CowWhisperer's comment history

CowWhisperer said...

If she induced him to violate parole in Colorado for the purpose of a criminal enterprise in Tennesse - getting money for her family any way he could - why is she not chargeable with the robbery and murder in Chattanooga? This looks like a classic conspiracy. She's more than an accessory, she's a planner and ringleader. I say they both should face a jury on the question whether they should be put to death.

Very well-written story. I applaud the amount of effort devoted to this story and its specific details and history. This is the kind of reporting you can't get in blogs and regular TV news.

September 25, 2011 at 5:04 p.m.
CowWhisperer said...

If a farmer owns 2,000 acres of land that's worth $2,000 per acre, his land alone is worth $4 million. When he dies, if the Democrats get their way, his family owes the government $1,650,000 (55% of $3 million with first million exempt). How is his family going to pay that?

Let's say he also has $2 million in cash, stock, etc. Then, their estate tax bill goes up to $2,750,000. The argument that only the rich are affected is the most selfish thing I have ever heard. Why not make the estate tax only apply to people of non-Anglo Saxon ancestry, then most of us won't be affected, but we'll get way more money. That's absurd. Taking 55% of someone's life's earning is cruel, even if they've earned $100 million.

December 9, 2010 at 8:58 a.m.
CowWhisperer said...

Sure would be nice to know how long the training had been going on. What was the temperature? Had she been involved in training before? Was water available to the trainees? I guess we should just be glad to know what one of the school board members thinks.

September 1, 2010 at 3:29 p.m.
CowWhisperer said...

One nonreligious reason that can be used in a secular court of law to deny same-sex marriage is that the law does not recognize same-sex marriage. For a court to grant same-sex marriage, the law must allow it. The law does not.

As for the person who claims she is only seeking equal rights, she already has them. She has the same right to marry as every other person does. If she chooses not to marry and engage in relations with a person of the same sex, why should the law grant her special privileges? Why should the law be changed to endorse aberrant behavior.

Underlying this entire argument is the unstated contention that society can not decide that certain choices are wrong and illegal. When stated that plainly, the statement is absurd. Murder is wrong and illegal. Theft is wrong and illegal.

Some things are wrong like adultery, but not punished as illegal (even if still technically illegal in some places). Proponents argue that homosexuality is not wrong. People may also argue that adultery is not wrong, or fornication is not wrong. However, are people, and a majority of society, allowed to say that adultery is wrong and fornication is wrong? Yes.

Under current constitutional interpretation, society is not allowed to use the law to punish adultery and fornication. Homosexuals enjoy the same protection since sodomy laws have been declared unconstitutional. What homosexual marriage proponents are asking for is not freedom from lawful punishment, but for the law to extend them unusual benefits. They argue that no one has any basis to disagree with these benefits.

Should adulterers and fornicators be given unusual lawful benefits simply because they fornicate? Should homosexuals?

Heterosexual marriage is different, because it benefits society. Homosexual marriage not only offers society no benefit, but actually offends a majority of its members. Homosexuals claim to be asking for the same rights everyone else enjoys, but they already do. They have the same right to marry as anyone else. What they actually want is a special benefit for immoral behavior and the outlawing of any beliefs that disagree with their immorality.

August 23, 2010 at 1:57 p.m.
CowWhisperer said...

The previous linked stories say the sale was carried out by the bankruptcy trustee and approved by the bankruptcy court. This story does not explain the importance of McKenzie signing off on the deal, but even if he had, why didn't the ones managing his estate stop it if it were so unfair. McKenzie's attorney said he didn't owe much money, just personal guaranties. Excuse me, but those are debts, especially when all your companies have gone under as well, as his did.

The previous stories said he owed $150 million. If so, it makes perfect sense he would try to protect his former business partner from the bankruptcy process by signing over jointly held property for a low price. If he sold it for $7 million, or his half for $3.5 million, he would not get a penny, his creditors would simply get $0.17 on the dollar. Almost any sane person in that situation, if they thought they could do so legally, would say to their partner, here take it before they do.

August 13, 2010 at 6:17 p.m.
CowWhisperer said...

I would have liked to see the first communication that came before the first email reprinted with this story. From what is here, Smith's campaign starts the snide back and forth, and the Fleischmann campaign reciprocates.

Which of the two copied the reporter? Most likely, one of the two expected these communications to never see the light of day. The other is the more guilty because they were intentionally trying to continue throwing dirt on the other.

August 13, 2010 at 6:10 p.m.
CowWhisperer said...

Lucy was not a hominid but has been shown to have been a tree-dwelling ape. Even the discoverer of Lucy has admitted that he was ruled by bias and she has been "dethroned." See link for more:

August 12, 2010 at 12:45 p.m.

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.