creating a mostly permanent class of dependency, it created a democratic party that must continually feed the beast DESPITE results showing failure of such programs.

Obama (the great divider), is predictably using this liberal concocted weapon yet again, on cue, at the beginning of an election year, where he hopes to get the house back under democrat control.

This is a glaring example as to why the democrats LOVE keeping people victims.

Boiled down it is that the "republicans are mean and want you to starve in the streets", and the "democrats are your saviors". Which is a a load of shiznit from the outset.

The democrats held all the power in congress for the 40 years up to the 1995 asskicking by the republicans. Yet they take no blame for ANY of the situation we have now.

January 8, 2014 at 11:11 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Found at last. A picture of ALPO and Dude_ together:

https://twitter.com/Rob_Cunningham/status/420950369007435778/photo/1

January 8, 2014 at 11:12 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

"That aside, I also have to question the myth of starving children in America. Unless an adult is purposely starving a child, it isn't happening."

Alprova, it is not a myth. It may not be to the extent as what you see in some of the impoverished, third-world countries, but there are kids that are starving or malnourished.

January 8, 2014 at 11:15 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Alpo said:

"Case closed, until the Republicans start to realize that there are not enough rich folk to keep them in power."

You DO realize alpo that there are not enough "rich folk" to feed the masses as well, right?

You also realize that the poor and middle class folks don't hire and employ other folks, right?

That's why "trickle up" is a laughable democrat talking point only intended to rile their "low-info" base. You can't take nothing and get something. But hey, if it makes you feel good about yourself to say it, then that's what really matters.

January 8, 2014 at 11:19 a.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

Your personal attack:

"Any concern you may have once ever had for the poor, went out the window a long time ago, didn't it?"

Well once again that is your poor judgment and your poor opinion. However you are rich in personal attacks.

I sincerely thank you, for it is a sure sign of a defeated, little and troubled man who can't sensibly argue his point.

January 8, 2014 at 11:21 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Gassy, your "suspicions" are not fact tho. You have not really lived it.

BTW, Thank you for serving our country. I am a fellow serviceman myself.

January 8, 2014 at 11:23 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

PT, Who's on the bottom?

January 8, 2014 at 11:26 a.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

You wrote to me:

"Those who are poor have been around since Biblical times and they are referred to repeatedly in that Bible that you cling to. Jesus, your Lord and Savior, commands you to show compassion for them...not to judge them."

Yes, they have, Jesus said they would always be with us. Yes we are to show compassion to the poor. That means YOU and I not a Godless Socialist state.

How many times do I have to tell you that before you get it?

You seem to be set on personally attacking me instead of thinking and making a rational point.

January 8, 2014 at 11:38 a.m.
LibDem said...

TOES02800 said, "You also realize that the poor and middle class folks don't hire and employ other folks, right?"

Why are conservatives small middle class businessmen until it's not politically correct?

January 8, 2014 at 11:46 a.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

You wrote to me:

"Your ingnorance isn't an act, is it? You cannot have lived in this nation for the past decade, and not witnessed the massive wealth shift that has occurred and that was instrumented by the Republican Party"

Your obsession to find fault and personally attacked me has reduced you to spouting nonsense.

Please, get this:

POOR PEOPLE BY DEFINITION DON'T HAVE MONEY OR WEALTH TO BE TRANSFERD TO ANYONE.

January 8, 2014 at 11:48 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Toes: They swap.

January 8, 2014 at 11:52 a.m.
AgentX said...

Conservative, just curious, why do you throw someone's name out there really big and in bold, yet leave your own profile blank?

January 8, 2014 at noon
inquiringmind said...

You guys do well by old Scrooge as moon4kat says, I see you still have his Christmas spirit. "Train their children to game the system..." please conservative, you have absolutely no more clue than Bush the Elder, or was it Reagan who said, "Do people really go hungry?"

nurseforjustice and all you guys you can do is make sweeping generalities presuming everyone is exactly the same (as you) and not be able to see reality until you come down and live in it a while. I suggest all the talk about "gaming the system" and "getting something for nothing" is nothing more that your projecting your own internal motivations of greed on others.

conservative go back and read the passage in Mark about Jesus and the poor again, you will find he was mocking those who objected because they wish to wait on the sale of a jar of expense perfume to do it, yet have every opportunity everyday to help the poor and...and do nothing at all.

Have you ever heard the recommendation to walk a mile in another person's shoes to understand human needs?

January 8, 2014 at 12:41 p.m.
alprova said...

LibDem wrote: "alprova, If there weren't a wee bit of exaggeration on both sides, there'd be little to argue here."

I suppose, but it sometimes get ridiculous.

"However, as long as we contend that the President isn't creating jobs (not sure how presidents do that), then it follows that there are insufficient jobs for those seeking."

No President creates any job, outside of hiring czars and Heads of State. Governmental jobs come only with the permission by Congress.

"I've been retired longer than most people have lived and know nothing about the current market. Is it true that you can get a job whenever you wish?"

I could, if it weren't for my current disability. I had a fantastic work record, references, and I had proven skills.

January 8, 2014 at 12:50 p.m.
alprova said...

Toes02800 wrote: "Boiled down it is that the "republicans are mean and want you to starve in the streets", and the "democrats are your saviors". Which is a a load of shiznit from the outset."

Which political Party, whenever the issue of reduced spending comes up for discussion, ALWAYS proposes cuts to social programs FIRST, rather than tackling spending from another position?

"The democrats held all the power in congress for the 40 years up to the 1995 asskicking by the republicans. Yet they take no blame for ANY of the situation we have now."

Think about what you just typed. Prior to Republicans doing that ass-kicking in 1995, things were humming along pretty well.

It's an easy stretch to connect the dots to the Republicans coming into power, along with an analyzation of some rather key pieces of legislation, that have led to where this nation currently stands.

Which is why the Republicans will not have a repeat performance this year.

January 8, 2014 at 12:56 p.m.
LibDem said...

alprova, I was asking in a more general sense. I too could get a job. But can Johnny Anybody step quickly into another job when his old job goes away? If so, unemployment benefits should be limited to, say, four weeks. I don't mean that meanly, only that more would be unneccesary.

January 8, 2014 at 12:59 p.m.
alprova said...

GaussianInteger wrote: "Alprova, it is not a myth. It may not be to the extent as what you see in some of the impoverished, third-world countries, but there are kids that are starving or malnourished."

Not to be argumentative, but the only way that a child in the United States is malnourished or starving is due to an intentional act on the behalf of the parent or the child himself or herself.

It's the same premise as leading a horse to the trough, but you cannot force it to drink.

The assistance is available out there. There is no shortage of assistance, or a denial of assistance, if the need is proven.

January 8, 2014 at 1:02 p.m.
alprova said...

"You DO realize alpo that there are not enough "rich folk" to feed the masses as well, right?"

That Sir, is not the issue.

"You also realize that the poor and middle class folks don't hire and employ other folks, right?"

That's where you are totally incorrect. Most of the jobs in this nation TODAY, are provided by small businesses, who are owned by middle class people.

Not everyone that owns a business and employs people is rich, much less Republican.

January 8, 2014 at 1:06 p.m.
MiddleMan said...

InquiringMind, have you ever heard the adage "Give a man fish, and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime."? Maybe you think that if we give people fish(money) for long enough, then they'll eventually teach themselves to fish(work)?

