published Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

The Flagellant

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 ...

230
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.
shifarobe said...

Dumb one, fur face. How about the flatulence coming out of Opoopy's mouth?

February 23, 2012 at 12:18 a.m.
shifarobe said...

Opoopy and you leftards stick your fingers where they don't belong and you don't like it when you get them broken. Secularism is a religion, dummies.

February 23, 2012 at 12:21 a.m.
shifarobe said...

Clay is a hater of anyone who has faith and proudly states it. If Santorum was a flaming queen and flaunted it Clay would love it.

February 23, 2012 at 12:28 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Is it Santorum or Sanatorium? Either way, what is he doing on the big stage?

February 23, 2012 at 12:42 a.m.

Appealing to the people who think what he's doing is the right thing.

It's surprisingly popular.

And thanks shifarobe, but how would you describe your political affiliations?

February 23, 2012 at 12:46 a.m.
shifarobe said...

Mine???? What's it to you?

I call it as I see it.

I'm not religious at all. I don't like the way Christians are made fun of by the left leaning press though. I don't like how Opoopy feels he can put pressure on Churches to accept his secular view. Opoopy's idea of a church is one that has a Jew and America hater at the pulpit.

Clay's cartoon is an insult to people of faith. Even someone with none like me can see that.

February 23, 2012 at 1:19 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

WELCOME TO THE GOP JIHAD

Since when does a presidential candidate need to establish religious credentials? This is not Iran, but some republicans would like America to be more theocratic and less democratic. Rick is one of them.

Santorum pontificates often about how important religion is, was, and always will be in his life. He's talked about satan having his evil eyes on America and no where else. Rick openly proclaims that birth control is bad, being gay is bad, and that public schools are bad, because apparently the bible tells him so.

It's very clever politically. By making his religion, his christian faith, the center piece of his campaign he can appeal directly to the evangelical christians who are faithful primary voters. And Mitt can't follow him down that road because he would end up talking too much about HIS religion and the book of mormon. With the label 'Mr. Inevitable' sounding a little hollow lately, Romney would have to defend his faith, although I honestly don't know why he should. I don't know why any candidate should.

Tip of the cap to Clay for illustrating the political damage one can inflict on oneself by adhering too literally to biblical guidance.

February 23, 2012 at 1:20 a.m.
shifarobe said...

Damn you secularists are the most boring people in the world. I hate your flavorless dream world where everyone has to believe like you do and be like you OR ELSE. I wish I had faith, but I don't. I find people of faith MUCH, MUCH MORE interesting than you vanilla statists. BLAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH.

February 23, 2012 at 1:36 a.m.
shifarobe said...

Blackwater you're an arrogant stooge. OH YES, let's not adhere too literally to biblical guidance. What should we adhere too?

February 23, 2012 at 1:53 a.m.
fairmon said...

Are we looking for a church pastor, priest or whatever to lead a congregation or gathering of people that practice a religion or are we trying to select a president that understands and will adhere to the constitution? Freedom of religion with the government not imposing on the people any religion nor attempting to provide freedom from religion. A commitment to the constitution would not require any comment or action regarding religion other than a commitment not to violate constitutional guarantees. Unfortunately Ron Paul appears to have the right position on the issue compared to the POTUS and the candidates that want to be POTUS.

It is appropriate to wonder if any law or rule that requires millions of exemptions as the AHCA does should be a law at all.

February 23, 2012 at 4:23 a.m.
hambone said...

It's not that there are less clowns in the little car.

It's just that most of them are not coming out anymore!!

February 23, 2012 at 4:59 a.m.
joneses said...

These foolish liberals like Clay Bennett have nothing to brag about in regards to anything this POS president they put in office. All that is left for them to do is spout of disgusting lies to destroy the Republican candidate that is leading. They have relentlessly attacked each Republican candidate with disgraceful lies starting with their racist attacks against Herman Cain while giving this pathetic fool they have as president a pass on all his failures. I do not think Clay bennet is a flagellant I think he is a whole POS.

February 23, 2012 at 5:19 a.m.

blackwater48 said... (amid a screed against Santorum’s religious beliefs) “Romney would have to defend his faith, although I honestly don't know why he should. I don't know why any candidate should.”

Looking forward to a thread filled with similar no-frills secular bigotry. Oh, go ahead. Throw in the frills. Nice one, Clay. Adds a lot to civil political discourse.

February 23, 2012 at 5:47 a.m.
woody said...

Shifarobe..you are proof positive Abe Lincoln was right.."You can remain silent and be thought a fool, or open your mouth and remove all doubt."

I would ask..when will people like you learn..but then I remember who and what I am talking to and about..Woody

February 23, 2012 at 7:04 a.m.
pmcauley said...

Turning into quite the theocracy aren't we? Other places (Arab Spring) are seeing the train down the tunnel and running away and we're merrily run to it! It's now a battle about who's perceived as the holiest not the brightest with the best ideas.

Sigh...

February 23, 2012 at 7:34 a.m.
EaTn said...

**All we liberals would like to thank Santorum and Gingrich for making Romney look less presidential come November.

February 23, 2012 at 7:44 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_wrong_with>the_world said: "Nice one, Clay. Adds a lot to civil political discourse."

I believe you’re blaming the wrong man, WWWTW. It was Rick Santroum who insisted on bringing religious creedal tests into the Republican primaries – not Clay Bennett.

February 23, 2012 at 7:50 a.m.

Hunger in Somalia. Fifty years into the left’s political war against two-parent homes for the poor. Forty years into the court’s legal and cultural battle defending the rights of irresponsible sperm donors. A religious mandate for the President’s tax plan. And Clay goes into conniptions because yet another politician wears his religion on his sleeve.

Theocracy. Crusades. Inquisitions. (Blah, blah, blah.) If the Santorum surge doesn’t subside in the next week or so, we’ll be treated to a Clay-mob witch hunt about witch hunts. AIA, heat up the pitch forks. It’s already on the sketch-pad.

February 23, 2012 at 7:56 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

One thing's for sure about leftist cartoonists. They're consistently boring.

February 23, 2012 at 8:01 a.m.
NGAdad said...

WOW ... needed to do a bunch of scrolling there. Is there any room left under the bridges in the area for another troll? Oh yeah, we're waiting to hear from JRoss when he is let out of his cell.

Idea for sign to greet Santorum, if he actually shows up...

Santorum - Wholly Excrement, Freezeman !!

February 23, 2012 at 8:04 a.m.
MTJohn said...

whats_wrong_with_the_world said...Fifty years into the left’s political war against two-parent homes for the poor.

Nice bit of meaningless rhetoric, 3W.

The war against two-parent homes for the poor is real and is the consequence of our economic system. To the extent that it is tied to political ideology, it is a consequence of capitalism, not a consequence of secularism. And, that war has been going on in this country for much longer than 50 years. It began when the first slave was sold in this country. And, I think it is more than coincidence that a disproportionate majority of this war's victims are the descendents of slave.

February 23, 2012 at 8:38 a.m.
rogerdodger said...

Welcome to the SOS DD too bad you can't come up with something new. But looking at the simple minded fools that love you as much as the POTUS it is easy to see why you never change.

February 23, 2012 at 8:46 a.m.
fairmon said...

Gas prices are still going up. The economy is still in the tank with unemployment projected to go back to 9%or more and we are talking about who should use or furnish condoms, pills etc. with over half of recent toons about that and religious issues which there should be no issue about while the courts decide what is and is not constitutional regarding that issue.

February 23, 2012 at 8:54 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: "And Clay goes into conniptions because yet another politician wears his religion on his sleeve. . . If the Santorum surge doesn’t subside in the next week or so, we’ll be treated to a Clay-mob witch hunt about witch hunts. AIA, heat up the pitch forks. It’s already on the sketch-pad."

When a U.S. politician gets up on a stage and tells an audience that 45 million mainline Protestants have gone to Satan’s side in a battle of good and evil, I believe most reasonable people are going to take note of it. . . And, rightfully so, WWWTW.

As for the issue of witch-hunts, aren’t you wary of the witch-hunt that Rick Santorum is leading against these 45 million mainline Protestants? Aren’t you the least bit concerned that a man running for the highest political position in the land thinks this way?

February 23, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

What until King Kenyan invades Iran and Syria. As for gas prices, the RePUBElicans ain't about to let the prices drop until after the election. The higher they go, the better chance they have. Don't expect your favorite right-winger to help with that.

February 23, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said... I believe you’re blaming the wrong man, WWWTW. It was Rick Santroum who insisted on bringing religious creedal tests into the Republican primaries – not Clay Bennett.

Or was it Obama when he stepped on a duck with his quick response to the objections from the church that they include providing and paying for birth control in their health care policies. His reconcile still has the church paying for it with his smoke and mirrors way of getting the cost to them. I am still waiting on a plausible explanation for exempting millions from the AHCA which transfers even more cost for AHC to the rest of us.

February 23, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.

shifarobe, I wanted to give you the chance to label yourself, to see where you believed yourself to stand. That way we'd see how those associated with it reacted to you claiming the banner.

joneses, which attacks against Herman Cain were racist? The ones I saw which were to his character were against his personal relationships, but that would not be due to his race.

harp3339, millions of exemptions? Maybe if you count the individuals served, but I wouldn't think that a fair way to do it. In any case, the PPACA is doing nothing that wasn't in the law in the first place. There are numerous other laws that have such exceptions for belief or circumstance, such as auto insurance, food, and even self-defense. You could even argue that all laws do, since jury nullification is still legal. While it may seem like a law that applied to the same people everywhere in the same way in all circumstances would be fairer, experience has shown that to lead to many egregious injustices, so you know what? Either way, you can't avoid things not being right and just. No human being has yet managed to make a perfect legal code. But can we do nothing and achieve better results? I'm not sure of that, though some do believe it.

But as far as waivers go, I'm aware of no statistics that show it's over one thousand, let alone millions. Especially not when you combine the number of similar reasons involved.

Do you want to look at those reasons? We can then see what costs are transferred and why.

Though I would say your idea that Obama is a Machiavellian manipulator who tricked the Republicans into pursuing a false hare is amusing, it requires Obama to be playing a very deep game, or for the Republican party to be exceptionally predictable.

Also, the AHC(A) is another thing, it's not the proper way to refer to the law we're talking about. Try PPACA or even just ACA. Thanks for not using "Obamacare" though.

February 23, 2012 at 9:16 a.m.
jesse said...

What we need to do is outlaw organized religion and ban public professions of FAITH!get all these zealots out of everybody else,s FACE! get back to just plain decency and quit all this" my way or no way" b.s.! start movin into an age of REASON!

BTW: no way we will invade syria, they ain't no oil there!!BUT iran needs to WATCH OUT!!

February 23, 2012 at 9:19 a.m.
joneses said...

The Obama-backed company — Ener1 — went into bankruptcy protection, despite the $118 million grant its battery-making subsidiary got from the Energy Dept. As the CEO put it, the company suffered a lack of demand, thanks to lower-than-hoped-for electric car sales.

Ener1 joins two other failed green companies — Solyndra and Beacon Power — that took $571 million in taxpayer subsidies down with them.

Obama's speech today at the University of Miami will focus on investing more taxpayer dollars in alternative energy sources as the executives at bankrupt Solyndra will get on average $380,000.00 bonuses.

Why do you stupid pathetic liberals suppot this? It is amazing the resemblence you disgusting liberals have to sheep being lead to slaughter. Where is your outrage? Do you really think this is good policy? Why is contraception and destroying the people who are challenging this pathetic fool you support and worship as your president more important to you than this idiots failed policies? All of you liberals are just stupid including Clay Bennett who you are now worshiping.

February 23, 2012 at 9:19 a.m.

joneses, because I can remember when Republicans praised the TARP bailout money paid to bonuses for Wall Street executives, since that was part of the contracts, and sacred capitalism, and could not be questioned. I even remember the outrage over that being treated as sacrilege, and the amendment to the TARP program to prevent it being fought against. Believe it or not, some of us have memories. Or are you going to say that the Republicans who said such things were wrong, and that the government should have set rules on how much companies could get paid?

I can also tell that your numbers only cover a portion of the over 40 billion dollars in the entire fund. What does that mean? That you can only provide a few bad examples, but you ignore the other companies doing just fine.

Companies fail. Investments do not always pay off. Private or public, nothing is every perfect. If you demand perfection from the public sector, then they will spend more money getting it perfect than they would waste short of some fundamentally flawed and corrupt system.

nooga, Romney is supposed to issue some new plan, I believe, but I'm not sure when it's going to come out.

February 23, 2012 at 9:35 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

WHAT'S GOOD FOR ONE...

Shifarobe proclaimed, Blackwater you're an arrogant stooge. OH YES, let's not adhere too literally to biblical guidance. What should we adhere too?

The Constitution. If you insist on adhering to biblical guidance, for starters let's also adhere to and include the guidance of Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Jain, Muslim, Native American, Sikh, Baha'i, Confucian, Pagan, Shinto, Taoist, and Zoroastrian.

Americans have the freedom to hold any religious beliefs they want. We are not free to have one religious belief shoved down our throats. Who died and put you in charge?

Oh, wait. Let me guess.

February 23, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.

mountainlaurel said...

… aren’t you wary of the witch-hunt that Rick Santorum is leading against these 45 million mainline Protestants?

Santorum is a slightly creepy dork who says stupid things about religion. He joins a long, bi-partisan line of American (and world) politicians in doing so. As long as he keeps D.C. church services in the National Cathedral and out of the U.S. House Chamber (where strict separationist Thomas Jefferson conducted them), he’ll be fine. You’re on another left-wing witch hunt. Can we get back to dethroning Lord Welfare State?

Resistance to tyranny is service to God.

February 23, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
joneses said...

happywithstupidbulbs,

So what you are saying is you support obamas failed energy policy and the solyndra executives getting bonuses. Typical liberal bs, blame the republicans. By the way more dummycrats voted for TARP than did not vote for it and I was not for it at all. So this lie you are telling yourself that all Republicans supported this is just that, another liberal lie. Tell me what has this pathetic fool accomplished that you can brag about and why do you or the other sheep not talk about all his accomplishments? Is it because he has none? You cannot say obamacare is a success because according to your queen pelosi no one knows what is in it. You are just as stupid as you were the other day and that goes along with the saying "the dumb just keep getting dumber".

