David_Franks's comment history

David_Franks said...

"Santorum comes out on bottom."

Heh, heh, heh.

April 11, 2012 at 12:48 a.m.
David_Franks said...


RE "OBOOB wants distractions, he wants chaos and blacks to feel as if they're all under attack from whitey."

Republicans want distractions and chaos and for everybody to feel as if they're all under attack from all sides-- especially from that Muslim pretender in the White House. Even the birthers are still doing their part.

RE "What we're seeing is OBOOB and his gang of horse's asses use this murder to gain from it politically."

And here you are, trying to gain from it politically. The only reason Republicans can't really use the incident for political gain is that they pretty much made the incident possible-- if not inevitable-- in the first place.

RE "Democrats like keeping black folks in their place!"

Republicans like keeping women in their place.

That was easy. I see why you find making an ass of yourself so irresistible.


March 29, 2012 at 1:28 a.m.
David_Franks said...


RE "So … I take it that makes you a jesus freak?"

I'm sure you take it however you can get it, but in this case you are incorrect: nothing makes me a Jesus freak.

RE infant mortality

There is indeed some variability in rankings based on what is reported, though the CDC concluded in a report that these differences in reporting are not likely to be the primary factor in our poor showing:

"...it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking. In 2005, 22 countries had infant mortality rates of 5.0 or below. One would have to assume that these countries did not report more than one-third of their infant deaths for their infant mortality rates to equal or exceed the U.S. rate. This level of underreporting appears unlikely for most developed countries.

"The United States compares favorably with Europe in the survival of infants born preterm. Infant mortality rates for preterm infants are lower in the United States than in most European countries. However, infant mortality rates for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more are generally higher in the United States than in European countries.

"The primary reason for the United States’ higher infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the United States’ much higher percentage of preterm births."

See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm

Here is a list of countries reporting all live births as of 2004 (per CDC report linked above), with their 2005 and 2010 infant mortality rates (probability of dying between birth and age 1 per 1000 live births), according to the World Health Organization, in parentheses: Austria (4,4), Denmark (4,3), England and Wales (5,5 [United Kingdom]), Finland (3,2), Germany (4,3), Hungary (7,5), Italy (4,3), Northern Ireland (5,5 [United Kingdom]), Portugal (4,3), Scotland (5,5 [United Kingdom]), Slovak Republic (8,7 [Slovakia]), Spain (5,4), Sweden (3,2), United States (7,7).

(IMR figures from http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?vid=200)

As you can see, even in a group of countries using the same reporting criteria, the United States doesn't show well.

RE the link you posted

The post ends: "Even if the counting methods were uniform, we'd still be lower than many countries. This is preventable through education of young mothers who invariably fail to get available pre-natal care. That, and making an attempt to address the epidemic of babies having babies would go a long way to lowering the infant mortality rate."

Yet conservatives are going out of their way to make it more difficult for young mothers to get prenatal care, and for "babies" to get the sex education they need in order to reduce their baby epidemic.

And what about all of those other medical statistics where the United States lags?

March 28, 2012 at 1:51 a.m.
David_Franks said...


RE "Were you a fetus? Are you a person now?"

Were you in kindergarten? Are you a high school graduate now?

RE "You see what I'm saying?"

Yes, I do. It doesn't address the issue. Even if every person was once a fetus, a fetus is not a person.

RE "You know, people come here from all over the world for medical related things."

To be more specific, rich people (and people who will not be paying for their own procedures) come here from all over the world for medical-related things.

March 28, 2012 at 12:02 a.m.
David_Franks said...


RE "Is a fetus a human being?"

A fetus is human, but it is not a human being.

RE "So a fetus is a human being."

By that logic, a human being is a fetus.

RE "It's illogical and just idiocy to argue a fetus is not a human being."

That's why nobody has made that argument. You should pay closer attention to the comments.

RE "So abortion is really the murder of an unborn human being."

The word "murder" refers to the killing of a person. A fetus is not a person.

March 27, 2012 at 9:59 p.m.
David_Franks said...