It's not poor people anyone has a problem with. It's lazy people who refuse to work, and instead game the system (aka steal from those who earn for a living). Despite what you might say, based on a lack of witnessing it, it does happen, and quite often. I used to work a job that put me into contact with a significant amount of these people on a daily basis, and they're actually quite happy to admit that what they're doing.

I (and others like me, I'm sure) didn't just one day wake up and think "Hey, I bet a bunch of people are gaming the system." I know a bunch of people are gaming the system, because I've witnessed it.

January 8, 2014 at 1:10 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Please, get this: POOR PEOPLE BY DEFINITION DON'T HAVE MONEY OR WEALTH TO BE TRANSFERD TO ANYONE."

But of course. The poor are never charged more to boroow money from a bank, if they are allowed to boarrow money at all, to cash a check, etc.

In your little world, they all have everything you have without working for it, and they all have their hands extended to the Government in order to receive it.

I'm sure you set a good example, set forth by Jesus, in doing your part to relieve the suffering of people who have little or nothing, right?

Don't answer that, because I would never, ever discuss what I do for the poor. That will go with me to my grave. That's between myself and the Lord.

If I have you pegged wrong, so be it, but you don't come across in your posts as a man who cares one whit about others, at all.

If that is not the case, then maybe you need to wrok on reforming the image you portray in this forum.

January 8, 2014 at 1:18 p.m.
MiddleMan said...

Oh, and for all the libs freely quoting the Bible in your apples-to-oranges comparison (No one is saying the poor shouldn't be helped. They're/we're saying the people who refuse to help themselves shouldn't be given handouts. If you can't comprehend that fine line, you should probably...no, you should DEFINITELY seek further education), if you have ever cried against the use of anything Biblical in any other discussion regarding government, you are the pure definition of a hypocrite.

January 8, 2014 at 1:21 p.m.
AgentX said...

Middleman: I agree. My wife used to work for the state in a position in which she helped others find jobs or even funding for training/school. She would rant about her days at work all the time- frustrated with the laziness of people out there on government assistance. She would say the same thing as you, that people will admit to not wanting a job for fear of losing that monthly check. People would refuse jobs because they would lose their assistance money; they would turn down free education and training because they would be expected to begin working in the field. They might not live in a mansion, but they are perfectly content sitting on their butts every day and letting the government take care of them. Now, I know it's not always the case, but there are plenty out there abusing the system. With no motivation to support themselves, they'll never do it.

January 8, 2014 at 1:25 p.m.
MiddleMan said...

Personally, conservative comes across as someone who isn't interested in helping someone who wants everything given to him or herself. The Bible never commands anyone to support anyone else who refuses to at least try to parlay that support into bettering themselves.

January 8, 2014 at 1:25 p.m.
alprova said...

Inquiringmind wrote: "alprova, I was asking in a more general sense. I too could get a job. But can Johnny Anybody step quickly into another job when his old job goes away? If so, unemployment benefits should be limited to, say, four weeks. I don't mean that meanly, only that more would be unneccesary."

Hence I do not quantify my statements as absolute and without exception.

I'm sure that there are some out there who are genuinely finding re-employment difficult to impossible, but the vast majority who have been unemployed for a year or longer are fast running out of excuses.

Even here where most of us are located, our regional unemployment rates are higher than the national average, yet I read the paper every day and the jobs section has openings listed, and not all of the jobs require special skills, experience, or higher education.

Anyone seeking a job today, really needs to sign up with temp services, for they have a lock on most of the lower skill jobs. Most of them screen and hire from those seeking decent jobs, and most of those temp jobs work into full time, permanent employment.

I don't necessarily agree with the current system, but it is the reality for those who are seeking the better jobs.

January 8, 2014 at 1:26 p.m.
limric said...

Great cartoon today Clay. I’ll bet this one will be copied alllll over the internets.

It’s disgusts me to read so many posts projecting guilt onto the victims, distancing themselves from the distressing notion of facing reality. A basic instinct is to avoid pain, and it would seem many an opinionator here is well-equipped for a run of cynicism in order to satisfy that drive. Blaming the victim is an established method in which humans, especially the willfully ignorant.

So, for many, today’s scapegoats are the unemployed – because they’re lazy. Rather than be bothered to research the unpleasant truth about just how we got to this situation there is holy justification in blaming the victims. Isn't much easier to dismiss the unemployed as being morally inferior than it is to acknowledge the corruption, greed, selfishness, fraud, indifference and thoroughly unpatriotic behavior that caused it? Some here certainly think so!

To add insult to injury, these untruths about unemployment (the poor too) is perpetuated by an idiotic media, which, correct me if I’m wrong, is largely controlled by the very individuals that contributed to these conditions, and who actually derive benefit (psychological, moral and financial) from its continuation. As a result, the average Joe Public is led to believe in (like the Bible) myths; and because the propaganda has trained them to defer to such entities for ‘truth’, they’ve assumed that because it's on FOX (or MSNBC for that matter), that, HEY- it must be true. This propaganda has performed so well-for so long- that even many of the victims themselves have been conditioned to believe that they are to blame for their circumstances (like some rape victims), rather than being victims of institutionalized fraud, corporate malfeasance and corruption.

Can anyone truly doubt that the vast majority of people aren't lazy? Can anyone truly doubt they want to work and be productive, or desire stability and security for their families? Can anyone truly doubt that those afflicted with alcoholism, mental illness, drug addiction the primary social safety net is becoming the private prison system. Those who suggest otherwise need to examine their own reasons (but won’t) for attributing such false and cynical motives to those who have the same needs and desires as themselves.

IT AIN’T JOE SIX-PACKS FAULT!

If things continue the way they are with so many unemployed and underemployed – for SO long, I see a possible Joe Six-pack social and political upheaval.....and have been saying this for quite a while.

What infuriates me to no end is many of these so called ‘lazy bums’ went off to fight a war and risked their lives for the very people who now condemned them for not having a job.

January 8, 2014 at 1:32 p.m.
wallyworld said...

alprova said: What percentage out there of people do you believe are looking into the eyes of a hungry child? Maybe not in your circle of friends, and you will probably never run across one.
•15.9 million children lived in food insecure households in 2012. •20% or more of the child population in 37 states and D.C. lived in food insecure households in 2011, according to the most recent data available. New Mexico (30.6%) and the District of Columbia (30.0%) had the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food. •In 2011, the top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under 18 are New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Oregon, and Georgia. •In 2011, the top five states with the lowest rate of food insecure children under 18 are North Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Minnesota. •In 2012, 16.1 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty.

What a callous, insensitive reply.

January 8, 2014 at 1:42 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. . . ."

Franklin D. Roosevelt

January 8, 2014 at 1:48 p.m.
alprova said...

The problem is that some people ASSume that EVERYONE who is unemployed is gaming the system, lazy, or unmotivated to find work.

That simply is not the case.

Look at some of the comments. It's easy to discover those who think that way.

There are some people who genuinely are having it rough and who would welcome employment over an unemployment deposit.

The trick is to discover those who are gaming the system and those who are not.

I can't testify for all states, but Georgia and Wisconsin are rigid in their requirements that those receiving benefits actively seek permanent employment.

Is what they do still abused. Of course it is. Those predisposed to abusing what most certainly is a handout, no matter how it is looked at, are going to do it until the game is up.

The longest in my entire life that I was unemployed was for six months. That occurred starting the day Barack Obama was inaugurated and I was re-employed on the last day of June, 2009.