February 23, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
NGAdad said...

"Resistance to tyranny is service to God." says wwwtw.

You do mean like when the Germans, Russians, Dutch, and English threw off the tyranny of the Pope ? OR when immigrants, one and all, came to America to throw off the tyrannies that replaced the Pope by the Kings and Czars of the very same nations ?

WHICH God, church, sect or cult is it that America should embrace to resist WHICH tyranny you speak of?

I think the tyranny you hate is Democracy and Freedom. That's why you may help Santorum in his quest for Pope of the United States of the Incurious.

February 23, 2012 at 10:16 a.m.

wwwtw: On which dates did Thomas Jefferson actually conduct services in the US House Chamber? Please tell us, as I'm not aware of his ever exercising such a religious position, let alone in the Capitol. Or did you just mean attend?

In which case, I wonder why you think that matters. Nobody said Jefferson was anti-religious, but attendance at a service, no matter where, does not inherently mean that his views were influenced by said matters, and his own words would indicate that he explicitly believed that it should not. The same cannot be said of Santorum, who opposes what he claims to be a secular agenda from President Obama.

And if you're expecting us to be flummoxed by them holding services in the Capitol, why? It's not like they don't hold prayers there now. They aren't public services like they may have been once, but who is surprised by that? The world has changed, the whole place is a lot more restricted than it once was.

joneses, nope, I'm just not distressed about phony complaints about them, especially when they're filled with such personal insults as you see fit to provide.

Doing that, it proves to me that you have nothing to say.

But hey, it does give the erstwhile conservatives here a chance to distance themselves from your conduct. Let's see how many choose to repudiate you.

February 23, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.
Welcome_2 said...

All I have to say about sani-flush Santorum is any man claiming to be a Christian himself who attacks another man in claiming that individual is not Christian* enough must be struggling with his own demons. He, Santorum, is trying to deflect attention away from that fact. He fears if people look beyond the words spewing from his pie hole they may get a glimpse of those horns sticking out on his forehead and that pitchfork and pointed tail potruding from his rear.

And Billie Graham J.R. can't ride on the coattails of his father. The rest, Gingrich and the likes ____well, they've already equally revealed themselves to be the hypocrits they truly are. Right alongside the Santorum and Graham JRs.

February 23, 2012 at 10:20 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Religious idiots are lifes quitters. Too lazy to ask questions, too ignorant to think for themselves. Thats why so many repugnants are christians. The world has too many christians and too few lions.

February 23, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.
Welcome_2 said...

whats_wrong_with_the_world said... Hunger in Somalia

The only reason there's hunger in Somalia is because powerful nations, for decades, have been dumping redioactive materials into their waters....fishing was their primary source of food supply, destroying the equatic and fresh water supply(Those Somalian pirates really aren't pirates upon closer scrutiny). They were fighting to protect their natural source of food. Their children were being sicken, born with severe deformities, dying due to their natural food sources being poisoned by powerful nations, dumping poisons into their only means of surviving). They don't give a rats rear about starving children in Somalia or anywhere else in that region. They're after the control of the natural resources in that region. From the Horn of Africa, with is abundance of fresh water supply to the Sudan with its natural minerals and precious metals. At least China went and was attempting to build up the infrastructure Europe and the west have raped, ravished and shorn for centuries. They believed in providing jobs and skills enabling Africans to take care of themselves. Europe and the west don't want a self-sufficient Africa in the hands of Africans. They prefer the pictures of starving children when in reality their hands were the primary source of Africans starving and suffering. But they'll leave them with that leather bound book with the five lettered words written across the front. The same as they did five+hundred years ago(?)

February 23, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.

NGAdad said... WHICH God, church, sect or cult is it that America should embrace to resist WHICH tyranny you speak of?

The same one to which James Madison referred when he coined the phrase. Benjamin Franklin wanted it on the national seal. Revolutionary soldiers fought against British tyrants under its flag. That one.

February 23, 2012 at 10:38 a.m.

MTJohn said... The war against two-parent homes for the poor is real and is the consequence of our economic system. To the extent that it is tied to political ideology, it is a consequence of capitalism, not a consequence of secularism. And, that war has been going on in this country for much longer than 50 years. It began when the first slave was sold in this country. And, I think it is more than coincidence that a disproportionate majority of this war's victims are the descendants of slave.


Why stop there? The war against the poor technically pre-dates our economic system and slavery in North America. Institutional oppression of the descendants of slaves is indeed real, and nobody has done more to make the situation permanent than late-20th and early-21st century advocates of dependency on the Welfare State. The state doesn’t create wealth for anyone. It only allows politicians to consume wealth in the name of redistributing it.

Ancient Romans were stunned by a certain eastern religious sect that was seemingly alone in providing assistance to the poor – not only the poor among their own congregations, but also the poor among their persecutors. Many ancient Greeks were appalled at the idea of a two parent home, where women were treated as anything more than child-bearers or prostitutes. In more recent times, the only voices decrying the cruelty of European colonists were members that same, ancient religious sect, whose members later played no small role in ending the slave trade and slavery.

In highlighting the most recent 50-year portion of the secular west’s battle against the poor, I was simply hoping to show that it extends beyond that past couple of elections.

February 23, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.

blackwater48 said... Americans have the freedom to hold any religious beliefs they want. We are not free to have one religious belief shoved down our throats. Who died and put you in charge?


The founders put us all in charge. They said our liberties derive from our Creator. That’s what makes them unalienable. Come to think of it, it’s almost like a creed – a very inclusive creed, but a statement of belief, nevertheless.


happywithnewbulbs said... On which dates did Thomas Jefferson actually conduct services in the US House Chamber?


Do your own research. I’m off to work.

February 23, 2012 at 10:47 a.m.
NGAdad said...

Everyone notice that wwwtw could not answer the question because under the Constitution (not any one founder or former President) we are not forced to patronize any church or god. The only tyranny the conservatives (read in here, former George Wallace backing radicals) are against is the democratically elected current President of the United States. He is our Commander in Chief who ordered the death of Osama Bin Laden, even on Pakistani soil. Their hatred has been brewing since the election - sore losers all.

The heart throb of the conservatives, ole 'W', only gave lip-service to actually going after the al Queda leader.

February 23, 2012 at 11:23 a.m.
MTJohn said...

whats_wrong_with_the_world said...Why stop there? The war against the poor technically pre-dates our economic system and slavery in North America. Institutional oppression of the descendants of slaves is indeed real, and nobody has done more to make the situation permanent than late-20th and early-21st century advocates of dependency on the Welfare State. The state doesn’t create wealth for anyone. It only allows politicians to consume wealth in the name of redistributing it.

I stopped there because your comment and my response were in the context of U.S. History, not world history.

If you are suggesting that we could do a better job of using our welfare system to support and empower those who live in poverty, I agree. However, if you are suggesting that poverty is a consequence of our welfare system, I'd suggest that conclusion is beyond absurd.

Poverty in this country is largely the consequence of operating on the myth that we have a free-market economy. Are economy is free-market for those with sufficient power and influence to take advantage of others. It is anything but free for the rest of us. And, for the descendents of slaves, poverty is a consequence of our collective refusal to confess the sins of our history and to commit to rectify its consequences.

I would agree that redistribution of wealth, per se, might not be a good idea. But, redistribution of ill-gotten gains from those who benefited from the taking to those harmed by the taking would be justice.

February 23, 2012 at 11:27 a.m.
mtngrl said...

So true NGAdad...

I have seen a lot of regressives on these pages bashing Obama and Clay and liberals and anyone else they do not agree with, but I have yet to see any actually state they are supporting and will vote for Santorum. I can see why, the more the guy talks the more of an idiot he seems to be.

In the debate last night he actually states contraception as the cause of unplanned pregnancies:

He is living in a bizzaro world calling it the cause instead of the solution to the very problem he is talking about.

February 23, 2012 at 11:31 a.m.

I did some research, wwwtw, I found no evidence of Jefferson himself conducting services in the US House chamber. Or any kind at all.

Attending, yes, but attendance is not the same as conducting. I am willing to forgive your error if you wish to clarify, but you didn't even seem to recognize that, since you didn't quote that bit of my post. Did that distinction escape you? Is it attendance, or are you going to explicitly stick with conducting? If it's conducting, again, I demand proof. If it's attendance, well, I found descriptions of the services that indicated that were non-denominational social events more than they were actual religious worship. They certainly aren't the proof you want it to be of Jefferson doing something that excuses the kind of theocratic mindset Santorum has expressed as reflecting his beliefs.

Making such a tenuous claim doesn't help your case, it weakens it.

Just like begging off on the research. I already did, and you know what? You just quoted the tiny bit, but ignored the rest of my comment, not even taking up the part where you had a chance to clarify what you said.

So...why don't you provide evidence to back your claim of Jefferson conducting religious services in the Capitol, with explicit descriptions of what occurred in them. Or just admit your gaffe, instead of doubling down on it.

MTJohn, the "redistribution of wealth" is a fundamental part of any healthy economic system. At its simplest level, I do something valuable to you, you give me something valuable to me. The problem a lot of people have is conceiving of it as a zero-sum game, as opposed to an additive or multiplicative one.

mtngrl: I think Santorum is stuck on the idea of fear and disdain controlling people's behavior, as opposed to actually resolving the problem. It's like scaring people with the dangers of fire, and hoping they'll never light a match.

Except twice as bad a gamble, since there's quite a lot of positive bio feedback due to the evolution involved in the reproductive act. I might almost be inclined to believe some of the opposition to birth control relates to a primal urge to reproduce that is leading to counter-productive efforts in order to achieve the opposite effect.

February 23, 2012 at 11:38 a.m.
MTJohn said...

happywithnewbulbs said...MTJohn, the "redistribution of wealth" is a fundamental part of any healthy economic system. At its simplest level, I do something valuable to you, you give me something valuable to me. The problem a lot of people have is conceiving of it as a zero-sum game, as opposed to an additive or multiplicative one.

I don't disagree with that definition. However, I don't think that is the definition 3W had in mind when using the term relative to social services programs. I also is not the definition that applies to "wealth distribution" as a code word in political rhetoric.

February 23, 2012 at 11:55 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: "Santorum is a slightly creepy dork who says stupid things about religion. . . You’re on another left-wing witch hunt."

Sounds like "members of the accused class" lose either way with you, WWWTW. They have either taken Satan’s side and are guilty as charged by the Grand Inquisitor or they are left-winged witches guilty of speaking out against the Grand Inquisitor.

February 23, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.
rolando said...

Ah yes, perhaps, MTJ...but two questions.

Primus, Who watches the watchers?

Secundus. Who defines "ill-gotten gains"? Seems to me anyone who must pay for anything is "harmed". Or do you have an exotic definition of "harmed" beyond those of any dictionary?

Your statement implies that no one should pay anything for anything. Nor should any man gain from his effort. Sounds like communism -- or a labor union -- to me {I trust you know the mantra].

February 23, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.
hambone said...

Requiring posters to use their real name and E-Mail address would be a good change for this forum.

99.9% of them would disappear!!

February 23, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
miraweb said...

Just following up on a question from yesterday.

Trolls: Those who throw out bombast to fire up a flame war.

Poodles: Those who are paid by a company or candidate to write in public forums.

Dopplegangers: People who launch multiple accounts to make it look like they are having a conversation or that more people agree with them. May also be Trolls or Poodles. See BRP.

February 23, 2012 at 12:23 p.m.
davisss13 said...

GOPers crank up the culture war and then cry when the people they are targeting retaliate.

You know, Bush the elder fired Karl Rove for this bs because he knew it would tear this country to pieces. He was correct. His idiot son, Bush the moron and the degenerate culture warriors in the GOP however, embraced it completely. Now everyone is an enemy in league with Satan, to be destroyed.

It isn't a war on Christianity, it's Christians declaring war on everyone else. But they just loooove the martyr complex so they act like THEY are the victims. (shakes head).

What a pack of filthy liars.

February 23, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.

MTJohn, I agree, but they won't listen to me when I say maybe they ought to work on their terminology. All it would take is one word to clarify it, but instead we get people screaming over economics and thinking wealth needs to stay with them.

rolando: Sounds like you missed the line where Marx was quoted as saying "from each according to his abilities" which covers that whole bit about productive work. However, if you want to know who defines things, it's the group as a whole, much like any legal or government system. We already have torts and a system to enforce them. How do you think they arose?

hambone: Or we'd just get the people posting who have no shame, and nothing to lose.

miraweb: My dog is upset at people receiving the name of her fine breed! She suggests you call them Chihuahuas instead.

February 23, 2012 at 12:28 p.m.
jesse said...

hey bulbs? for SOME reason i just knew you were a "POODLE"type guy!!lol

February 23, 2012 at 1:01 p.m.

Strike “conduct,” substitute “condone.” Jefferson was among the most regular attendees. Granted, he likely didn’t agree with much of what was said, but neither did he think it a threat to his “wall of separation” argument. Not only were services conducted in Congress, but also in the Treasury Building and the Supreme Court chambers. They continued until after the Civil War. I’m not even saying that it was a good idea – just that Americans, at that point, were able to distinguish between establishing a national denomination (a bad idea) and severing the ties between religion and the political order (an impossible - and pernicious - idea). In the words of Bob Dylan, it might be the devil or it might be the Lord, but you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

Follow this Library of Congress link (especially “Part 2”) to read about the founders who sounded similar themes about the young republic: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

February 23, 2012 at 1:38 p.m.

I don’t support Santorum, far less his (many) misguided statements. I’m just highlighting the ludicrous (and bigoted) grounds on which Clay and present company castigate him. It’s not healthy for democracy.

February 23, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
NGAdad said...

wwwtw... you wweren't at work very long heh? OR are you one of the paid-to-post wingnut trolls?

Conservatives want a fascist theocracy - which allows no room for democracy. Did you not complete the sixth grade?

BTW, is that guy in your profile picture actually going to kill that child with that sword? Please explain why you advocate killing born children.