RE "you have not given one shred of evidence that a fetus is not a baby"

Nor have you given any evidence that a fetus IS a baby.

RE "even using the Bible as a crutch."

I'm not using the Bible as a crutch. I am simply pointing out that the Bible is not against abortion, for the benefit of people who are against abortion because they believe that the Bible is against abortion.

RE "So by YOUR definition, anyone who is dependent on someone else for their existence, that "something" is not an individual?"

Note that I said "Something that is vitally attached to its mother"-- that is, something that is physically attached to, and depends directly upon its mother (host) for its life. Please respond to what I said, not what you wish I had said. I hope that you are more attentive in nursing than you are in newspaper forum discussion.

RE "I would like to know where in the Bible you could take a verse that far out of context to show that babies are not people."

Here's a page with a few such verses:


It ends with this:

"The Bible contains over 600 laws governing everything from fabrics to how to cut a beard yet contains no law prohibiting abortion. Jesus never mentioned it. As the Oxford Companion to the Bible notes:

"'Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status.'"

March 27, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
David_Franks said...


RE "So the child my wife is carrying right now, who we see yawning, sucking his thumb, stretching out, etc is not a baby?"

The cute, endearing "behaviors" and affectations of fetuses are caused by the fact that they are suspended in liquid in a cramped space. A fetus does not "suck its thumb"; babies have to learn how to suck.

RE "It is a child."

No, it isn't. Never mind the fact that the Bible says that it isn't; a child is a young individual. Something that is vitally attached to its mother is not an individual. It has the potential to be a child, and if you want it to reach that potential, don't have it aborted, and good luck otherwise.

RE "We all have to decide what sins we can live with. You've chosen killing babies."

Not only have I never killed a baby, I have never had or caused an abortion. If abortion is truly morally wrong, then you should be able to speak against it without lying or using misleading, manipulative language.

March 27, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.
David_Franks said...


RE "They legalized the murder of unborn babies 7 to 2"

A fetus is not a baby. And if you are familiar with the Bible, you should know that a baby did not become a person until the age of one month-- after its birth. And you should be aware that God outlined a procedure for inducing an abortion in an unfaithful wife who was pregnant. The unborn of the Bible are as badly off as today's post-born are under Republicans.

RE "Jesus is libertarian."

Jesus was a Goddamned red pinko Communist.

Apparently you aren't familiar with either Testament.

March 27, 2012 at 1:07 a.m.
David_Franks said...


RE "Here I will re-post your original statements since you would want everyone to judge them on their merit...."

In the matter of factual content, I said, "I choose...to contribute to the amount of factual information provided in these forums." I was referring to all of my posts in this and other threads, addressed to you and to other commenters. You therefore would have to look to other of my posts in order to address the point you appear to wish to make. If you will bother to do so, you will find that I am pretty good at bringing facts and references to the discussion.

RE "if the toon was draw as if viewed through a wide angle lens, it would be correct"

See http://www.elfwood.com/farp/perspective/perspctv.html and note the section "Perspective angle/Cone of vision". It demonstrates how a wider cone of view (such as provided by a wide-angle lens) pulls the viewer closer to the objects being viewed, which has the effect of making more surface of objects off the point of view visible. The drawing captioned '150-degree Cone of Vision" is a very extreme example of how a cone of view at a wider-than-normal angle allows/forces you to see parts of objects that would not normally be seen (such as the bulb and inside of the lampshade in the cartoon).

RE "the most important is did Toonboy actually intend and draw it that way"

Actually, no it isn't. You contend that the apparent angle of the light is necessarily a mistake because it looks wrong. I contend that the angle of the light is not necessarily a mistake because there is a reason it can be correct.

Neither of us knows whether Mr. Bennett drew the lighting and its angle by design. I had exactly as much basis to say that he did as you had to say he didn't.

RE "Time will tell if you are up to the task..."

Yes, it will.

RE "but I am not banking on you doing so."

That's okay; you've been wrong before.

March 21, 2012 at 12:24 a.m.
David_Franks said...


Crazy, indeed.

March 19, 2012 at 11:34 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.