A 50ish year old man couldn't buy a job back then. I took a unique approach to find a job. I offered to work for free for a 30 day period and at the end of that 30 days, hire me or shake my hand goodbye and there would be no hard feelings.

The firm that hired me was intrigued by my advertisement, and they hired me on my first interview, but paid me from day one. I took the job even though doing so cut my income by $60 a week.

Within 30 days, I was making much more. I still work there part-time, well did, until two months ago. I'm started telecommuting some for them.

There are indeed lazy and unmotivated people, but not everyone falls into that category, just because they are accepting handouts from the Government.

I lost a great deal of income over the last two months, but even though I have become further disabled, I am back on top of the world again.

This is why I have little sympathy for people who don't do all they can to fend for themselves.

Anyone who can work, at something, should do somekind of work, even when they are receiving handouts, regardless of where they come from. There is a great need for volunteer workers.

When one needs a job, they should be pounding the pavement every single weekday. When times are as tight as they were five years ago, no stone should be unturned.

Jobs do not fall from the sky.

January 8, 2014 at 1:50 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

In alpo's world, spending money one doesn't have is "rolling along pretty good".

So I encourage you alpo to take out multiple loans that you have no way of paying back, tell your neighbors they'll just to have to work harder, and see how that helps you become a better person.

January 8, 2014 at 1:55 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

You wrote:

"But of course. The poor are never charged more to borrow money from a bank, if they are allowed to borrow money at all, to cash a check, etc."

You sure are a desperate man to win any kind of argument with me and to find fault with me. However, I will play along. I fell certain that if you or anyone has good credit, they can get a loan.

For the first time in my life I inquired about my credit score last year in regards to building a home. I was told that my credit score was through the roof and that I could get any kind of loan I wanted and at the lowest interest rate.

Since you have an unusual name and most likely live in North Georgia or the Chattanooga area, maybe someone will look you up and then you could give them a loan or you could practice what you have been preaching and just give them some money. After all they have a need, right?

BTW, if you like, I believe I could give anyone seeking to find you for a loan or gift some guide lines on how to find your phone number and address, but hey, you could easily provide that yourself.

January 8, 2014 at 2 p.m.
alprova said...

Wallyworld wrote: "What a callous, insensitive reply."

Peope who know me, know I'm about as liberal as they come, but I have every reason to question the theory of "a food insecure household."

Not many years ago, a child declaring that they were hungry constituted a food insecure home. I'm sure that at one time or another, every single home in this nation qualfied under that criteria.

A foof insecure home is also defined as one that does not have an adequate supply of foods that encompass all the food groups, which again could include many homes that people live in who have lots of financial resources.

Remember my quantifying criteria? Intentional act.

A starving child, or one who is malnourished, is an intentional act, in the United States.

There is no excuse for a child in this nation to not have enough to eat, and I challenge any proof to the contrary.

Proof...not hyperbole, rumor, or speculation.

January 8, 2014 at 2:01 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Welfare Brawl! 2 Big Hoodrats Fight At The Food Stamp Office!

This a much more realistic vision than the cold, shaking man depicted above.

January 8, 2014 at 2:02 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Golly gee willakers alpo, as liberal as you are, I find myself agreeing with you on your "starving child" analysis.

I'll keep watching out for that lightning bolt however.

January 8, 2014 at 2:06 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Al, That was a very creative way to get a job. Hats off to ya.

I agree with you that people who want to work will do what it takes to get a job. When I moved here from Texas I had been laid off from my previous employer with a disabled child. So we moved back home to be with family to help us in any way possible with our child. I had no job and did not even consider getting unemployment cause I knew I could get a job paying more than that easily if I wanted to.

I was out of work 2 months before finally accepting a waiter job, very much underneath what I was used to. However, I used that job along with some assistance from the Government for my child to better myself and go to college to be a nurse while supporting a family of 5. I believe that is what the programs were meant to do. Just be a temporary assistance.

I have not spoken in generalities but have spoken from experience and what I have heard others actually say. I know there are folks just like Al and myself that do what it takes to take care of our family. But in my experience, they are the minority.

January 8, 2014 at 2:07 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

I guess you were trying to justify your belief that the "rich" got that way by the banks taken money from the poor.

However, it is just mathematically impossible for the rich to acquire all their wealth from the poor since the poor don't have money or enough money to make anyone rich.

Furthermore it is my understanding that banks don't really lend their money, because it is only the money of their depositors.

Now, since it is not really their money, they have a responsibility (even by law) not to give loans to people of bad credit. They would be poor stewards.

And yes, they are entitled to interest.

January 8, 2014 at 2:16 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Alprova, I think you will agree that there are boatloads of unfit parents in the US. A two-year old kid, whose mom would rather by a gram of meth instead of food for her kid, can't walk down the road and find the nearest soup kitchen. Honestly, if you and Toes (and anyone else for that matter) don't believe that there are starving kids here in the US, I would suggest you go see a proctologist and ask to have your head extracted.

"What infuriates me to no end is many of these so called ‘lazy bums’ went off to fight a war and risked their lives for the very people who now condemned them for not having a job."

Limric, this may be the truest thing I have read on this site in awhile.

January 8, 2014 at 2:18 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

I remember reading a story a while back about some country in Europe that finally stopped it's un-employment benefit payments to the chagrin of the uber-left of that country.

Wouldn't you know that roughly 50% of those who were receiving benefits found a job within a relatively short period of time?

To the apparent dismay of these uber-leftists, they didn't have people dying in the streets as they had claimed would be the obvious outcome.

In other words, people with work ethic WILL do what they must to put a roof over their heads. The lazy will wither on the vine of their own making. And the TRUE helpless will rise to the top and get the aid THEY and ONLY they deserve.

January 8, 2014 at 2:20 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Gassy, As Al said, your scenario is one of intentionality. The mom intentionally starved her 2 yr old by buying meth instead of putting food on the table. AND she used her welfare check to do it. =)

January 8, 2014 at 2:25 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Gassy says:

"I think you will agree that there are boatloads of unfit parents in the US. A two-year old kid, whose mom would rather by a gram of meth instead of food for her kid, can't walk down the road and find the nearest soup kitchen. Honestly, if you and Toes (and anyone else for that matter) don't believe that there are starving kids here in the US, I would suggest you go see a proctologist and ask to have your head extracted."

Sorry gassy, but THAT is a social issue and would not be helped with ANY amount of money. How would giving anybody government(taxpayer)money help with that situation? That's a social issue, not an economic issue.

January 8, 2014 at 2:26 p.m.

Perception is not reality when you have a biased, left wing media that is very in bed with the Democrat Party. They beat the same drum over and over, repeat it until it becomes fact.

For instance the whole idea that millionaire, or a near billionaire, like John Kerry cares more about the poor, and has some kind of connection with the poor , rather than some GOP senator who's wealthy as well, is bull$hit.

Perception is created by the media. Obama is the perfect example. A media creation.

January 8, 2014 at 2:48 p.m.
wallyworld said...

Alprova said: Peope who know me, know I'm about as liberal as they come, but I have every reason to question the theory of "a food insecure household." Here's some FACTS, not **theories"" for you to digest. I guess these kids just picked the wrong parents, huh?