February 23, 2012 at 2 p.m.
rolando said...

newbulbs -- "...you missed the line where Marx was quoted as saying "from each according to his abilities..."

That's part of the mantra to which I referred; evidently you missed that comment in my post. In any case, it is Marxism at its "finest" [if such is the right word choice in referring to anything communist/fascist].

February 23, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.
jesse said...

hey n.ga.dad? WHY do you ALLWAYS sink into the same old b.s.?

i very seldom agree w/anyone on here BUT they are just tellin it the way they see it! this entire forum is an exercise in head bangin! 99% of the folks on here take themselves WAY to seriously! ain't no one on here gonna change anyone else's mind about nuttin so chill out!

February 23, 2012 at 2:29 p.m.
rolando said...

The "Who" was rhetorical, newbulbs...or at worst, generic in nature. In any case, I find no legal definition of "ill-gotten gains" in my Blacks. I can picture a pack of lawyers or politicians trying to define it [themselves recipients of what some consider "ill-gotten gains"]. lol

One man's meat.....

So...Who watches the watchers [definers]?

February 23, 2012 at 2:34 p.m.
MTJohn said...

rolando said...Primus, Who watches the watchers?

Good question. Isn't it interesting all the folks in this country who beat the drum for American values yet we are all too selfish to actually live them?

rolando said...Secundus. Who defines "ill-gotten gains"? Seems to me anyone who must pay for anything is "harmed". Or do you have an exotic definition of "harmed" beyond those of any dictionary?

Another interesting question. I think, at least in the abstract, we could all probably agree on about 85% of what constitutes legitimate gain. However, we celebrate greed and, in the process, we have not only legitimized but continue to defend a lot of unethical behavior. Isn't it curious that some folks are so vocal about gay marriage but are conspicuously silent about all the things Scripture has to say about greed, the wealthy taking advantage of the poor, etc. etc. That, by the way, would include the person who is the subject of today's cartoon.

rolando said...Your statement implies that no one should pay anything for anything. Nor should any man gain from his effort.

Neither is correct. My statement implies that what we call free-market capitalism is not because the principles of free-market capitalism do not apply equally to all members of our society.

rolando said..."...you missed the line where Marx was quoted as saying "from each according to his abilities..."

If you tried to read that into what I posted, you did not make an effort to try to understand what I was saying before you responded. But, isn't it interesting that we so quickly dismiss the idea of "from each according to his abilities..." while we celebrate an economy that functions on the idea of "from each according to what I can get away with taking."?

February 23, 2012 at 2:35 p.m.

NGAdad said...

Is that guy in your profile picture actually going to kill that child with that sword? Please explain why you advocate killing born children


No, that’s Poussin’s “Massacre of the Innocents” painting. It portrays a Roman soldier committing infanticide against a baby boy for being a baby boy. Similar practices (usually killing the baby by exposure) were common in the ancient Mediterranean world until a certain small eastern religion became a large universal religion. Infanticide is still practiced by many secular states throughout the world, although the victims now are more likely to be baby girls or babies with physical deformities. (They fail the pagan utilitarian calculus.) The woman was a Hebrew mother pleading for her child. I’m with the mother. We need a lot more of the influence of that particular large universal religion. They've ALWAYS cared about babies, before AND after birth.

February 23, 2012 at 2:39 p.m.
MTJohn said...

whats_wrong_with_the_world said...We need a lot more of the influence of that particular large universal religion. They've ALWAYS cared about babies, before AND after birth

3W - if presume that the large universal religion to which you refer is Christianity. If so, I happen to be a practicing Christian. I also happen to be aware that history is replete with examples of atrocities committed by people who called themselves Christians.

February 23, 2012 at 2:51 p.m.
rolando said...

You are wrong, MTJ...we don't all fail to live up to American values...but then, that too is a subjective thing. And I think you have the numbers reversed -- 15% might agree, depending upon their position in life.

Then there is "greed", a really interesting word of subjective value. Greed -- the force driving a man to better his position and improve his and his family's chances for success -- is what made Western civilization the most powerful and influential in the history of the world. Note the hotbeds of liberalism -- the universities, labor unions, government service, etc -- are removed from that definition and are not ability-driven...they are quite socialistic, really. Their "ability" is not given so wholeheartedly as with a capitalist...although their "need' is right up there.

"Ethics" has changed rather dramatically in my lifetime. We had no "Occupiers" at one time; that resulted from LBJ's Great Society. Business ethics and personal ethics are not necessarily related...the former is pretty much government-driven through regulation, law, etc. Personal ethics were once so high the government actually trusted us to properly -- and voluntarily -- complete and pay our income taxes.

[Continued}

February 23, 2012 at 3:14 p.m.
rolando said...

[Continued from above]

Many people are opposed to same-sex marriage not for religious reasons but because it is an abomination against nature [please don't cite those various birds, etc who practice it -- they use it to establish dominance]. If they wish to practice it, fine; just don't legitimize it or expect society to accept it. It is an abomination against nature, no matter how you look at it.

The "wealthy taking advantage of the poor" is a business ethic [and a poor one] and isn't necessarily "taking advantage". [Whatever that means.]

I am not criticizing you, MTJ. Merely pointing out that Americans are "a coat of many colors" insofar as definitions go...or much of anything else. Forcing one's set of ethics on another person without their consent is a twisted set of ethics in that person's estimation. One man's meat.....

I pretty much agree with your last para, although I couldn't quite get my head around your "My statement implies that what we call free-market capitalism is not because the principles of free-market capitalism do not apply equally to all members of our society." Maybe the "nots" got in my way.

And your last sentence describes what we have become over the last few decades, not what we were...we are now thoroughly Balkanized. Socialism/fascism/communism is not the answer to our problems. Nor is the involuntary "redistribution of wealth" implemented upon us by our government under threat of law.

February 23, 2012 at 3:18 p.m.

Rolando, try engaging in something besides the rhetoric. Marxist thought explicitly covers gain from one's labors. That is the point of his work, that people gain from what they actually do. Remember, he was writing in a day when a worker might be paid a pittance of the fruit of his or her labors...and then be ripped off even more with company stores and other abuses.

You might also try looking in your resources a little harder, try entries on unjust enrichment and quantum merit. The legal tradition is already there. Same with the decision of laws and justice, it rests upon consent and it is already part of the legal tradition. Along with the compulsion that sometimes goes with it, because people do recognize that others can be selfish and unenlightened, and letting them dictate to everybody else through requiring unanimous consent is another form of totalitarianism.

Also if you think the "Occupy" movement is something new, you really need to look up things like the Bible Riots, the Bonus Army, Haymarket Square, or the Whiskey Rebellion. Or you know, the formation of the country.

Wwwtw, well I am glad you've clarified your meaning, but then we're back to the distinction between what Santorum has done and said with what seems to me an attempt to make more of what isn't of that character at all. The use of a public building for a private purpose is acceptable, as long as it doesn't interfere with its public function or be available only to certain persons. Trying to make equivalence between a true believer like Santorum and a proponent of tolerance and non-factionalism like Jefferson is not an argument of integrity. It doesn't add up. An examination of the services Jefferson attended would show them as a non-denominational affair, what my grandmother would call society church, not godly church, which differs considerably from Santorum's position.

Also, I remember some Christians concerned with children. To the point of abducting them from their mothers. Kidnapping in the name of Christ. How nice.

February 23, 2012 at 3:35 p.m.
sage1 said...

nooga sez...."P.S. Obama went and found him and had him shot in the head. You a such a whiner Francis, moveon.org."

You, nooga, are a freak'n idiot.

February 23, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: “We need a lot more of the influence of that particular large universal religion. They've ALWAYS cared about babies, before AND after birth.”

Always cared about babies, before AND after birth? Historically speaking, I don’t think this "large universal religion" can legitimately make this claim, WWWTW.

It certainly can't be said to be true of their treatment of Native American children during the era of Manifest Destiny; and it certainly can't be said to be true of their treatment of African and African American children during the era of slave trade.

In fact, when you considered the number of innocent Iraqi children maimed and/or killed as a result of America’s so-called “pre-emptive” war efforts, I don’t see that this "large universal religion" can legitimately make this claim even today.

February 23, 2012 at 4:30 p.m.
rolando said...

Those were all before my day, newbulbs. If you recall, I said something about "in my lifetime", not "since forever".

"Unjust enrichment"...ah, yes...that's what the government receives when it takes one man's personal property and gives it to another solely because that will earn it more tax money. Or maybe the government "unjustly" taking one person's earnings and giving it to another who did not earn it. You sure you want to go down that street? Maybe all us taxpayers should sue Solyandra, The Boama, all welfare recipients who did not earn the donor's involuntary largess. Yeah, that'll work. [Thought: How do the dole-takers fit into "From each according to his contribution"?? By all rights [and socialist thought], they should not eat.]

Same thing for quantum merit [Sic]. You need to bone up on that; it means just about the opposite of what you think. One must perform some labor or deliver some resource before he gets "as much as he deserves". Those on the dole [or the 50% who pay no income tax], for instance, neither labor nor deliver...they merely exist and take that which the taxpayer is forced to give up. If anything, the taxpayer is the one who labors and delivers. Grounds for another class-action lawsuit, perhaps.

Oops.

February 23, 2012 at 4:39 p.m.
mymy said...

God, Family and Freedom which this country was built around is being destroyed. What do you think can hold a society together if not those 3 things. Our society is rotting and there goes the country. Then what you fools! Sex, drugs and rock and roll! You think the good times will just keeping rolling on, think again!

February 23, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.
rolando said...

If they think at all, mymy. The simpletons believe they will be among the elite ruling class.

February 23, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.
shifarobe said...

This forum is a waste of time. It always comes down to Obama followers plastering a racist label on Obama's critics. George W. Bush was not a good president. Opoopy is much, much worse. That's my opinion. I cannot think of one earthly reason, not one, to give Opoopy another term.

February 23, 2012 at 5:02 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Mymy said: "God, Family and Freedom which this country was built around is being destroyed. What do you think can hold a society together if not those 3 things.

No, I believe we will be just fine as long as we stick with the original concept and intent:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

February 23, 2012 at 5:08 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Bennett is really in a rut on Santorum. Only about 72 more cartoons this year on Republican presidential candidates. I hate to be so repetitive, if The Wart could only find another topic...

February 23, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.

Rolando, the problem is you think things changed, but they didn't, as the historical examples I gave demonstrate. Whatever your day was, the "Occupier" movement is not new. I don't know what you believe your day to be, but I could probably find similar acts for any decade you might name.

Your definition of unjust enrichment is not correct, but I think you know that. Do you just want to mouth slogans and rhetoric, or do you want to try for a dialogue?

If you want to sue Solyndra, you would have to have standing. Which you don't have, the same as I don't to sue any of the companies that have actually defrauded the government in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sorry, but citizens don't have that right in this country. But rest assured, if you can identify someone who is receiving welfare benefits improperly, you can report them. You can also contact a government agency's inspector general about any other conduct you consider unacceptable. I suppose you could sue Obama, but you would need more grounds than Orly Taitz or Gordon Warren Epperly.

And quantum meruit (sorry about the use of merit, you can blame auto-correct for that), does mean what I think. It is a legal principle that covers the concept of preventing ill-gotten gains. That is what I was talking to you about. You keep pushing off in entirely different directions from what I am actually saying. You asked how ill-gotten gains might be defined. Then you said you could not find any legal definitions of it. I provided them to you, but it seems you want to discuss welfare instead?

Well that is simple, not all welfare is about what a person earns, but about ensuring that society makes provision for the unfortunate in order to avoid the problems that indifference will cause. But the fifty percent who pay no income tax? You say they perform no labor? Perhaps the retired ones and the disabled, but the retired have already labored, and some of the disabled as well. The rest? I hate to have to tell you this, but many of them are working. They just aren't being paid enough, and some of that is because they can't work that much and go to school. Try not to repeat your propaganda about people in the bottom 47% not working, it's so obviously untrue that it doesn't even have as much to go with as the also false claim of them paying no taxes.

February 23, 2012 at 5:16 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

If The Wart was not such a troll he might be able to address important topics...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-chart-of-americas-per-capita-debt-should-worry-you/

February 23, 2012 at 5:21 p.m.

You want to distribute America's debt equally? On what grounds? Certainly not because we all benefitted equally from the spending.

But can we see a chart of America's per capita wealth? Not income, not GDP, but wealth.

February 23, 2012 at 5:28 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

In the spirit of staying on the topic of Republican presidential candidates, here is an interesting story from the other side of the pond.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/23/ron-paul-amasses-delegates-republican-election?fb=native

In Tennessee, Santorum does not have a single delegate on the ballot. Only Romney has a full slate of delegates, Paul has nearly a full slate, Gingrich has only a handful. This delegate battle could turn out very interesting.

February 23, 2012 at 5:37 p.m.
MTJohn said...

rolando said...You are wrong, MTJ...we don't all fail to live up to American values...but then, that too is a subjective thing. And I think you have the numbers reversed -- 15% might agree, depending upon their position in life.

Rolando - I either mis-typed or you misunderstood, so I will try again. I did not mean to suggest that 85% of us would agree. The thought was that all of us (100%) would agree on 85% of the definition of legitimate gain. In other words, I have enough confidence in the American people to think that we all share enough of a sense of right and wrong that, in the abstract (not how it would affect our own pocket book) that we operate from a similar understanding of legitimate. But, as your post implies, we also deviate from that standard when we are the ones doing the gaining.

rolando said...Then there is "greed", a really interesting word of subjective value. Greed -- the force driving a man to better his position and improve his and his family's chances for success -- is what made Western civilization the most powerful and influential in the history of the world.

Well, we sort of agree on that point. Greed is, indeed, the engine that drives free-market capitalism. However, I do not subscribe to the notion that greed is good. To the extent that "greed" compels us to satisfy a basic lifestyle for ourselves and our families, I do not consider it to be greed. To the extent that greed compels us to better our position, acquire wealth, etc. and to do so without regard for the consequences to others, greed is evil. And, those who would thump Scripture as values voters ought to understand that.

rolando said...Many people are opposed to same-sex marriage not for religious reasons but because it is an abomination against nature.

Really???? You are the first person whom I have heard say that. I know the word, "abomination", appears in a few Scripture passages. I have never seen that word in either a biological text book or a scientific journal, and I have read a few.

rolando said...I am not criticizing you, MTJ. Merely pointing out that Americans are "a coat of many colors" insofar as definitions go...or much of anything else. Forcing one's set of ethics on another person without their consent is a twisted set of ethics in that person's estimation.

And, I am not trying to force my ethics on anyone. I'm just trying to put some focus on the real causes of poverty in this country. And, I'd also point out that those causes are the consequence of what are, in my opinion, very twisted ethics.

February 23, 2012 at 5:42 p.m.
MTJohn said...

mymy said...God, Family and Freedom which this country was built around is being destroyed. What do you think can hold a society together if not those 3 things. Our society is rotting and there goes the country.

The society is rotting and the country is a risk. But, God, Family and Freedom are not being destroyed. Rather, the myth that we built this country on God, Family and Freedom is a thin veneer and the consequences of having built it on selfishness are coming to fruition.

February 23, 2012 at 5:47 p.m.
limric said...

Adding another chapter to a curiously popular campaign, GOP hopeful Rick Santorum has addressed another important Christian issue the other GOP candidates always thought of as a third rail, but will now be forced to comment on.

After flagellating himself for a minute, a disheveled and weeping Rick Santorum stood up and announced: “Over the years, the gays, and their anti-Christian agenda has made sure that our beloved hot dogs become longer and wider,” commented Santorum to rapturous tea partiers, ” And that sausages have become ever larger. They’ve encouraged you to suck over-sized lollipops, and they’ve engineered soft serve ice cream cones so that the creamy vanilla always gets on your hands or drips down your chin. THIS IS NO ACCIDENT.”

Santorum said this epiphany came to him on a trip to Coney Island, during which he mistakenly asked for a Nathans ‘footlong with the works.’ Santorum did not finish the story, but indicated it got him thinking about foods in general, and the more sinister connotations they conveyed.

“My wife came home from the grocery store with a cucumber that I would describe as larger than my – er-… just large and hard,” he mused. “And I could see that she was visibly shaking, but still she held a wry smile. Hmm. I got on the bus as usual, but I just felt anxious all day, I kept calling her, but she didn’t answer. No one should have to live through that.”

Santorum began a presentation to explain the conspiracy to members of FOX News. It began with him handing out “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and then explaining how the sitcom ‘Two and half Men’ was actually leftist propaganda, but after a few minutes he realized that he had the wrong 3 X 5 cards.

“They want us to become accustomed to shoving p_nis-like foods in our mouths and thinking it’s natural,” Santorum said passionately. “But we’re not going to let them get away with it.”

February 23, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.
fairmon said...

happywithnewbulbs said...

harp3339, millions of exemptions? Maybe if you count the individuals served, but I wouldn't think that a fair way to do it. In any case, the PPACA is doing nothing that wasn't in the law in the first place. [DOES THAT MAKE IT A GOOD THING? THERE ARE MANY SURPRISES YET TO COME. READ THE ACT AND SEE IF IT GIVES YOU A WARM FEELING.] There are numerous other laws that have such exceptions for belief or circumstance, such as auto insurance, food, and even self-defense. You could even argue that all laws do, since jury nullification is still legal. While it may seem like a law that applied to the same people everywhere in the same way in all circumstances would be fairer, experience has shown that to lead to many egregious injustices, so you know what? Either way, you can't avoid things not being right and just. No human being has yet managed to make a perfect legal code. But can we do nothing and achieve better results? I'm not sure of that, though some do believe it.

But as far as waivers go, I'm aware of no statistics that show it's over one thousand, let alone millions. Especially not when you combine the number of similar reasons involved.

The entire state of Nevada and one other state plus a large area of California in Pelosi's district the UAW and some other unions have all been granted exemptions from the AHCA.

Do you have examples where a federal law or rule regarding auto insurance, food, self defense or others get an exemption based on belief or other circumstances that shifts shifts cost to every other citizen in the country where those not exempt required to purchase something?

February 23, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

I like Santorum, he's a good guy. He won't get the nomination but he has the stones to stand up to BO worshipers in the media. I think Clay Bennett is jealous.

I hear BO is pushing algae as an alternative energy source. LOL. What an &*%#@$ LOL LOL

February 23, 2012 at 6:43 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: "In the spirit of staying on the topic of Republican presidential candidates, here is an interesting story from the other side of the pond."

Interesting article, BigRidgePatriot. All things considered, I don’t understand why more Republicans aren’t supporting Ron Paul. He certainly shines compared to the rest of the Republican presidential candidates. In fact, I noted in Bill Maher's Republican Debate Review column today that even Maher couldn’t think of a good reason to knock Ron Paul:

BILL MAHER SAYS: “My favorite moment of the debate was the last question, when they all were asked to summarize themselves in one word:

Ron Paul said "consistency," and you know what? I have no argument with that. It's true, and he's earned it.

The other ones however, I think I could find a more honest word.

Mitt Romney said "resolute." I would have gone with "shapeshifter." Or perhaps "irresolute."

Rick Santorum said "courage", whereas I would have said "Bellevue."

And Newt Gingrich said "cheerful." I was thinking "pus."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/republican-debate-review_b_1296036.html

February 23, 2012 at 6:47 p.m.

Two states, part of a third, and the UAW and some other unions? Unless you are saying there are millions of unions, the only way you can get up to that number is again, through counting the individuals as waivers. But that's hardly fair, as it is mostly plans not the persons requesting it. And you do know California-8 is one of the smallest districts in the country, don't you? Its entire area is a bit over one hundred square miles. It is smaller than Chattanooga. A large area of it would be of what size? Not that it got waivers, mind you, as that was actually just businesses within the city who contracted out their health care to another business in Washington state which made the request for some reason. And while there are many businesses in San Francisco, I don't think that it is enough to add up to millions, even thrown in with two or three other states.

So bare there millions of waivers? Not from your evidence. I think you overstated your case.

But yes, you can find instances in federal law where provision is made based on belief or other circumstance and that may impose a cost on others. I would not limit it to exemptions, since it includes things like special foods which require a bit of twisted reasoning to create a rule like "you will eat what is provided" and that just doesn't seem necessary. Take a look at conscientious objector or jury duty. Opting out does mean somebody else has to go. Disability laws mean a disabled person can't be charged for accommodation. Auto insurance is state regulated, not federal,but you can find exemptions for that. The point is providing options to allow conduct without overly compromising belief, which can sometimies be done with alternative ways that do not impose an additional cost. So you might say, fine, then why should these waivers be allowed to so? But you know what? You haven't proved that these waivers do impose an additional cost as a whole, and several of them, like the ones for certain religious groups require a history of not imposing such a cost. So please tell us which ones will impose a cost on us and how.

Or read the PPACA yourself, and realize what the waivers mean, not some garbled story that wants us to believe in things that don't add up. I was not surprised by the waivers, I expected such a provision, it makes sense to have some flexibility. Is there some point where you have to draw the line? Sure, but there is a reason why pencils have erasers. Because there are reasons to be accommodating.

February 23, 2012 at 7:14 p.m.
dude_abides said...

shifabrains... I can give you one good reason to vote for Obama. His opponent, no matter which candidate wins the nomination, will be shrill, brittle and of lower intelligence. None of them have the brass to hold up in a crisis. They get angry easily. The best the gop has to offer are staying clear. It is over. Get on board, my brother. You will feel so much better about yourself when you let slip the bonds of irrational hatred that hold you back on your journey to enlightenment. No, enlightenment does not consist of a cross and gasoline rags.

February 23, 2012 at 7:23 p.m.

But he could vote for a write-in candidate instead!

February 23, 2012 at 7:51 p.m.
mymy said...

mountainlaurel:

Christianity is under attack, family is broken, we are losing our freedoms. We are rotting within and here is an example from:

Potcat said on February 22, 2012 at 9:29 a.m. post:

I'm glad i tought my children about the birds and bees and gave my Son a condon at 16 and put my whore Daughter on the Pill at 14..Its alright, my Daughter and i laughed about how big sluts we both were at that age, we recognoized and laughed our ass off. A coming togeather moment. Its Getting Scary

I could have answered: @potcat Lots of things are scary “Pothead”! Shame on you. No wonder our society is rotting and; therefore, our country with such wonderful parenting skills passed from one generation to the other for decades by too many. Each generation is getting worse and worse. Oh, that’s OK you’ll just vote for those that want government to take care of you on the backs of those who try to do the right things. For God’s sake don’t teach them to respect themselves, get an education, work hard to get ahead and live a decent life. No rules in your house for sure. Too many like you.

PS I’m not the best at grammar or spelling, but I sure hope I don’t miss the simple words like taught, condom, together, recognized in one short paragraph. Also your description of yourself and daughter sounds right on target.

February 23, 2012 at 7:54 p.m.

You know, if you were wanting to express Christian values, you'd probably want to try to follow the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7.

Are you sure you want to be a negative example?

February 23, 2012 at 8:04 p.m.
joneses said...

And the one word to describe this disgusting fool we have as president would be "incompetant" or "failure".

February 23, 2012 at 8:32 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Mymy said: “Christianity is under attack, family is broken, we are losing our freedoms. We are rotting within and here is an example from: Potcat said on February 22, 2012 at 9:29 a.m. post.”

But how is Potcat attacking Christianity, Mymy? What personal freedoms have you lost because of Potcat? And how is she breaking up your family? Sorry, but I don’t get your point.

Personally, I like Potcat. I always read her posts and find them interesting. I may not always share her perspective on everything, but so what. I’m sure she feels the same way about me and doesn’t always share my perspective. The point is that I like and respect her. And I definitely don’t think it’s my place to tell Potcat how to live her life.

February 23, 2012 at 8:34 p.m.

joneses: Really? You can't think of a few more? I can think of at least 15 for his predecessor.

February 23, 2012 at 8:38 p.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

DUDE, DUDE, those are no kind of reasons to give to shify. Lower intelligence? Please. I see a guy in the White House who is clueless, easy to anger and not very smart. Stubborn for sure, but no problem solver. Irrational hatred? You mean like making flicks about killing the president?

February 23, 2012 at 8:46 p.m.

If you think Obama is dumb, without a clue, and easy to provoke, that says even worse things about the replacements being offered by the GOP.

Have you seen Newt Gingrich's outburst of rage?

February 23, 2012 at 8:49 p.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

I've read many posts on here by people asking what makes Obama so brilliant. I'll ask that too. I don't see it. I think we may have the worst back to back Presidents in history. At least Bush's second term on. Bush's second term was like rolling out the red carpet for for this idiot. Obama and Bush prove that an Ivy League education is not all it's cracked up to be.

February 23, 2012 at 9:21 p.m.

President Obama is capable of programming my DVR.

That makes him the smartest man ever to set foot in my house.

February 23, 2012 at 9:43 p.m.
mymy said...

Geez, talk about morons:

I'm not a perfect person, don't quote bible verses, not a religious nut, but believe there are a few basic rules to live by.

You are a vile one Nooga. I'm not voting for Rick or going to see him, but believe he is a decent man. So, is Mitt. Much better than you. I believe that potcat is the one that called herself and daughter a slut (nice) so how did you come up with that description for me along with other disgusting assumption? Oh, just a typical left remark when nothing better to contribute.

I suspect you need the head doc to find out why you are only comfortable with sluts and have to pay for it to boot. Perhaps a decent person would have nothing to do with you. Your Mother did it, I bet.

PS Nooga: Read another one of your post before sending this. For someone who professes to have a great education and think they are smart, you sure sound dumb. A fancy education does not alway make one intelligent. O IS a good example. He just knows how to be a good snake oil salesman for dummies like you.

February 23, 2012 at 9:51 p.m.

You don't quote Bible verses, but you do proclaim the value of following God and Christianity, and consider them to be under attack.

Well, to defend them, you might want to work more towards living as an example. Or do your basic rules do not include a little less mudslinging?

I can understand being upset at those posts, but just flag them like I did rather than engaging in it yourself.

February 23, 2012 at 9:57 p.m.
dude_abides said...

You guys have been watching too many Farmer's Bureau Insurance commercials. Don't take that crap seriously. The world does not run on nananana-NAPA knowhow. You can skin a buck, you can run a trotline, but a country boy can't divide.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ec_1330011630

Why is Rick throwing that old man around?

February 23, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.
mymy said...

Happy: take those mercury filled light bulbs you are so happy with and put them somewhere.

Because I felt like throwing some back today just goes to show I'm not perfect enough to just turn the other cheek.

February 23, 2012 at 10:20 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

This place is in the toilet tonight.

February 23, 2012 at 10:22 p.m.

mymy: Well, I'm glad you recognize that you're not perfect, but that should be a call to try harder to live up to what you profess, not to engage further in it. Otherwise you're contributing to the same problem you already professed an objection about.

By the way, my new bulbs were tulips, they didn't have any significant amounts of mercury in them. Much like a CFL bulb. But if you're afraid of the mercury in those bulbs, great news! You can get LED bulbs instead. Though statistically, you're more likely to injure yourself from changing an incandescent bulb more often than you are from inhaling the mercury from a broken CFL bulb. Which risk do you consider prefer? Potential falling or potential poisoning that might take decades? Do you break your bulbs that frequently?

February 23, 2012 at 10:28 p.m.
mymy said...

I love tulips myself.

Don't like the new Mercury bulbs and am glad I still have a choice=for now.

BRP: your right and I had a bad day and contributed, some days are like that and one just gets fed up with all the left C.......!

February 23, 2012 at 10:36 p.m.

You'll also have a choice later. You do know they didn't ban incandescent bulbs...just ones that couldn't reach a certain performance standard. But if you don't like CFLs or LEDs, there are halogen incandescent that contain no mercury as well.

They'll even save you some money over tungsten bulbs. Though there is less of reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels, which kinda imposes on my freedom to breath clean air.

What are you going to do to protect the freedom of my lungs? Stop people from burning some tires perhaps?