Child Hunger Facts 15.9 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.
•In 2011, the top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under 18 are New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Oregon, and Georgia. •In 2011, the top five states with the lowest rate of food insecure children under 18 are North Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Minnesota Emergency Food Assistance •Nearly 14 million children are estimated to be served by Feeding America, over 3 million of which are ages 5 and under. Proper nutrition is vital to the growth and development of children. 62 percent of client households with children under the age of 18 reported participating in the National School Lunch Program, but only 14 percent reported having a child participate in a summer feeding program that provides free food when school is out. 54 percent of client households with children under the age of 3 participated in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC. •32 percent of pantries, 42 percent of kitchens, and 18 percent of shelters in the Feeding America network reported "many more children in the summer" being served by their programs. Poverty •In 2012, 16.1 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty. Participation in Federal Nutrition Programs •In fiscal year 2011, 47 percent of all SNAP households contained children. •During the 2012 federal fiscal year, more than 31 million low-income children received free or reduced-price meals daily through the National School Lunch Program. Unfortunately, in 2012 less than 2.5 million children participated daily in the Summer Food Service Program. Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., & Singh, A. (2013). Household Food Security in the United States in 2012. Table 1B.USDA ERS. Gundersen, C., Waxman, E., Engelhard, E., Satoh, A., & Chawla, N. (2013). Map the Meal Gap 2013, Mabli, J., Cohen, R., Potter, F., Zhao, Z. (2010). Hunger in America 2010. Feeding America. DeNavas-Walt, C., B.D. Proctor, J.C. Smith. (2013). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012. U.S. Census Bureau. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. (2012). USDA FNS. National School Lunch Program: Participation and Lunches Served (2013). USDA, FNS.Summer Food Service Program. (2013). USDA FNS.

January 8, 2014 at 2:51 p.m.
jesse said...

Need to get Gassious,IQM,limric and alpo together and see if they can solve Fermat's last therom!!Alpo studied "Advanced mathematics" at N.West Ga. tech.coll. so maybe he could helpum out some!!LMAO!!

January 8, 2014 at 2:51 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

If you have been out of work for a whole year and have no prospects (that's 52 weeks) then you'd better be doing something to find a job doing something else.

North Dakota is BOOMING with oil and gas industry. Wal-Mart is paying trainees $17.00 an hour because they can't get qualified applicants.

People were born with the ability to move and find food. I know lots of people, including myself, who have moved numerous times to find work.

If it takes a bunch of old white guys in Washington to take away your second year of unemployment benefits to get you to move to where the jobs are, then it's not THEIR fault that you haven't already done it yourself.

January 8, 2014 at 2:52 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

What does intent or money have to do with anything? That is you trying to insert political banter and not one time did I mention anything about "giving anybody government (taxpayer) money". It's either:

A). The kid is starving B). The kid is not starving

It's pretty cut and dry. You guys are adding the caveats. Let me remind you of what Alprova originally said on the issue:

"That aside, I also have to question the myth of starving children in America. Unless an adult is purposely starving a child, it isn't happening."

A kid that has a crappy or incompetent parent can't fend for himself or walk down to the welfare office and get help for them self. What does it matter on why or how the child became starved? Starving children exist in the US and here in Chattanooga, TN.

January 8, 2014 at 2:52 p.m.

What's the incentive to go bust your ass looking for work, when you can get paid for not working?

January 8, 2014 at 2:53 p.m.
alprova said...

conserviative wrote: "guess you were trying to justify your belief that the "rich" got that way by the banks taken money from the poor."

Some did. Think Title Pawnbrokers, Banks that issue pre-paid debit cards, Checking advancers. The fees and interest on just those three things have been responsible for depriving the poor from a great deal of their money and their property.

"However, it is just mathematically impossible for the rich to acquire all their wealth from the poor since the poor don't have money or enough money to make anyone rich."

Who used the words "all their wealth?" But there are people who have attained all their wealth from depriving the poor of what they have. Think Carey Brown, the man who wants to give a billion dollars to various Christian causes.

The man is going to bust Hell wide open.

"Furthermore it is my understanding that banks don't really lend their money, because it is only the money of their depositors."

I guess you believe that banks don't turn a profit and reinvest some of that profit. Given that a high yield account is currently sitting at around .85%, it seems to me that the banks are the ones making the most from lending their depositor's money.

"Now, since it is not really their money, they have a responsibility (even by law) not to give loans to people of bad credit. They would be poor stewards."

You ASSume that poor people don't pay their bills. Who do you believe borrows most of the money in this nation? The rich?

"And yes, they are entitled to interest."

Well let's see. The average check advance runs around 400% per annum. Title pawnbrokers? About the same. Banks, depending on the type of loan, and ursury limits, are allowed to charge up to 28% interest.

That's a far cry from what it costs them to borrow money.

You really are detached from reality. Maybe if you took your nose out of the Bible once in awhile, you'd not be so delusional.

January 8, 2014 at 3 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Unless the government takes every single child away from their parents at birth gassy, there's nothing anybody can do about that.

There's also serial killers walking the streets. How do you propose we stop that?

But unless you can prove there are "children starving" because of lack of funding, you're out of the loop.

January 8, 2014 at 3:01 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

If a kid's mom doesn't have any money (you used the word "funding") to buy groceries, the kid starves. What more proof do you need?

January 8, 2014 at 3:07 p.m.
alprova said...

GaussianInteger wrote: "Alprova, I think you will agree that there are boatloads of unfit parents in the US. A two-year old kid, whose mom would rather by a gram of meth instead of food for her kid, can't walk down the road and find the nearest soup kitchen."

And that example is most definitely included in my disclaimer, in that it is an intentional act by a parent. All the charity in the world will not fix that example either, until the b!tch is arrested for using illicit drugs.

"Honestly, if you and Toes (and anyone else for that matter) don't believe that there are starving kids here in the US, I would suggest you go see a proctologist and ask to have your head extracted."

Did I say that there was no such thing as a child that is starving in America? You, like a couple of others, is reading more into my statement than I have offered.

Intentional act. A child in the United States is only starving due to an intentional act on their part or on the part of their custodial adult.

And there is no amount of assistance on the planet that will fix that, if it is not brought to the attention of the authorities.

January 8, 2014 at 3:07 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Fister, if you can live off a couple of hundred bucks a week then knock yourself out.

January 8, 2014 at 3:15 p.m.
alprova said...

Z-man wrote: "Perception is not reality when you have a biased, left wing media that is very in bed with the Democrat Party. They beat the same drum over and over, repeat it until it becomes fact."

Which political party introduces all the anti-abortion legislation? Which political party is forever trying to cut spending on social entitlements? It's not the Democrats.

"For instance the whole idea that millionaire, or a near billionaire, like John Kerry cares more about the poor, and has some kind of connection with the poor , rather than some GOP senator who's wealthy as well, is bull$hit."

Ted Kennedy was a man who had an undying devotion from the Democrat majority in his state, who was also as rich as it comes. Being rich does not mean that they do not know how to develop and connection with the poor.

"Perception is created by the media. Obama is the perfect example. A media creation."

Obama did it all by himself, setting aside any and all arguments about the man. He proved that any man, no matter how far he may have been from a silver spoon, can become President of this great nation.

It's too bad that some of you don't see at least that much.

January 8, 2014 at 3:23 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

You really are a desperate man:

You initially tried to justify your notion of the "rich" getting theirs from the poor with this:

Your ingnorance isn't an act, is it? You cannot have lived in this nation for the past decade, and not witnessed the massive wealth shift that has occurred and that was instrumented by the Republican Party"

Now you go to some instances that could in no way could bring about "the massive wealth shift that has occurred and that was instrumented by the Republican Party"

Pawnbrokers, Title Loaners, Carey Brown ( I personally don't have any idea who that is), etc have not created a massive wealth shift and they are certainly not the fault of the Republican party!