Oh, and I forgot to mention the ESL bulbs. They're not quite available, but they are mercury free. So you'll have plenty of choices to avoid mercury, even if the risk isn't a real one. You should be more worried about your food than the bulbs. Or the falls. Or tetanus.

February 23, 2012 at 10:46 p.m.
mymy said...

Happy: there is reasonable and unreasonable when it comes to protecting the environment. I happen to think a lot of unreasonable things have and are being done. How about places like China? Don't you think it eventually reaches here and what do you think can be done about that. We can't save the world and everything in it.

February 23, 2012 at 10:59 p.m.

MTJohn said...

I also happen to be aware that history is replete with examples of atrocities committed by people who called themselves Christians.


So, what are you saying that Clay and Co. don’t regurgitate cartoon after cartoon? I’m presenting some parts of the story that Claybots conveniently omit, parts they would rather not be mentioned in a public forum. Without it, you are left with their one-sided, Bill Moyers, 8th grade textbook understanding of Christian history. It seems that you guys are only interested in one side of the story. Until Clay presents something less unilateral, you can count on me for presenting another view. He’s incapable of such, so you’re stuck with me.

February 23, 2012 at 11:03 p.m.

MyMy, And sticking with incandescent bulbs to save yourself from the fear of mercury in CFL is unreasonable, as it doesn't protect you from toxic exposure, not unless a far greater share of electrical power is converted away from fossil fuels that release their own share of toxins in a way you can't control. Whereas the minuscule amounts of mercury in a CFL can be avoided by not breaking them. Or do you break a lot of your bulbs for some reason? Well, ok then, get LEDs or ESL or Halogens and avoid the mercury and other toxins, not just in your house, but from the power plants.

But as far as international relations go, there are negotiations regarding the release of pollutants, so what's your beef? That not enough is being done? Fine with me, put some ideas forward and we'll see if they're worth implementing.

And while you might be correct that we can't save the world against all possible harm, I think we can prolong it a few more centuries.

wwwtw: Unfortunately, two biased sides cannot easily be made into the whole truth.

February 23, 2012 at 11:09 p.m.
dude_abides said...

BigRidgePatriot said... This place is in the toilet tonight.

Yep, and now that you've arrived it's time to flush.

February 23, 2012 at 11:23 p.m.

mountainlaurel said...

“Always cared about babies, before AND after birth? Historically speaking, I don’t think this "large universal religion" can legitimately make this claim, WWWTW. It certainly can't be said to be true of their treatment of Native American children during the era of Manifest Destiny; and it certainly can't be said to be true of their treatment of African and African American children during the era of slave trade. In fact, when you considered the number of innocent Iraqi children maimed and/or killed as a result of America’s so-called “pre-emptive” war efforts, I don’t see that this "large universal religion" can legitimately make this claim even today.”


You are very confused. Why is America only a “Christian” nation when Americans engage in inhumane treatment of others? You selectively tie Christians to the West’s cruelties but not with ending the slave trade and (eventually) slavery, against formidable opposition from their secularized, “Enlightenment” critics. The West’s arrogance and outrages do not derive from the New Testament. Professed Christians do not always live up to its teaching. But compared to what? You conveniently ignore my points about pagan and secular infanticide. Which Anglo-settlers opposed the Cherokee removal? What about ending the Indian practice of sati? You’re a one-trick pony. You have no tolerance for balance.

Iraq. Are you aware of the extermination of indigenous Christians in Iraq and throughout the Middle East and Africa? You’re going to attribute Iraq’s maimed and killed children during the war to Christianity? Are you kidding? You’d be closer to accurate to indict the cadre of Democrats beating the war drum against Iraq during the decade leading up to the USA invasion. 9-11 gave W the nerve to bow to their wishes.

It’s tempting to say there’s no hope you and your minute sliver of a perspective. But I won’t.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/02/the_end_of_christianity_in_the_middle_east?page=full

“Matthew Parris : As an Atheist I Truly Believe Africa Needs God.” Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-06-008-c#ixzz1nGncwIAS

http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/02/23/iraq-protect-christians-violence

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010_5/168441.htm

February 23, 2012 at 11:36 p.m.

Again, two one-sided perspectives do not add up to a whole truth.

But I believe the slaughter of innocents in Iraq would be an attribution to less than devout Christianity on the parts of Americans involved in making the decision to wage that war.

February 23, 2012 at 11:54 p.m.
mymy said...

Happy: I have some of the CFL's that does not mean I like them. My son's house is totally there. I'm not afraid of the mercury in them, but how about the disposal of them. How many people will toss in the garbage. Bet I will be one of them and for sure I will not be by myself. How many years will it take you to start worrying about that problem.

Well, good luck with negotiations. I'm sure China is gona hop to it. They are too busy growning and whipping our behinds and we are paying for it in many ways. Our government, both sides of the isle, can't negotiate themselves out of a paper bag. We always seem to come out loosers while the world laughs.

Some alternative energy would be great, but we are far from it being ready to supply our needs. It will take private industry to do it not government. All Corporate Welfare should stop starting with green energy and oil.

February 24, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.

mymy, exactly how much effort do you want to put into ensuring that CFL bulbs are not part of the household hazardous waste that gets put into the convention waste stream? Are you more concerned about CFL bulbs than you are batteries, antifreeze, motor oil, or paint? Do you feel that the current measures are insufficient, and that you have some great risk from exposure to that mercury? What is the level anyway? Or are you just expressing a generic concern that the issue is not being addressed.

Well guess what? It is. There is plenty of effort in all respects to managing what goes into landfills and when, if you think there is no concern about it, then you are quite mistaken. If you want to bring up improvements, go ahead, but don't claim that nobody worries about it. That only shows you've not talked to anybody in any sanitation departments.

You may think the US comes out of the negotiations poorly, or that the world laughs, but I bet if you go over to see them, and what their people think, you'll see the opposite. Them grousing about what they got. Negotiations are like that. However if you wish to apply pressure on China or anybody else, fair enough, please suggest a few options you'd wish to engage in, so we might consider it.

But while I could respect ending welfare for corporations, bringing two aircraft carriers back from the Middle East would save considerable amounts of money, you're mistaken about private industry. They won't do it. They'll just act like Enron and the oil companies of today, make short-term profits and not think of the future. There's a reason we have governments that are composed of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's to think of the future benefit of the members of it. Which is far more inclusive than the corporations that only think of their more important stock-holders and board-members. And it turns out that while the Founding Fathers and Lincoln did not anticipate it, power production is something for the people to be worried about.

Given the choice of being served by an electrical co-op or a private power company, I will pick the co-op every single day and night.

By the way, just in case you don't see the post in the previous cartoon, please provide your list of gasoline blends and explain which you would eliminate.

February 24, 2012 at 12:37 a.m.
joneses said...

For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t. Evergreen Solar SpectraWatt Solyndra (received $535 million) Beacon Power (received $43 million) AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million) SunPower (received $1.5 billion) First Solar (received $3 billion) Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million) Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million) Amonix (received 5.9 million) The National Renewable Energy Lab Fisker Automotive That’s 13 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obama’s campaign donors. The President is trying to claim in his first official campaign ad that he’s created 2.7 million clean energy jobs. When you look at all the companies going bankrupt, some of those jobs might have been paid for by the stimulus, but they are gone now. You can’t claim we’re up 2.7 million jobs if so many of those jobs have been subsequently lost. Keep this list in mind the next time the media pretends that Solyndra was the only failure.

February 24, 2012 at 6:14 a.m.

NGAdad said...Everyone notice that wwwtw could not answer the question because under the Constitution (not any one founder or former President) we are not forced to patronize any church or god.


My answer was pretty clear. I'll make it clearer: Those who coined the phrase meant tyrannical taxation and abuse of power.

My comments weren't directed toward any particular politician, party, or historical era. There's plenty of application across the board.

When your hopes are tied too closely to any one of those, you'll read partisanship and hatred into anything someone says who challenges the status quo. It just so happens that your view is the status quo. If you don't care for Madison's statement, say so.

February 24, 2012 at 6:40 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "I don’t understand why more Republicans aren’t supporting Ron Paul. He certainly shines compared to the rest of the Republican presidential candidates."

I could not agree more. The reasons many Republicans cannot see the brilliance of Ron Paul is that they are too lazy to think for themselves. I am afraid Republican's do not have a monopoly on that problem, however.

February 24, 2012 at 8:03 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

dude_abides said... "Yep, and now that you've arrived it's time to flush."

I just dropped by for about one minute. How was the ride through the p-trap?

February 24, 2012 at 8:05 a.m.
ibshame said...

In 1928, Al Smith a Democrat ran against Herbert Hoover. Al Smith had many things going against him but primarily it was his Catholic Faith that was the biggest obstacle. In 1960, John F. Kennedy became the first Roman Catholic elected President. One of his biggest challenges during the race was to reassure the people of the United States that the Pope would not dictate his actions as President. He gave a speech to the Southern Baptist Convention in hopes of resting concerns over his faith. Now we come to 2012 and the only candidate who has to rest concerns over his faith is Barack Obama. Rick Santorum would be wise to read the speech President Kennedy gave in 1960.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_poli1.htm

February 24, 2012 at 8:15 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Now we come to 2012 and the only candidate who has to rest concerns over his faith is Barack Obama.

lol. I question the Republican party's faith every single day. Christian morals and values my ass. You filthy GD liars have -0- honor or decency. You are religious manipulators and race baiting degenerates.

I'll tell you one thing, the behavior of GOP politicos has driven me farther away from religion. Now I think it's pure poison. Especially Christianity. Watching you lowlife punks behave like barbarians and then act like YOU'RE 'chosen' or holy makes me want to vomit.

You're nothing but fakes, charlatans who dismiss their faith, religion and so-called values for the slightest inconvenience. You greedy, money based jerks are a cult.

February 24, 2012 at 8:45 a.m.
joneses said...

davisss13

You said "I'll tell you one thing, the behavior of GOP politicos has driven me farther away from religion." I am sure the Republicans appreciate the power you have given them over you to let them decide your religous convictions. To tell you the truth no one cares about your religous beliefs. It is disgusting you liberal punks are making this election about religion when the truth is this pathetic president is a complete failure at everything he has done. I have yet to hear one of you pathetic communist liberals boast about Hussien Obamas accomplishments. All you do is lie about the Republicans. More proof this pathetic president is a failure.

February 24, 2012 at 9:15 a.m.
ibshame said...

President Kennedy said it best in 1960 at the Southern Baptist Convention.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.....

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice -- where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind -- and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood. That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe -- a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it, its occupancy from the members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office. ...

But let me stress again that these are my views -- for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but the candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic.

I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise......."

February 24, 2012 at 9:32 a.m.
davisss13 said...

I am sure the Republicans appreciate the power you have given them over you to let them decide your religous convictions.

Oh lordie. lol. You are a nutcake. Usually I just scroll past your bull but I'll give you one today.

To tell you the truth no one cares about your religous beliefs.

I doubt that very much. If you're not a Christian you're not a 'real American', right?

It is disgusting you liberal punks are making this election about religion when the truth is this pathetic president is a complete failure at everything he has done.

I'm not a liberal but whatever... Do you remember who used the phrase 'morals and values' to bludgeon their opponents and portray them as godless? It wasn't the Democrats. REPUBLICANS always make it about religion. Do you have any shame at all?

and yo I have yet to hear one of you pathetic communist liberals boast about Hussien Obamas accomplishments. All you do is lie about the Republicans. More proof this pathetic president is a failure."

Obama's successes and failures are public record.

I don't have to lie about Republicans. They are killing themselves, thanks to mindless, lynch-mob drones like you.

Stay the course, wingnut.

Pssst! Ronald Reagan couldn't pass your current litmus tests.

February 24, 2012 at 9:38 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

To tell you the truth no one cares about your religous beliefs. It is disgusting you liberal punks are making this election about religion...

And yet the GOP candidates fall over one another talking about God, family values and piety.

February 24, 2012 at 9:43 a.m.

joneses, copying and pasting a list from somewhere doesn't make it true. You obviously didn't bother to format it more clearly, but did you bother to fact check it? No? Otherwise you might learn that AES's Eastern Energy was a COAL subsidiary, and hadn't gotten any significant dollars for green energy. SunPower is already sold to another company, it's not going bankrupt, the project is in effect, and the loan will be paid back. EverGreen Solar got money not from the Federal government, but from Massachusetts. Fisker got money to build a different car than the one they are building in Scandinavia, which is funded from their separate venture capital. Amonix laid off workers as part of a temporary restructuring, much like our local Amazon does. Yay employment law, cheaper to fire workers than retrain them!

Babcock and Brown isn't even an energy firm, why are you mentioning them? They're an investment brokerage, like the one Romney was involved with. They are failing, but it's the WHOLE business, so that speaks not at all for whatever part might have gotten money from the US government.

Clearly you haven't bothered with actual research, so maybe you should actually spend time looking at your sources and seeing if they're giving you the truth, not whatever convenient lies you want to believe.

February 24, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.
joneses said...

happy with stupid bulbs,

Just like this pathetic president you support you are a liar. You have no concept of acknowledging the truth so you twist the research to pursue your communist political agenda. You are a fool.

February 24, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
joneses said...

So what you pathic liberals are telling me is you think there is something wrong about a candidate voicing his religious faith? Was there something wrong with Billy Graham, a Democrat, talking about his religious faith? Was there something wrong about Obama going to Jeremiah Wrights church and showing his faith? Was there something wrong with the Clinton's and Gore's going to church? Are you so self absorbed in yourselves that you think these candidates talking about their religious faith is an attempt to get you into church? Surely you are not that stupid. Is there anything a Republican candidate can talk about without you liberals attacking them with your disgusting, hateful, racist lies? You all are nothing but worthless POSs.

February 24, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.

Oh dear, joneses has called me a liar and a fool, and says I can't acknowledge the truth.

That means what I said must be completely and utterly true. The forum troll here only gets that agitated when reality is crashing into his fantasy.

BTW, there's a difference between following a faith and making others follow it. The concern people have is with the Republicans who through their conduct have sought to make others follow their religious values and the way they try to shame those they represent as not having such faith. Calling people worthless POS is another aspect of that, your anger does not convince people that they are wrong in their assessments, but that they are correct.

So...I'm convinced, you're actually running a false-flag operation. You are seeking to discredit the entire conservative movement.

February 24, 2012 at 10:14 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Any Democrats or Independants out there who are tired of Obama and want a real alternative should consider voting in the primaries for Ron Paul and all of his delegates on March 6th. You know Obama is going to be on the Democratic Party ticket so you are wasting your time voting for him in the primaries.

Just think of the heart ache you can cause for the Republican establishment.

February 24, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: “You are very confused. Why is America only a “Christian” nation when Americans engage in inhumane treatment of others? You selectively tie Christians to the West’s cruelties but not with ending the slave trade and (eventually) slavery etc.

Since you’re the one who has been arguing on this thread that America is a “Christian” nation, AND since you’re the one who also made the claim that “Christians” have always cared about children before and after birth, I think it’s you who needs to reflect on your question, your claims, and why you opted to ignore the cruelties and inhumane treatment of Native Americans, Africans and African Americans during the Manifest Destiny and slave trade eras, WWWTW.

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: The West’s arrogance and outrages do not derive from the New Testament. Professed Christians do not always live up to its teaching. But compared to what?

I certainly agree with your thoughts here, WWWTW. Reality is what it is, and, in this case, it’s what you’ve stated: “The West’s arrogance and outrages do not derive from the New Testament. Professed Christians do not always live up to its teaching.” . . . I don’t see a need to compare it to anything, WWWTW. Why do you see a need for a comparison?

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: You’re going to attribute Iraq’s maimed and killed children during the war to Christianity? Are you kidding?

I attribute the injuries and wrongful deaths of the Iraqi children to the unethical and dishonest acts by lawmakers who claim to be Christians, WWWTW. Perhaps, you’ve forgotten you’re original claim was that Christians have always cared about babies before and after birth. Of course, there is always the possibility the individuals responsible for orchestrating that unjust war in Iraq are simply not telling the truth in regard to their religious beliefs. What do you think?

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: "You’re a one-trick pony. You have no tolerance for balance."

Since it's you who made the all-encompassing claim that “We need a lot more of the influence of that particular large universal religion. They've ALWAYS cared about babies, before AND after birth,” I’d say you’re more inclined to be the one trick pony, WWWTW. I’ve figured out some time ago that everybody is human, which means nobody is perfect, including Christians.

February 24, 2012 at 10:38 a.m.
joneses said...

happywithpatheticlies

Pathetic try to substantiate your disgusting lies but you are a liar, plain and simple. Just like the rest of you disgusting liberals. By the way no one can force you to do anything you do not want them to unless of course you are week minded and it appears you are. You sit on your ass leaching off the government pissing and moaning about how you think the religous people in this world are pushing their values on you. I find it amazing how you and the rest of your pathetic followers paint Christianity as a bad thing when a disgusting faction of muslims have misinterprted the Koran so much that they actually believe it is holy to kill you. And you say nothing. Pathetic. Your Messiah obama just apologized to muslims after they killed two American soldiers and just last week he was attacking the Catholic church. And you pathetic fools support this type behavior. You are absolutley disgusting.

February 24, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.
NGAdad said...

Joneser... i pity you not able to get enough of your medication lately. Maybe you could befriend some shut in ole folk and sneak a few pills from their medicine cabinet. Do something, I really fear that we'll lose your informative opinion when you stroke out. Take care... please don't stoop to jumping over Px counters, they have cameras.

February 24, 2012 at 10:47 a.m.
NGAdad said...

P,s. Jonser, the President made apology before word of the attack on U.S. soldiers. The attack says more about radical Islamism than the President. Mr. Obama has strafed and bombed their terrorist hideouts at 5 times the rate as 'W' - who was busy trying to steal Iraqi oil fields. More meds is what you need. Good Day!

February 24, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.

People who dont know anything have to believe everything

...in particular ferry tales from the very past as the authors thought the world is flat..

Santorum is a perfect representative of the United Stupids of America....

February 24, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.

joneses, oh you don't think people can be compelled by force? My oh my. Where do you get this sentiment from?

You might argue in some existential sense that a person is consenting when they choose not to die when you point a gun at them to get them to do what you want, but that's ignoring the act of compulsion to try to score some philosophical point.

Of course, I also know you've complained about churches being forced to provide contraceptives, or being forced to get health care, so I know that's not even your genuine belief anyway. Not that you're a profound thinker who would consider it in those terms.

BTW, did you know that there's quite a few groups of Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible so much that they actually believe it is holy to kill as well? You say nothing about them. Isn't that pathetic? Or are you going to provide documentation of how you condemned them? No? Then that must mean you support them completely, right? That is your logic, isn't it? Because you haven't spent every waking breath speaking out against all the evils in the world, your silence indicates support?

You know what's pathetic? Pointless accusations like yours. All they show is exactly why you aren't offering anything of substance in any respect. You're not even as right as a stopped clock.

BTW, I don't worship Obama as the Messiah, just because you think he's the GREAT SATAN like Santorum doesn't mean that when I disagree I must think he's a messenger of God.

February 24, 2012 at 11:17 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Read a good piece in the Wall Street Journal, 'stupid' and Oil prices. You Obamaites might not like it though.

Speaking of religion, it was Obama who has no problem quoting the Bible when he defends his tax increases.

February 24, 2012 at 12:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

joneses (or should I say Francis) several of the GOP candidates claim that God called them to run for president; others have made it pretty clear that they plan to govern according to their religious principles, even if they are not shared by the rest of the population. Some have said that the country needs to return to God, something I and my fellow atheists find objectionable given our constitution. Yes, this primary is all about religion and who can come across to their constituents as the most holy.

February 24, 2012 at 1:08 p.m.
acerigger said...

Interesting article,Could Santorum’s Radical Religious Fundamentalism Propel US Into Religious Violence?http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/02/23/could-santorums-radical-religious-fundamentalism-propel-us-into-religious-violence/#more-25184 Posted on February 23, 2012 by Jim White . In it he writes,"Despite the fact that our country was founded in part by immigrants seeking to escape religious persecution, the current crop of Republican presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul, who gets no media airtime anyway) have carried the Republican party’s “God and country” theme to even more of an extreme than usual. Taking the clear lead in this push to extremism is Rick Santorum, who now is not only proclaiming his radical faith as a principal reason to vote for him, but he also is deriding the faith of others, primarily that of President Barack Obama." Is there anything more chilling and disturbing than government figures and religious figures teaming up to advocate violence together? It doesn’t even take the specter of an invading force to provoke such violence. In Iraq today, at least 60 people died in attacks that appear to be a return to the Shia vs. Sunni sectarian battles that have plagued the region for centuries.

Whether it is Catholic vs. Protestant or Shia vs. Sunni inside a country or Muslim vs. Christian in repelling an invading or occupying force, once radical religious fundamentalism becomes a part of government, violence appears to follow.

Calling for radical religious fundamentalism to have no part of government is not persecution of a particular religion. It is merely a part of the American concept that no particular religious view should become the position of the American government on any issue. The persecution the Founding Fathers fled and the fundamentalist-fed violence we see in the world today are all the evidence we need to know that Santorum risks taking the US in a direction that could negate one of its most precious founding values

February 24, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
ibshame said...

At one point just a few years ago Republicans controlled all THREE branches of government. And what did the American public get? Two unfunded wars, trillions added to the National Debt, a Budget that went from Surplus(according to Newt Gingrich who claims there was a balanced budget for the four years he controlled the House) to Deficit, a loss of millions of jobs overseas,the beginnings of a bank meltdown and a mortgage meltdown, and last but certainly not least the start of the Great Recession which somehow the Repubs blamed on Barack Obama even though he didn't take office until 2009.

During the same time Republicans had control of all three branches of government, Rick Santorum was the Senator from Pennsylvania. One of his most "notable" achievements (other than voting for the "No Child Left Behind Act," the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska and authorization of the war in Iraq) was his vote to stop a husband from exercising his rights as a husband to allow his wife to die. The husband was Michael Schiavo and the wife was Terri Schiavo. It was this gross OVERREACH of the government into the private lives of citizens that eventually cost Santorum his seat in the U.S. Senate.

Now Santorum is back on the scene trying once again to overreach into the private lives of the citizens in this country. He was wrong in 2005 with the Terri Schiavo case and he is wrong in 2012 with his personal stands on contraception and all the other social issues he's so willing to campaign on this year. He didn't believe he was going to lose his Senate Seat in 2006 but he did by the largest margin ever in Pennsylvania History. They knew he was not the person they needed to represent them in the U.S. Senate. If he manages to beat Mitt Romney and win the Republican Nomination, he will go down in flames against Barack Obama. It won't even be as close as the widest margin he lost by in Pennsylvania(18pts). No one is buying his brand of government interference except the extremists in his party. Unfortunately for him they couldn't win his seat back for him in Pennsylvania in 2006 and they won't win the White House for him in 2012.

February 24, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

nooga, nooga, nooga, please. I don't see brilliance or genius or problem solving. Our last two presidents are Ivy League graduates, both stunk it up. Besides being given the title of genius, BO was also awarded a Noble Peace Prize, so obviously his titles don't mean much. He's done about as much for peace as he's done to help our economy, ZERO. So because you have an MBA from UTK it means what, we should all go running the other way? What a pompous ass. Bush has an MBA from Harvard, so that trumps you, since you admire a Harvard education so much, right? I'm sure you spent more time drinking than studying. An MBA from UTK can't mean much if you think Obama knows anything about the economy or the business world. You should get your money back.

February 24, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.

Guess you thought wrong. Add it to your list. Did you put it on microfiche yet?

But yes, "The best is the enemy of good." as Voltaire said. However, there's no way to perfection, either privatization or the opposite, not as long as we remain human. Our works will remain flawed in some ways regardless of the manifestation. However if you want to know about the levels of waste possible, there's more than a few kleptocracies to find out in the world.

February 24, 2012 at 3:45 p.m.

Apparently you have a problem with recognizing it yourself.

February 24, 2012 at 4:18 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

nooga said... ........"though it does get boring after a while listening to you whine like a little girl. "........

I agree with you nooga, but let's not start insulting little girls.

Maybe we should just call them spoiled little two year olds. Nah, that would insult those kids as well. I don't think we can compare it to anything human.

February 24, 2012 at 4:36 p.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Nooga, what in the hell are you talking about? Francis/ Jones??? You're confused, dude. I don't know who that is or why you're calling me that. If they get under your skin then more power to them!

First of all this landslide talk is hogwash. Bo will win California and New York and probably about 7 other states. Everything else he won't win or it's way, way too close to call. Look at the map, he's in some deep doodoo.

February 24, 2012 at 4:42 p.m.

Which map, if you please?

At least give us the courtesy of telling us who your pollster is.

February 24, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.

Golly, how can there be more than just one person out there who is not a leftist or a Democrat? Can it be? It must all be the same person. This is truly very, very comical.

Wow, you Democrats on here need to get out more. Step out of your circle once and a while.

February 24, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.

NEW - COMPLETE COVERAGE OF EURO-CRISES(BUREAUCRAZY) vs 2012(2008) US ELECTIONS FRAUD(remember Kennedy!!?) !!! FIND OUT WHY HOPE DIES LAST https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtWCcCkBeYo

RECENT FLORIDA(will fluctuate, but same story elsewhere will repeat) VOTING POLES HAVE SHOWN MORMON ROMNEY AS LEADING CANDIDATE WITH 47% APPROVAL RATE(in reality 7% only), GINGRICH 32% (in reality 14%), SANATORUM 14% (reality 32%), AND RON PAUL WITH 7 % WHILE IN REALITY WAS THE HIGHEST AT 47% !!!

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WHEN TAKING IN CONSIDERATION RON PAUL(chameleon), PRESENTS THIS http://www.chron.com/news/article/Paul-Immigration-not-solved-by-barbed-wire-guns-2918313.php FACT WHICH BECOMES EXTREMELY BOTHERING ISSUE INVOLVING http://notethicsbutbutchery.blogspot.com/

US government consist of Obama alike lawyers(liars), Ron Paul alike doctors, and Gingrich/Sanatorum alike family members of affected(brain disease) individuals who have helped pass CRIMINAL bill against target whites. CRIME NO DIFFERENT FROM ROMNEY(Bush screwed US for Obama and now it's Romney's turn) WHOSE FATHER EXCELLED AFTER GM WAS DELIBERATELY BANKRUPT = AMERICA TODAY(soon to be success based on previous sabotage) !!

UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2012(2008) ARE FRAUD !!! VOID THEM AND DEMAND DAVID DUKE FOR USA PRESIDENT - NOW !!!

IT WILL BE FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE KENNEDY THAT YOU WILL ACTUALLY VOTE !!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtWCcCkBeYo

February 24, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.
hambone said...

If the number of posts on Clay Bennett's cartoons lately were any indication of how he is doing then he has been doing good.

However when you count the number of posters it just looks like recess at a 4th grade debate class!!

February 24, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.

Onetinsoldier, you are very ignorant. Some of the greatest thinkers, philosophers and scientists were Christians. You're disgusting. It seems to me it's you Democrats who don't want to think for yourselves and are lazy. You advocate dependence and socialism which is now wrecking Europe's economy!

February 24, 2012 at 5:17 p.m.
Welcome_2 said...

tu_quoque said... Welcome 2 Sez: Don’t you think it is quite racist to state the position that the Blacks of Africa are so inept and corrupt that their destruction and salvation are, at the same time, are completely in the hands of Caucasians and Asians. They have no ability to successfully control their own destinies?

Bet you don't get to go out of town much do you? Let alone travel into other countries. Maybe the closes you've stepped was across stateline into North Georgia or Southern Kentucky?

If you're going to respond, respond entirely. Don't take anyone words out of context and use only that which suits your purpose.

Now, do some research then get back to me, OK?

February 24, 2012 at 5:22 p.m.
Welcome_2 said...

blondebutnotdumb said... Onetinsoldier, you are very ignorant. Some of the greatest thinkers, philosophers and scientists were Christians

There are many sides to that argument: "And many more were not!" ;}

February 24, 2012 at 5:24 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sorry, tuqu. This does not represent a change in Dawkin's position, something you would know if you have read any of this books.