Get real.

January 8, 2014 at 3:24 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

A woman with a child is able to get foodstamps. Single white men need not apply.

January 8, 2014 at 3:25 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

You wrote to me:

"You ASSume that poor people don't pay their bills. Who do you believe borrows most of the money in this nation? The rich?"

Poor, middle class, and the rich all borrow money from banks. Who are you kidding?

Earlier you stated " if they are allowed to boarrow money at all" now you say they are the ones doing most of the borrowing. Make up your mind.

The poor who pay their bills will have good credit and will not have to pay the higher interest.

If they have to pay higher interest it is because they have failed to honor their debts in the past, so I don't have to "ASSume."

January 8, 2014 at 3:43 p.m.
alprova said...

Wallyworld wrote: "Here's some FACTS, not theories for you to digest. I guess these kids just picked the wrong parents, huh?"**

In most cases, yes. Or we could blame God if you wish. Doesn't he create all life? What role does he play in pairing doomed children with people who should not procreate?

Sir or Madam, citing what can be found on the net, does not change one point I have written.

Is there an adult in each household who is responsible for any child who is malnourished or being deprived of decent meals?

The data collected to qualify for a child who is not nutritionally balanced, would include a home with a cupboard full of carbs, ho-ho's and ding-dongs.

Can you cite any story ever hitting the news, given this liberal press we seem to have, that proves that there are children who are starving to death across the land, that was not DIRECTLY attributable to that of their adult guardian?

Being liberal in America does not necessarily involve adopting the belief in myths of millions of starving kids as a result of a damaged economy.

Homeless people are as close as it comes to citing a group of people who have it rough on the food front, and yet, they seem to find enough to eat, because I can't even recall one single homeless person making the news who died of starvation.

Intentional act. Intentional act. Intentional act.

January 8, 2014 at 3:44 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpy says "Think Title Pawnbrokers, Banks that issue pre-paid debit cards, Checking advancers. The fees and interest on just those three things have been responsible for depriving the poor from a great deal of their money and their property." *This from a guy that manages Happy Al's Dependable Used Cars

January 8, 2014 at 3:51 p.m.
alprova said...

GaussianInteger wrote: "A kid that has a crappy or incompetent parent can't fend for himself or walk down to the welfare office and get help for them self. What does it matter on why or how the child became starved? Starving children exist in the US and here in Chattanooga, TN."

The point is, nothing can be done to help such a child, until they are discovered by the authorities.

You could budget a billion dollars a month for welfare a day, and a child suffering from neglect would not be helped.

Therefore, we are all arguing about an issue that nothing any one of us can do about, either on a personal level, or as a group, unless of course, such a child lives next door to any one of us.

January 8, 2014 at 3:52 p.m.
alprova said...

GaussianInteger wrote: "If a kid's mom doesn't have any money (you used the word "funding") to buy groceries, the kid starves. What more proof do you need?:"

And where is it that you allege such an example of this is happening?

January 8, 2014 at 3:55 p.m.
LibDem said...

(I remember that, TOES02800. George Clooney played the Uber-Left Commandant.)

From the postings here, I have to assume that a large portion of our population is content to live on a few hundred dollars a week in a ghetto environment. Is this really how we see ourselves? If so, we have problems far beyond the funding of extended unemployment benefits.

January 8, 2014 at 3:56 p.m.
alprova said...

Toes 02800 wrote: "Single white men need not apply."

That is so not true. I know two men personally who are on food stamps. They are brothers, living with their mother, who also draws food stamps. All three of them carry their EBT card with pride.

January 8, 2014 at 3:58 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

I wrote concerning a bank's responsibility:

"Furthermore it is my understanding that banks don't really lend their money, because it is only the money of their depositors."

You responded:

"I guess you believe that banks don't turn a profit and reinvest some of that profit. Given that a high yield account is currently sitting at around .85%, it seems to me that the banks are the ones making the most from lending their depositor's money."

There you go again. And of course your guess is a wrong guess.

January 8, 2014 at 4:14 p.m.
limric said...

Ah it is but a dilemma, isn’t it Jesse,

Except that it has been solved - by an intrigued griffin. Was he but not man, he still resided by appellation in Ironclaw. He solved it in a week. And thus, the tortuous riddle of Fermat’s last theorem came to pass near the ‘Jinx on the Divide'.

Considering the risks, dare you ponder questioning a griffon’s solutions or motives for discovery wise?

January 8, 2014 at 4:41 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

You wrote to me:

"Who do you believe borrows most of the money in this nation? The rich?"

Well, small business is deemed the rich by Reid, Pelosi and the Demoncrats and they borrow a lot of money. And those big houses, they are mortgaged and owned by the rich according to the aforementioned crowd. So I would guess the rich do borrow most of the money, at least more than the poor.

January 8, 2014 at 4:45 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

alprova, I do not believe you are quoting the right guy there at 10:26. And the quote you suggest I exaggerate, no it is true at least by some studies, go read: "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" if you wish.

Middleman - you have absolutely no clue about what is going on in lower income families, absolutely none. You begin with a false premise and run on from there. It is truly a blessing to be able to see the world in such clean-cut, absolute black and white terms.

Toes, toes, toes, my goodness how hard you try to win an argument by denigration! My lady doth protest too much. :-)

January 8, 2014 at 4:46 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

"Need to get Gassious,IQM,limric and alpo together and see if they can solve Fermat's last therom!!Alpo studied "Advanced mathematics" at N.West Ga. tech.coll. so maybe he could helpum out some!!LMAO!!"

Jesse, I have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.

January 8, 2014 at 4:55 p.m.
jesse said...

Limric and gassious, i read it took him 8 years and the proof ran 150 pages!!!

January 8, 2014 at 5:18 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

You quoted me:

"And yes, they are entitled to interest."

and then you wrote:

Well let's see. The average check advance runs around 400% per annum. Title pawnbrokers? About the same. Banks, depending on the type of loan, and ursury limits, are allowed to charge up to 28% interest.

That's a far cry from what it costs them to borrow money.

You really are detached from reality. Maybe if you took your nose out of the Bible once in awhile, you'd not be so delusional.

January 8, 2014 at 3 p.m.

Now, I will expose your deceit:

My statement: "And yes, they are entitled to interest." was only regarding loans by banks and banks only.

I never once brought up "check advance" or Title pawnbrokers. That was totally your concoction, your fabrication, your invention in yet another desperate attempt to find fault with me.

If you are paying your bills you will have good enough credit to get a good interest loan even if you are poor.

If anyone is paying exorbitant interest it is because they have defaulted on past debt and are a high risk.

January 8, 2014 at 5:21 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"From the postings here, I have to assume that a large portion of our population is content to live on a few hundred dollars a week in a ghetto environment. Is this really how we see ourselves?" - LibDem

No, that is how most of today's conservatives CHOOSE to see the poor and unemployed. That is the picture they like to paint and to try to implant in everyone's minds. It is much easier for them to make their specious arguments against the safety nets if they can just lump all of the poor and disadvantaged into one neat category of "moochers and takers."

January 8, 2014 at 5:29 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

You wrote to me:

"Well let's see. The average check advance runs around 400% per annum. Title pawnbrokers? About the same"

First, who uses these? People who have a bad credit record of course. They have habitually been late on payments of bills, defaulted on previous loans and many have filed bankruptcy.