I suspect he finds Santorum a sanctimonious git.

February 24, 2012 at 5:57 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Mark Kleiman asks:

"Any chance Rick Santorum will give up bigotry for Lent?"

http://www.samefacts.com/

February 24, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Can anyone tell me what the hell Santorum was doing to Ron Paul at the end of the last debate? That was borderline assault! Poor Ron Paul got up quickly from his seat like he was afraid Santorum was losing it. No wonder the GOP robber barons are so concerned about his candidacy.

February 24, 2012 at 6:41 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

But you had such hateful things to say about Agnostics the other day. First, nothing I said was hateful (certainly not in comparison to what is spewed here by some, including you) Second, Dawkins still considers himself an atheist. But as a good scientist knows, there is no proof, and absolute certainty is not attainable, so in the true definition of agnostic, he fits both.

There is no way to "prove" a negative. There is no evidence FOR the supernatural. None. Zip. But there is no logical way to "disprove" such a thing either.

February 24, 2012 at 6:47 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Hey, any of you republican stalwarts going down to the Chattahoochie Choo Choo to hear Newt tell us how much like us he is (at $1000 a plate)? Maybe you should hold off and go to Santorum's "Bringing Piety Back Crusade." Dinner's free for anyone who is fasting.

February 24, 2012 at 6:51 p.m.
rogerdodger said...

Hey ACE, I can tell what is worse than anything you described. It is seeing Christan's being killed daily by muslims. The same muslims that old barrack hussein osama obama loves to protect & help http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/01/obama-al-qaeda-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/

February 24, 2012 at 6:55 p.m.
rolando said...

This is enough to make one grab Clay's cat-o-nine-tails and start clearing out the temple... It is called, I tried to open a Lemonade Stand. http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2012/02/24/creators_oped

This is what our fine government is doing to encourage small business start-ups.

Here also is cartoon "fraught with meaning", although the libtards won't get it. http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2012/02/24/96723

February 24, 2012 at 6:58 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

A good reminder for all U.S. politicians, of course, but especially for Rick Santorum:

“BOSTON – Jewish groups slammed Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Friday for telling listeners of a Boston radio show that “we always need a Jesus guy” in the campaign.

. . . Anti-Defamation League Abraham Foxman told The Jerusalem Post that Santorum’s remarks were “totally inappropriate. It’s crossing the line.”

“It says to Jews, to Muslims, to Buddhists, to non-believers, you’re not part of this country,” he added.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=252595

February 24, 2012 at 7:05 p.m.
rolando said...

Yet another fine example of voter-supported fraud against our country. The "47% voters", anyway.

Another Young Republican at work. Note the changes from the Minnesota 2009 registration system...http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=GqMVxeZhflI&feature=player_embedded

February 24, 2012 at 7:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

“It says to Jews, to Muslims, to Buddhists, to non-believers, you’re not part of this country,” he added.

we already knew

February 24, 2012 at 7:17 p.m.

Rolando, I've seen a few kids try that drink stand idea. They give up after a few days. Why? Nobody actually wants their product. There is no market for it. It may have appeal as nostalgia, but the reality is, regulation or not, the concept is as dead as a kid with a paper route.

You want to teach kids, the lesson shouldn't end up never try.

Probably most of their parents end up subsidizing it anyway. Weren't you opposed to such bailouts?

Tq, I seem to recall the conservatives complaining how the poor had refrigerators, cell phones and other luxuries. That their standard of living had vastly improved. How does that square with your contention?

February 24, 2012 at 7:53 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Hmmmm. . . I think Rick Santorum has been hanging out with the wrong crowd. Not only does he have trouble understanding the principle involving the separation between church and state, it also appears he has trouble understanding the concept of good stewardship:

Any time a politician starts talking theology, people should be nervous. And if he wants to limit the discussion to that are scientifically proven, he would do well to avoid the topic of theology altogether.

On Sunday, Mr. Santorum told Bob Schieffer on CBS News' "Face the Nation":

". . . The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective. I think a lot of radical environmentalists have it upside-down."

Even for Mr. Santorum, this idea is spectacularly obtuse. There is nothing radical or anti-biblical about concern over global warming. The idea is not to preserve the Earth for Earth's sake, but for the 9 billion people who will inhabit it in the next 30 years.

It might be nice for Mr. Santorum and the fossil-fuel industry to claim a biblical foundation for continuing to spew carbon into the atmosphere. But science is a better foundation for policy-making than belief.

But let's give Mr. Santorum's Bible-based theology its due. In the first book of Genesis, God tells Adam, "Be fruitful and increase in number. Fill the earth and subdue it."

We have been fruitful all right. We have filled the Earth and subdued it to the point of ruin. And as to the point of stewardship, which Jesus addressed in the parable related in Matthew 25, we have some work to do to become "good and faithful."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/23/4285130/the-gospel-according-to-rick-santorum.html#storylink=cpy

February 24, 2012 at 8:35 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Santorum has one of the finest minds of the 13th century. Quote taken from: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/campaigning-against-the-modern-world/

February 24, 2012 at 9:02 p.m.

mountainlaurel said...

Since you’re the one who has been arguing on this thread that America is a “Christian” nation ...

Baloney. I never said it, nor do I believe it.

AND since you’re the one who also made the claim that “Christians” have always cared about children before and after birth …

Since I have acknowledged the failure of Christians, (including my own failures) in many previous posts (i.e. “I am / we are what’s wrong with the world”), and since my pointing out the historical contributions of Christians was a rebuttal to the one-sided “crusades-inquisition” inquisition by Clay and his apologists, I assumed that you would understand that “have always cared about babies” did not mean 100% of every second in its entire history. If you weren’t such a literalist and if you could see beyond your sliver-width, ALWAYS partisan perspective, you would understand that my meaning was “from the beginning” or “have long cared for” (e.g. my references to Christian compassion for infants and the poor in the context of Rome’s infanticide and self-acknowledged disregard for the poor.)

I certainly agree with your thoughts here, WWWTW. Reality is what it is, and, in this case, it’s what you’ve stated: “The West’s arrogance and outrages do not derive from the New Testament. Professed Christians do not always live up to its teaching.” . . . I don’t see a need to compare it to anything, WWWTW. Why do you see a need for a comparison?

I pointed out that, in the West and elsewhere, Christians have often been the primary (and sometimes only) advocates for the poor and oppressed. It’s an inescapable core component of its message. I gave a few examples. You ignored them. (Also, see last week’s post on the hypocrisy of secular liberals in their comparative failure to support the poor with their personal resources – financial, volunteer work, etc. There are exceptions, but studies show that, as a rule, liberals delegate charity to government bureaucrats, who nearly always make a mess of it.) In light of the prevailing distortions in portraying the overall contribution of Christians, I think that comparing it to that of the church’s secular critics is entirely appropriate. I can see why you want to avoid such comparisons. The record of pre- and post-Christian Europe is pretty pathetic with its tribalistic attitudes of superiority to the rest of the world.

February 24, 2012 at 9:16 p.m.

mountainlaurel said...

I attribute the injuries and wrongful deaths of the Iraqi children to the unethical and dishonest acts by lawmakers who claim to be Christians, WWWTW. Perhaps, you’ve forgotten you’re original claim was that Christians have always cared about babies before and after birth. Of course, there is always the possibility the individuals responsible for orchestrating that unjust war in Iraq are simply not telling the truth in regard to their religious beliefs. What do you think?

Very few people tell the truth with regard to their religious beliefs, least of all politicians (another of my frequent themes). The pertinent question you would need to answer to justify your claim is: Exactly who used Christianity to justify the war in Iraq? And were the 90% of the population who supported it acting on Christian conviction? What is your evidence? And, are professing Christian Democrats also culpable for beating the war drum about invading Iraq throughout the 1990s when Republicans were warning that invading wasn’t a good idea?

Your partisanship gets the best of you. You loathe the Bush administration, and you’re hell-bent on exonerating the Monday morning quarterbacks (Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Albright, et al) who sang Bush's tune for years leading up to the Iraq War.

I’ve figured out some time ago that everybody is human, which means nobody is perfect, including Christians.

Agreed.

February 24, 2012 at 9:17 p.m.
acerigger said...

roger,et al,I guess your reading comprehension is not all that,if that's your only response from "reading" the article.

February 24, 2012 at 9:35 p.m.
Oz said...

mtnlaurel said...I’ve figured out some time ago that everybody is human, which means nobody is perfect, including Christians.

That is the whole concept of Christianity in a nutshell. If Christians were or could be perfect. Why would we need a Saviour?

February 24, 2012 at 10:04 p.m.

Wwwtw, do you have any support for your contention that government bureaucrats nearly always make a mess of charitable spending?

OZ, the problem is with the ones who aren't humble but arrogant and sure that they know God's will. C. S. Lewis had something to say about that, and it is not unreasonable to consider Santorum among their ranks.

February 24, 2012 at 10:04 p.m.
Oz said...

happywithnewbulbs said... OZ, the problem is with the ones who aren't humble but arrogant and sure that they know God's will.

If you don't have a relationship with God, you can't know his will. A lot of people put words in his mouth. That comment is not directed to you personally.

February 24, 2012 at 10:27 p.m.

And that was the point of what I said, so...did you miss it? Or something else?

Ah well, Lewis still said it better.

February 24, 2012 at 10:34 p.m.

Oz said...

That [nobody is perfect] is the whole concept of Christianity in a nutshell.

Good point. Christian teaching on original sin has been the only effective remedy to western secularism’s utopian pretensions of human perfectibility, a point also well made by Lewis.


happywithnewbulbs said...

Wwwtw, do you have any support for your contention that government bureaucrats nearly always make a mess of charitable spending?

Yes, but I’m sleepy, so I’ll have to supply links later. It involves research about the effects of welfare reform in the 90s and faith-based alternatives in the 2000s. I think even the POTUS acknowledged this principle the other day. I could be wrong.

February 24, 2012 at 10:55 p.m.
acerigger said...

Oz said...

mtnlaurel said...I’ve figured out some time ago that everybody is human, which means nobody is perfect, including Christians.

That is the whole concept of Christianity in a nutshell. If Christians were or could be perfect. Why would we need a Saviour?

Oz, I think it is written,"all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

February 24, 2012 at 10:57 p.m.

Rog, that is the typical (ACE) BS when someone calls him/her out on another idiotic post all that happens is a sad "attempt" to question someone's intelligence which is something obviously lacking on their end. Guess the truth truly hurts for anyone that supported Obama calling names is the best they can do.

February 24, 2012 at 11:09 p.m.

Wwwtw, the nineties reform? That was driven by conservatives? Consider me not surprised. Like the recent drug testing of welfare recipients in Florida, it was driven less by results than it was by conservative ideology. (What's especially odd about that is how many conservatives here make requests for things they got in that reform. But that is another matter entirely.).

However, I cannot describe that as a problem with bureaucracy, as it was politicians following their philosophy, and that is a different problem.

February 24, 2012 at 11:20 p.m.
Oz said...

HWNB...We agree on that point.

WWWTW.... I don't know why non-Christians want Christians to be perfect. We don't claim perfection.

February 24, 2012 at 11:24 p.m.
Oz said...

acerigger.. I fall short on a daily basis. Human beings cannot be perfect. It's impossible but we can be forgiven.

I have seen Christians go to war with each other over the paint color in the Fellowship Hall of the church. Perfect...It won't happen in this life.

February 24, 2012 at 11:34 p.m.

Oz, even if one does not make such a claim, one can still believe in it while professing otherwise.

February 24, 2012 at 11:52 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

What_wrong_with_the_world said: “The pertinent question you would need to answer to justify your claim is: Exactly who used Christianity to justify the war in Iraq?”

The pertinent question? Nice try, WWWTW. You’re not only ignoring our own historical justifications for declaring war, but you’re also ignoring the Christian Just War Principles, which as I’m sure you know the Bush Administration along with the majority of their supporters totally ignored when they decided to invade Iraq.

Interestingly, I just read a comment by Repubican Representative Ron Paul earlier today that summarizes this issue in a rather straightforward manner:

"We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid of somebody," he said. "But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war - we have rejected the Just War theory of Christianity.

As to the Bush Administration invasion of Iraq actually meeting the Christian Just War Principles, many Christian leaders including the Catholic Pope went on record and stated that the Bush Administration’s arguments for a war with Iraq were insufficient because there was no imminent threat from Baghdad that could justify a war. Everyone seemed to know the real motive of the Bush Administration for invading Iraq was economic, and they also stated for the record that they felt the concept of prevention war was highly dangerous.

February 25, 2012 at 12:06 a.m.
acerigger said...

lovetheusaorleave,did you even bother to read the article? Do you even know what the original post was about? I think I see YOUR typical BS in posting about something you know nothing about.

February 25, 2012 at 12:43 a.m.
fairmon said...

Poliiticians should not be involved in religion and religion should not be involved in politics.

February 25, 2012 at 2:58 a.m.

Yes I did, it was your usual incoherent BS of trying to use your best copy & paste skills to put down a group you dislike instead of admitting you are a fool for supporting Obama. Did you check out the link? I notice you never want to mention anything negative about your wonderful leader no matter how many facts are out there.

February 25, 2012 at 8:29 a.m.
acerigger said...

lovetheusaorleave ,I try to use my"best copy & paste skills" to enlighten people about a dangerous type of religious extremist who have NO business in government. If the article is"incoherent BS" to you, then I guess your reading comprehension skills are not "all that" either.

February 25, 2012 at 2:06 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Satan's own. RickyS!

February 25, 2012 at 7 p.m.

Ace I still the the best you can do is your child like insults. I also see there was no mention of the link or the contents that show what kind of person you and others in the DARK, like you continue to support no matter how bad of a job he has done. I never thought anyone could make George W Bush look good be he sure has.

February 25, 2012 at 7:39 p.m.
acerigger said...

love, if you run your cursor over this part,http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/02/23/could-santorums-radical-religious-fundamentalism-propel-us-into-religious-violence/#more-25184,you'll notice that it turns red! indicating a "link".

there's no part of ANYTHING that says ANYTHING about"what kind of person you and others in the DARK, like you continue to support no matter how bad of a job he has done. I never thought anyone could make George W Bush look good be he sure has."

wothehell you talking about!? Are you drinking?on dope?what?

February 25, 2012 at 11:02 p.m.
rogerdodger said...

Hey L you might as well stop trying. Those fools that don't see (or admit) their mistakes are sure to make them again. Besides everyone knows you can't teach a DUMB ACE anything.

February 26, 2012 at 3:26 a.m.
acerigger said...

rogerdodger said... "Besides everyone knows you can't teach a DUMB ACE anything." Wrong,you dumb crackers have taught me one thing, that Jesus was spot-on when he advised to "cast not your pearls before swine".

BTW,did you notice that the winning word in the regional spelling bee was "quibble"? How fitting for you peckerwoods.

February 26, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
rogerdodger said...

Yes I did and that was the second word. Guess you did as always and overlooked slalom the first word. That is the dodging of obstacles in the way which you are a wonderful at, by dodging the truth about your hypocritical leader. Seeing many of your post and the way you love to belittle(hope you know that word)and disrespect anyone that has a different view from the narrow minded one you have leads to me to believe your knowledge of Jesus is very little, if any. But I suppose you could have just copied and pasted those facts as well.

February 26, 2012 at 12:26 p.m.

happywithnewbulbs said... Wwwtw, the nineties reform? That was driven by conservatives? Consider me not surprised.


It was initiated by conservatives, but it was passed with bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. It was based on historical research comparing poverty relief before and after the New Deal and the "Great" Society. The results of reform fail your standard of perfection, but most agree that the effects were largely positive and that it significantly loosened the left’s (then) thirty-year stranglehold on prospects for the poor.

President Obama decided to continue the Bush administration’s faith-based initiatives, though many now question his commitment to a cause that undermines his own vision for a bureaucratic monopoly on addressing the needs of the poor.

February 26, 2012 at 8:23 p.m.

mountainlaurel said...

In fact, when you considered the number of innocent Iraqi children maimed and/or killed as a result of America’s so-called “pre-emptive” war efforts, I don’t see that this "large universal religion" can legitimately make this claim even today.

Don’t you read your own posts? America does not equal Christianity. Why do blame the latter for actions of the former?

You’re not only ignoring our own historical justifications for declaring war,

I’m not ignoring them. Since you assigned blame to Christianity for “America’s so-called ‘pre-emptive’ war efforts,” I’m asking you to identify exactly who used justifications that had anything to do with religion, much less Christianity specifically. You have yet to do so. (Al-Jazeera doesn’t count as an authoritative source.)

but you’re also ignoring the Christian Just War Principles, which as I’m sure you know the Bush Administration along with the majority of their supporters totally ignored when they decided to invade Iraq.

I’m not ignoring them. You just now brought them up. I’m asking why blame should be limited to a single administration or to a single party. Why are you ignoring the Constitution (to use your line of argument) which requires the approval of the Senate for a declaration of war – in the case of Iraq, a Senate controlled by Democrats? Again, your sliver-width partisan perspective limits your focus to just one segment of the legislative process, and it causes you to ignore the widespread Democrat support for war in Iraq preceding and during the administration of Bush 43 (and during and just after that of Bush 41).

Furthermore, why are you, in the same thread in which you criticize others for doing so, now insisting on holding U.S. political leaders to a religious test to justify any of their actions?

February 26, 2012 at 8:26 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: “Don’t you read your own posts? America does not equal Christianity. Why do blame the latter for actions of the former?”

But this dialogue began with your outrageous statement and claim: “We need a lot more of the influence of that particular large universal religion. They've ALWAYS cared about babies, before AND after birth.”

In response, I pointed out this was not “always” the case and cited early historical examples of the cruel and inhuman treatment of Native Americans, Africans, and African Americans. I also cited a recent example where Iraqi children were maimed and killed as a direct result of the actions of an arrogant and reckless administration whose members all claimed to be Christian. Surely, you're not suggesting that former President George W. Bush is not a Christian?

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: Since you assigned blame to Christianity for “America’s so-called ‘pre-emptive’ war efforts,” I’m asking you to identify exactly who used justifications that had anything to do with religion . . .”

You continue to ignore YOUR claim that Christians have “always” cared about babies," WWWTW. Your chatter about my assigning blame to Christianity for the reckless “pre-emptive” war polices of George W. Bush is disingenuous. I simply brought your attention to what can only be described as very un-Christian conduct by a group of men who claim to be Christians. Perhaps, in the future that you should refrain from making such sweeping statements.

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said “Why are you, in the same thread in which you criticize others for doing so, now insisting on holding U.S. political leaders to a religious test to justify any of their actions?”

Insisting? Please, WWWTW. When a President who claims to be a Christian tells a “big lie” to start a war, he obviously has committed a double whammy, WWWTW. Not only has he violated his duties toward the citizens of this country, but he has also dishonored the ethics associated with his religion. Since George W. Bush frequently invoked God and went out of his way to bring religion into his political speeches, I believe he deserves a “double whammy” criticism. Personally, I believe in the separation of church and state.

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: Your sliver-width partisan perspective limits your focus to just one segment of the legislative process, and it causes you to ignore the widespread Democrat support for war in Iraq.

I believe you’re the one who with a partisan perspective, WWWTW. As I mentioned earlier, George W. Bush went out of his way to bring religion into his political speeches and frequently invoked God during his presidency. And since it was also George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who orchestrated the “big lie” and sold cheap tickets to Congress and the American people, I believe Bush and Cheney deserve the greater portion of the criticism.

February 27, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.

mountainlaurel said ... Surely, you're not suggesting that former President George W. Bush is not a Christian?

My topic was Christianity. Your obsession is George W. Bush. They are not one and the same. Without exception, every American POTUS goes out of his way to identify himself as Christian. Bush doesn’t speak for me, nor does his record indict the 2 billion Christians in the world or its 2,000 year record of helping people in need.

More specifically, my topic was the idea that, contra liberal talking points, the historical an current contribution of Christianity in the care of children and the oppressed is significant.

Your refutation was your shallow and simplistic philosophy of life: “Bush lied thousands died.” You then demanded that I defend him. My argument requires no such defense. You are incapable of reading material in context. Your reasoning is specious. Your vision is juvenile and myopic. I stand by my original statements:

Ancient Romans were stunned by a certain eastern religious sect that was seemingly alone in providing assistance to the poor – not only the poor among their own congregations, but also the poor among their persecutors. Many ancient Greeks were appalled at the idea of a two parent home, where women were treated as anything more than child-bearers or prostitutes. In more recent times, the only voices decrying the cruelty of European colonists were members that same, ancient religious sect, whose members later played no small role in ending the slave trade and slavery.

["Massacre of the Innocents”] portrays a Roman soldier committing infanticide against a baby boy for being a baby boy. Similar practices (usually killing the baby by exposure) were common in the ancient Mediterranean world until a certain small eastern religion became a large universal religion. Infanticide is still practiced by many secular states throughout the world, although the victims now are more likely to be baby girls or babies with physical deformities. (They fail the pagan utilitarian calculus.) The woman was a Hebrew mother pleading for her child. I’m with the mother. We need a lot more of the influence of that particular large universal religion. They've ALWAYS cared about babies, before AND after birth.*

You selectively tie Christians to the West’s cruelties but not with ending the slave trade and (eventually) slavery, against formidable opposition from their secularized, “Enlightenment” critics. Liberal secularists are proven hypocrites when crying that Christians don’t do enough to help those in need, when they, in fact, do far more than secular liberals.

  • The present perfect simple tense describes activities that happened or started in the past and come up to now. It is often used with adverbs such as since, for, never, ever, already, yet, lately, recently, always, before, occasionally, or other time expressions such as all the time, all week etc. e.g. I have always loved trees.
February 28, 2012 at 1:30 a.m.

wwwtw, I used the word conservative deliberately. Clinton was also a conservative Democrat. And it was driven on ideology, it's still the ideology that is practiced by conservatives on this board, even when it's already been implemented. And I have no standard of perfection, my statement is that perfect is the enemy of good, which is entirely inappropriate to describe as "a standard of perfection" as it is completely in contradiction to such a term. Please refrain from such misleading phrasing, I don't even know where you came up with it, but I reject it entirely.

As for the Reform, you are the one who complained about the results of it, not me. I just agreed with you. I didn't think they accomplished much.

Are you now saying they were effective?

In contrast to what? You're going to have to offer more substance if you're going to allege specific conduct versus another. I was just willing to agree with you that that particular reform wasn't effective. Now you seem to be going back on that, so what are talking about then?

But hey, I just heard Santorum declare that Obama had a secular agenda. How can he have faith-based initiatives as well?

Something doesn't add up!

Or maybe we're just all misunderstanding each other. I can tell you're not following me very well.

February 28, 2012 at 1:42 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_with_the_world said: “My topic was Christianity. Your obsession is George W. Bush . . . Your refutation was your shallow and simplistic philosophy of life: “Bush lied thousands died.” . . . ” You are incapable of reading material in context. Your reasoning is specious. Your vision is juvenile and myopic.”

Needless to say, there are lots of possibilities other than the one you’ve selected, WWWTW. You claim my reasoning is specious, but it could be that my reasoning is simply more logical, and, therefore, I could not help but note that your premise that Christians have "ALWAYS cared about babies, before AND after birth” was highly problematic. As they say, if an argument is a single chain, and one link fails, the chain itself fails with it. In this case, the example that I cited involving the Bush Administration, the cruel and inhuman treatment of early Native Americans, Africans, and African Americans were all links that failed. I could have provided many more failed links, but I didn’t see a point in doing so. Again, perhaps, in the future you might refrain from making such sweeping statements, especially when they don't reflect reality.

February 28, 2012 at 9:14 p.m.

Mountainlaurel:

Continuum fallacy = improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.

Your thinking is two-dimensional. I suppose it’s the only way you survive inside a narrowly partisan political worldview. Like many Santorum supporters, you are a proof-texting literalist who can’t see the forest for the trees. Words often have more than one sense, which is why it is important to read words in context. How could you possibly read into my words the notion that billions of people calling themselves Christians have a 2,000-year perfect record, without any exceptions, of practicing its moral precepts? I think the average high school sophomore can see from the context that this was not my meaning.

If it helps you understand the argument, substitute a synonym for “always,” such as “regularly,” “perpetually,” or “from its beginning.” I hoped, in vain it appears, that this would be clear in the context of my references to the response of Christians to ancient, secular brutality toward the defenseless.

Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole

Yes, there are nominal Christians, hypocritical Christians, fallen and sinful Christians. But the crimes of America or of western civilization do not rest on the shoulders of this religion. Nor do they negate its achievements in caring for children once they are born and grow into adulthood.

Did it ever occur to you that millions of Native Americans, Africans, and African Americans are themselves Christians, that they have been Christians for a very long time, and that this would likely not be the case if Christians were not practicing compassion for those in need? Yes, some professed Christians have done terrible things to others. It’s not a religion that requires moral perfection in this life. In the west, and especially in America, its entrance requirements and its internal standards of discipline have been quite low. The activities you cite were likewise being committed by those who did not profess Christian faith. Christians should have done more to stop such behavior and policy. But the fact that much of it finally did subside or end has to be credited in large measure to the faith of reformers like Wilberforce, the Quakers, William Carey, Martin Luther King, African-American churches, and countless missionaries, teachers, physicians, and philanthropists. They appealed to Christian values to expose the hypocrisy and change the immoral practices. In light of their comparative lack of tangible, personal support for the poor, Western secularists are disingenuous and hypocritical to charge that Christians do not care for babies once they are born. You know it is nothing more than a talking point.

March 1, 2012 at 2:57 p.m.

I know you don’t have an answer, so I’ll stop asking you about the prominent Democrats who presumably lied about WMDs before GWB ever heard of them. The decision to go to war with Iraq was uncontroversial at the time. Democrats had been longing for the day when Republicans would finally jump on board the train. To confine blame for its horrors to only one administration or one party, or worse, to the espoused religion of their members is ... just another talking point.

March 1, 2012 at 2:57 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: Your thinking is two-dimensional. I suppose it’s the only way you survive inside a narrowly partisan political worldview.

And what do you call your thinking, WWWTW? Seems rather two-dimensional to me.

In your first post on this thread you complained about Bennett’s perspective on Santorum who is be a man with a long list of hates and dislikes, which include huge sectors of the U.S. populations like protestants, gays, college professors, libertarians, envivomentalists, democrats, and all of the families in the U.S. who practice birth control.

From there, you went on to accuse those of who are critical of Santorum’s views being on a left wing witch-hunt, which is a rather huge leap. Rick Santorum is running for President of the U.S. and there is a wide range of people who have legitimate concerns about his views – and they aren’t witch-hunters as you claim.

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: The crimes of America or of western civilization do not rest on the shoulders of this religion.

Who is responsible for the crimes of America, WWWTW? Christianity has always been the largest and most popular religion in the United States. And I think religion was certainly playing a role during the so called Manifest Destiny era:

“Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of Manifest Destiny:

The virtue of the American people and their institutions;

The mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the U.S.; and

The destiny under God to do this work.

March 1, 2012 at 10:06 p.m.
pmcauley said...

"Turning into quite the theocracy aren't we? Other places (Arab Spring) are seeing the train down the tunnel and running away and we're merrily run to it! It's now a battle about who's perceived as the holiest not the brightest with the best ideas."

The really sad part is that you actually think that your post makes logic sense.

...and the sad part is you don't see the sense

March 2, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
PokRiehl said...

Thank you for sharing excellent http://hljbdw.com/ informations. Your web-site is very cool. http://costaricacarrental.net/ I'm impressed by the details that you have on this site. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject. Bookmarked this website page, will come back for more articles. http://xstcw.com/ http://vitebsk974.org/ You, my friend, ROCK! I found http://yutex.info/ just the information I already searched everywhere and just could not come across. What a perfect web-site.

November 23, 2013 at 5:01 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.