Candidates for low interest rates on a loan? Only in the mind of a Liberal who is not in the business and has nothing to lose. After all it is other people's money isn't it?

Secondly, these are short term loans mostly, one or two weeks till their next paycheck. No way, they would ever pay a total of 400% interest. If they were charged $10-15 per hundred that is a far cry from the scary 400%. Get real.

Yes, even that sounds like a lot, but how little can you charge when you have labor and overhead charges as well as a certain percentage of bad checks or expenses incurred to collect on a bad check. If you gave someone $200 for a bad check, you obviously lost $200.

Consider, you are giving cash, often hundreds for a piece of paper in the hope your customer, a person who has failed in the past to honor his debts, will deposit money into his checking account soon to cover it.

January 8, 2014 at 6:25 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

Jobs do not fall from the sky.

True. The unemployed have a job. Get up early get presentable and start actively seeking a job from 9a to 5p. Be willing to be trained for any job and be willing to relocate.

January 8, 2014 at 6:38 p.m.
fairmon said...

The employment security office can validate the number called to report for an interview with a potential employer that fail to show up. BTW, that does not stop benefits. There are tragic cases but the number of unemployed is much higher than necessary. It is difficult to determine who is deserving and who is not.

Alprova is right. No kid is hungry unless an irresponsible adult allows or causes it to happen. Those that know of those cases can report it to the appropriate officials and possibly correct the situation.

January 8, 2014 at 6:43 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

You wrote this earlier:

"But there are people who have attained all their wealth from depriving the poor of what they have. Think Carey Brown, the man who wants to give a billion dollars to various Christian causes."

"The man is going to bust Hell wide open"

See anything hypocritical about your last statement?

January 8, 2014 at 6:48 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "See anything hypocritical about your last statement?"

Not at all. The carrying charges on the loans I write are right in line with what banks charge. No more. No less. I follow every ursury law on the books, taking advantage of no one or nothing.

I had to send the repo people after three yesterday. I can't give them away.

You're ASSuming again.

January 8, 2014 at 7:05 p.m.
conservative said...

Well you are either "Assuming again" or deliberately deceitful again.

Your statement now has NOTHING to do with my comment at 6:48.

January 8, 2014 at 7:13 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Anthony Provancher:

You wrote this earlier:

"But there are people who have attained all their wealth from depriving the poor of what they have. Think Carey Brown, the man who wants to give a billion dollars to various Christian causes."

"The man is going to bust Hell wide open"

See anything hypocritical about your last statement?

January 8, 2014 at 7:14 p.m.
Plato said...

I'm all for fiscal responsibility, and eliminating speeding on excessive or unneeded budget items, but here we have 1.3 million people most of who are out of work through no fault of their own, and Congressional Republicans are blocking this 25 billion dollar bill.

To put the cost in perspective that's equivalent to 10 days in the Afghanistan war or 6% of the cost of the F-35 - AKA the "flying white elephant" over-bloated, under-performing, outdated and unneeded fighter project.

Congressional Republicans approve money like drunken sailors on crap that has little or no benefit to the public, but when citizens have real needs, albeit temporary, they seem to contort the issue into a pretzel and find every excuse in the world to say no.

January 8, 2014 at 8:01 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Jesus Twerking Christ! PlainTruth posts more child porn. You're a disgusting old man.

January 8, 2014 at 8:11 p.m.
fairmon said...

Plato said....

Congressional Republicans approve money like drunken sailors on crap that has little or no benefit to the public, but when citizens have real needs, albeit temporary, they seem to contort the issue into a pretzel and find every excuse in the world to say no.

I agree. A no should be the position on both spending issues. The number of unnecessary and bloated departments, duplication and turf protection are enough to balance the budget and when normal growth occurs there will be excess enough to reduce the debt. Any negative impact would be less than expected and of short duration.

January 8, 2014 at 11:13 p.m.
fairmon said...

Not one person in government whether elected, appointed or hired will admit the world doesn't stop if their position is eliminated. You would think they are the center of what makes the world turn and that their contribution is essential. None see any problem with the fact their compensation exceeds that of the private sector for like or similar work.

January 8, 2014 at 11:20 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

GOP APPLES AND ORANGES

I love the way republicans blame Obama for ruining the economy, leaving MILLIONS of American workers permanently unemployed, and then turn around and blame the unemployed for not having a job.

A breathtaking display of hypocrisy even by republican high standards.

Not everybody cashing unemployment checks is gaming the system. Not everybody is struggling to find a job that pays enough to keep a roof over their heads, either.

Some people are lazy. Most people are not, but some are.

But they're all God's children, right?

January 9, 2014 at 1:14 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

In 1964 the poverty rate was around 14%. $20.7 trillion and 50 years later, the poverty rate is at.....around 14%.

In the most liberal wealth re-distribution state of the country, California, the poverty rate is over 23 percent. The highest in the land.

So much for results. I guess throwing money at this problem doesn't "fix" it.

January 9, 2014 at 1:21 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

If Obama's economy was half of what he says, we wouldn't even be talking about unemployment benefits. He's gotta keep SOME change in their pockets lest his miserable economy be fully exposed.

January 9, 2014 at 1:43 a.m.
fairmon said...

blackwater48 said...

Some people are lazy. Most people are not, but some are.

But they're all God's children, right?

right, and God will provide for the lazy if he condones laziness.

Employing people you learn they typically fall into these categories:

1-Can and will

2-Could but won't

3-would but can't

Unfortunately about 9% of the 14% impoverished are in #2 which reduces the critical and deserved help category #3 needs and the small number in category #1 needing short term help.

January 9, 2014 at 5:34 a.m.
fairmon said...

The government may be the world's greatest enabler of druggies, thieves, liars, con artist and other takers at all income levels.

People with a special interest, including charity work, love having the government collect money for them, skim off a healthy amount for government then financially support their cause.

January 9, 2014 at 5:45 a.m.
fairmon said...

I have always and will as long as able help neighbors in need and some excellent local charities, children's hospitals etc. I could not care less what happens in the ghettos of L.A., NY, Chicago and other locations. I hate seeing how the government abuses their authority and how the money is used. I do not voluntarily pay taxes as Harry Reid said people do. I pay taxes because it is a law that the government can confiscate and use what any person has whether the person taxed agrees or not.

January 9, 2014 at 6 a.m.
LibDem said...

fairmon, We're not all so talented at placing people in neat, numbered categories. You are indeed insightful. Since you don't care about the ghettos, you have plenty of time to think about the important things like yourself.

January 9, 2014 at 7:33 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Anybody know anything about these reports of Governor Chris Christie trafficking in school children? Tried to get the story yesterday from Fox News, but they apparently hadn't gotten wind as of 9 p.m. Did see stories about a couple of African American individuals that were doing bad things, and coverage of the weather getting back to normal, but nothing about the 2016 Republican Presidential hopeful. Difficult to get the facts straight when you're met with stone silence.

January 9, 2014 at 7:45 a.m.
fairmon said...

LibDem...

Some in the ghetto need help escaping that environment but that is not a supported initiative. I would feel no remorse if the violent gang members that abuse and bully others all had a life ending event.

You may disagree with the percentages but any argument about the categories is weak.

January 9, 2014 at 7:51 a.m.
Maximus said...

I still say its best to reduce the enticements of the welfare state so that the man would either work to find a way to get out of the cold himself or perish. And Alprova brings up a good point that I have noticed as well....Why do so many Barry The Welfare Pimp voting liberal full grown men still live with their Mom? As for Obama not growing up with a silver spoon, I think his, in Barry's words, "typical white woman" Granny was a bank officer in Hawaii, sending the little welfare pimp to the best "private" school on the island and of course we all know he went to Columbia and Haaaaaaaaarvard most likely on the guvment dime. No Alprova your boy did not come from humble beginnings, he was a Marxist moocher from day 1.

January 9, 2014 at 8:55 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Toes and Fairmon making good sense.

January 9, 2014 at 9:46 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

Toes throws out some bad data, he sez, "In 1964 the poverty rate was around 14%. $20.7 trillion and 50 years later, the poverty rate is at.....around 14%."

You are just throwing out untrue statements for polemical purposes. There was a (conservative) press article in this paper last week showing the so-called poverty rate has dropped (but only about 3 points) in that timeframe. There is also plenty of data that shows the disparity in income has increased significantly over that time interval.

The data on charitable giving show that rich people give a far smaller proportion of income to charity than do lower income people. Of course that trend goes back to the Roman era and the widow with the two mites. Go figure.

January 9, 2014 at 10:07 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

IQM in love with the word "polemical: lol

January 9, 2014 at 10:30 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Maximouth finally comes clean, suggesting that marginalized people should "perish". Now all that is left is to determine is whether this "perishment " should be naturally occurring or imposed. When we use the word "perish" it seems somehow pleasant and painless. Surely we would all rather perish than die.

January 9, 2014 at 10:58 a.m.
tderng said...

Gov. Chris Christie fires person who screwed up with the GW bridge lane closures, removed his campaign manager from his position for his remarks in memo texts. What a concept! I thought the way to handle these type of things was to promote these people. Or at the very least to not hold them accountable. The Governor needs to go to the same program that Obama went to,so that he can learn to handle these people appropriately.

January 9, 2014 at 12:03 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

pt - if the shoe fits...

January 9, 2014 at 12:37 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) says problem w/ welfare is calling it welfare. She suggests "transitional living fund" hard not to laugh at these Leftist kooks. Ok, I'll laugh.

January 9, 2014 at 1:26 p.m.
LaughingBoy said...

A simple question, should these benefits have no end date?

January 9, 2014 at 1:48 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Chris Christie makes rookie mistake. Fired offending Bridgegate employee. Hasn't learned yet that she should have been promoted.

January 9, 2014 at 2:09 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

LibDem said...

Unemployment benefits serve at least a couple of purposes - a bridge between jobs and getting money into the economy. If you believe people are voluntarily unemployed, then you've bought 'conservative's' philosophy that your fellow humans are pretty trashy.

The money is already in the economy unless it’s in a fruit jar buried in the back yard.

Their not necessarily trashy ... just human.

January 9, 2014 at 2:11 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

yddem said...

There is probably some abuse in the system, but not as much as in the government contracting business.

I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that fraud in just S.S. disability would probably be a very interesting revelation.?**

Military families receiving benefits? Isn't it shameful that Obama pays the military so poorly?

Not as bad as sending them to die in a war he don’t believe in or care to win.

January 9, 2014 at 2:13 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

LibDem said...

nurseforjustice, You need a better class of associates. Have you tried taking showers and brushing your fangs?

Familiarity is association?

January 9, 2014 at 2:13 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

IQM:

Bad data only a liberal news site could offer

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/

January 9, 2014 at 3:01 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

"Not as bad as sending them to die in a war he don’t believe in or care to win."

JT, I see you watched Megyn Kelly's show last night. Are you going to plagiarize her whole segment or maybe you have a little insight of your own?

January 9, 2014 at 3:52 p.m.
jesse said...

If ya don't think for yourself then ya gotta get your opinions from somewhere!!

January 9, 2014 at 4:03 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

I urge Megyn Kelly not to morph into Nancy Grace.

January 9, 2014 at 4:06 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

inquiringmind said...

Oh please give it a break, go talk to someone unemployed, almost everyone of them loathes the situation, and this is a universal feeling.

No! ... Every true red blooded 21st century American loves unemployment thus the overwhelming preference for weekends, vacations, holidays, sick days, etc. What they actually loath is their inability to be given the job, title, and income they feel they rightfully deserve.

January 9, 2014 at 5:05 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

moon4kat said...

Why do right-wing comments so often sound like something uttered by Ebenezer Scrooge?


Scrooge was against the burning of coal as a means of heat/energy. Liberal

Scrooge was against marriage. He never married, was against his nephew marrying, he was not supportive of the institution of marriage. Liberal.

Scrooge did not support charities and felt the government was best left to deal with the poor and sick. Liberal.

Scrooge did not believe in the afterlife. Liberal

Scrooge supported euthanasia, decreasing the surplus population. Liberal.

Scrooge did not believe in celebrating Christmas. Liberal.

Scrooge was a sour-puss. Liberal.

After his transformation:

He now enjoys Christmas. Its said that he keeps it in his heart everyday. Conservative

Instead of waiting on the government to solve the problem, he now takes it upon himself to aid the poor personally. Conservative.

He gives plentifully and willingly to private charities. Conservative.

He is now happy and cheerful to all. Conservative.

January 9, 2014 at 5:11 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Hunter_Bluff said...

Con/Max - when you actually know what you're talking about, when you've walked in the footsteps involuntarily unemployed, you make speak with some intelligence.

Extending your logic to other areas it would mean that no one has any intellectual input and thus no right to speak on subjects such as the budget and uses of the military unless a person had served and especially those in high command positions... Right?

I have walked in the moccasins of the unemployed.

Is this some kind of bigoted commentary on Native American employment capabilities?

I know of which I speak. My job became redundant at the age of 50

Why should an employer continue to employ someone whose job is “no longer needed or useful”?

no job needing the skills of last years' Salesman of the Year at Tennessee's largest chemical company.

Why is it that everybody who posts here are “much above average”

Curiously, I was 50, male and right at the point when that chemical company was going to really start having to put money into my retirement pension.

You worked for a company based their contributions to retirement plans based on age and not income?

My dismissal meant more profits for the senior executives. Brilliant strategy here's another $2 million in bonus for them.

Wow! ... The senior executives got to divide up your $2 million salery? I don’t agree with how they treated you but .... Wow! ... how could they not ... it was $2 million after all.

I was on unemployment. It was the nadir of the worst economic downturn since 1930. $275/week (that's WITH the generous EXTRA $25 that Obama made available). On this I had to pay income taxes like everyone else. Whoo hoo, what a wonderful time I had. So much money, so much cash. And the happy knowledge that I was "putting it to the man".

Unbelievable that no one would want to hire the “Salesman of the Year at Tennessee's largest chemical company”.

January 9, 2014 at 5:13 p.m.
yddem said...

junktrash said "Not as bad as sending them to die in a war he don’t believe in or care to win." Not as bad as the shrubster, who destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives and blew over a trillion dollars in an unprovoked attack based on lies. Just junk, trash, no value in it.

January 9, 2014 at 5:18 p.m.
yddem said...

junktrash said "I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that fraud in just S.S. disability would probably be a very interesting revelation.?" Then reveal it, and compare it with the fraud in the government contracting business.

January 9, 2014 at 5:28 p.m.
Hunter_Bluff said...

Somebody please change Conservative's diaper. He's becoming colicky.

January 9, 2014 at 6:25 p.m.
Hunter_Bluff said...

Jt6gR3hM, When you have mastered enough English to express whatever you were trying to say in response to my essay - try again. Your last post appears to be from a child's "See & Say" toy.

January 9, 2014 at 6:30 p.m.
yddem said...

Christie looked and sounded sincere in his news conference. I hope he truly knew nothing about the scheme until the disclosure yesterday.

January 9, 2014 at 6:43 p.m.
degage said...

YD, You mean like Obama truly knew nothing about the IRS crap or the NSA mess. WE know, Obama only found out about it from the news. NOT!

January 9, 2014 at 6:52 p.m.
yddem said...

That is not what I said, degage, and there is nothing in what I said which should lead a reasonable person to ask such a question. WTF is wrong with you? Can a person not say something complimentary about a politician without a person of your ilk initiating an attack? From your inane reply, you must think Christie knew. You are entitled to that opinion.

January 9, 2014 at 7:01 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

degage... I think you hit a nerve. The Democrats’ favorite Republican has complete exploded and they just can’t believe it happened before they were ready to release their opposition research. They so much want Christie to be the one... You know another Northeast RINO like Romney, etc. They build them up so well prior to and during the primaries only to completely eviscerate them as uncaring monsters after they get the nomination. How many more Doles, McCains, and Romneys will it take. If the country want’s a Fleabagger for president then why shouldn’t they vote for the real thing and not some mush mouth RINO version.

Have you ever noticed how many times these local baggers say "Oh if Christy was to get the nomination I might consider voting for him ".... U.S. grade A Government approved Fleabagger B.S.... LMFAO!!

January 9, 2014 at 7:23 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Hunter_Bluff said...

Jt6gR3hM, When you have mastered enough English to express whatever you were trying to say in response to my essay - try again. Your last post appears to be from a child's "See & Say" toy.

I’m sure that stung you Hunter old boy but it is your reality .... Right?

January 9, 2014 at 7:26 p.m.
yddem said...

degage must have hit your nerve, junk trash. You not only think Christie has "exploded", you want him to explode. You must be one of those Cruz nuts.

And in response to your question "Have you ever noticed how many times these local baggers say 'Oh if Christy was to get the nomination I might consider voting for him.'" No, in fact I have not heard any "baggers" say that, but I don't hang out with the "baggers" you do. You have an intimate knowledge of "local baggers"?

January 9, 2014 at 7:39 p.m.
degage said...

YD, Christie is not my favorite person but I believe he meant what he said because he took responsibility and fired the person responsible for the mess. Unlike Obama who only promotes those responsible. That only makes me think Obama knew and is rewarding them for what he wanted them to do.

January 9, 2014 at 7:58 p.m.
yddem said...

Your explanation then, degage, is that when you said "like Obama truly knew nothing," you did not mean to compare Christie to Obama, although that is what you did. I complimented Christie, and your impulse was to slam Obama. Sounds a lot like typical criticism of liberals, i.e., knee-jerk reaction.

January 9, 2014 at 8:13 p.m.
yddem said...

junktrash said "You know another Northeast RINO like Romney, etc. . . . How many more Doles, McCains, and Romneys will it take." Romney claimed he is from Michigan. No question Dole is from Kansas and McCain is from Arizona. But you know what you're talking about, right, jt?

January 9, 2014 at 8:27 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Jt6gR3hM and Toes, you obviously did not get the book and read it but why am i surprised?

January 9, 2014 at 8:46 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Why would Christie be "the Democrats favorite Republican"? I think he has a legitimate chance of winning in 2016. I would say he is the closest thing to TRUE Reagan in the GOP. "Conservatives" seem to remember Reagan as one of them; someone that doesn't raise taxes, grant amnesty to illegal aliens, someone that doesn't "waste" money, someone that didn't reach across the aisle, etc. It's mind-boggling.

January 9, 2014 at 8:55 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

"Jt6gR3hM, When you have mastered enough English to express whatever you were trying to say in response to my essay - try again. Your last post appears to be from a child's "See & Say" toy."

When JT is unable to copy and paste the rhetoric from his favorite websites or shoplift some talking points from his favorite "Conservative" talk shows, he sounds like a fool.

January 9, 2014 at 8:58 p.m.
dude_abides said...

"Class Action" Christie is mortally wounded. They'll lie but they won't commit perjury. You don't accidentally surround yourself with hit men. The longer the bleed out the better for Hillary. Tiger Woods will medal in the Super G wearing a blonde wig before Christie becomes President.

January 9, 2014 at 10:52 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

GaussianInteger said...

Why would Christie be "the Democrats favorite Republican"? I think he has a legitimate chance of winning in 2016.

Thanks for proving my point.

I would say he is the closest thing to TRUE Reagan in the GOP. "Conservatives" seem to remember Reagan as one of them; someone that doesn't raise taxes, grant amnesty to illegal aliens, someone that doesn't "waste" money, someone that didn't reach across the aisle, etc. It's mind-boggling.

It all comes down to a cult of personality for you baggers and you think it is the same for everybody ... don’t you? He was a 3rd class actor with a genius for political rhetoric. He served his purpose in advancing the conservative point of view and even with his failures he handed you fools a complete a^^whipping on a daily basis. I thank him for that but he’s dead and gone now and he’s not coming back so true conservatives will move on and build on what he was able to leave us.

Still it’s a testament to his leadership power that he still, after all these years, has Democrat political candidates paying homage (Even Obama at one time thought himself to be the next Reagan) to him all the while still fearing his continued influence.

January 9, 2014 at 11:01 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

dude_abides said...

"Class Action" Christie is mortally wounded. They'll lie but they won't commit perjury. You don'taccidentally surround yourself with hit men. The longer the bleed out the better for Hillary. Tiger Woods will medal in the Super G wearing a blonde wig before Christie becomes President.

He’ll be distilled down to power the oil lamps and it’s good it happened now and we can check off another MSM created loser. Wonder what RINO candidate they will pump to next? Probable the one with the juiciest opposition research file they can drag out about August 2016.

January 9, 2014 at 11:07 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

yddem said...

junktrash said "You know another Northeast RINO like Romney, etc. . . .

WTF .... I think he qualifies and he is the only one being so identified as a comparison.

How many more Doles, McCains, and Romneys will it take." Romney claimed he is from Michigan. No question Dole is from Kansas and McCain is from Arizona. But you know what you're talking about, right, jt?

Willful ignorance on your part is so unbecoming ... don’t you feel so as well?

BTW ... how many of those people have live little more than a nominal existence in those states. They’re hardly home boys except in D.C and Mass.

January 9, 2014 at 11:19 p.m.
yddem said...

Nice try, junk trash, showing your stupidity once again. You run off at the mouth with your idiotic comments about Northeast RINOs like Romney, Dole and McCain, and you call me ignorant.

Still waiting to hear about all your buddies in the Local Baggers for Christie Club. Laugh yfao at that one. What a buffoon you are.

January 10, 2014 at 12:01 a.m.
fairmon said...

Jt6gR3hM said... He (Reagan) was a 3rd class actor with a genius for political rhetoric. Obama at one time thought himself to be the next Reagan.

They do have a lot in common. Obama is a community organizer with a genius for political rhetoric. The roar of the cannon is impressive but no hole in the target.

Neither party, dems or pubs, offer a social liberal and a fiscal conservative candidate.

January 10, 2014 at 4:38 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.