SCOTTYM's comment history

SCOTTYM said...

I know most of us use things like shampoo, toothpaste, and deodorant/antiperspirant, but once one gets past basic hygienic products and into actual cosmetics, i.e. "make-up", I believe the following applies... "If you're pretty you don't need it, and if you're ugly, it doesn't help."

Does anyone have any factual information concerning actual harm to anyone caused by the application of cosmetics?

May 4, 2012 at 2:41 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

mtlrl,

What the hell does the fact that your lamebrain eco-nut comrades chose the birthday of a murderous, power hungry monster as the day to celebrate your misanthropic earth worship religion have to do with the Koch brothers?

I've seen you make some absurd connections before, but I just can't wrap my head around this one.

I suppose it is the disconnect between those of us who live in a reality based world vs. those (like you) who live in the fog of a far-left propaganda based fantasy.

April 22, 2012 at 6:08 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy,

The Soviet Union was bound to fail as all socialist/communist systems will eventually do so. The human desire to be free, to own private property, to enjoy the fruits of one's own labor and to make individual economic choices is much more powerful and, in the end, more beneficial to society as a whole than any government edict, even those enforced at gunpoint. Central control of a nations economy has never and will never work for any extended period of time. This is the lesson many people in this nation would do well to remember.

April 22, 2012 at 2:26 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Happy Birthday Comrade Lenin, may you and your lamebrain adherents burn in hell forever.

April 22, 2012 at 2:13 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

We sure wouldn't want our war machines to be dangerous. Someone could get killed. LOL!

You must have fallen asleep when the smart kids were learning basic physics and thermodynamics.

January 4, 2012 at 10:51 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

librul,

It's funny that you posted that as the present situation in Europe, and here as well, is the inevitable result of the socialist policies you so love.

As PM Thatcher once said, "...Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money."

That socialist tsunami you mentioned before is happening now in Europe and is headed to this side of the Atlantic as well if we don't get our house in order.

The poorest will be hurt the most. But then, that always happens when leftist ideas are implemented.

January 3, 2012 at 10:48 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"In the interest of national security, they already are plotting ways to cope with the climate-change-induced rise of sea levels on naval bases and transport issues, for example."

Scientific ignorance abounds. Perhaps the writer should do a bit of research to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Current sea level rise, as measured by orbiting sensors since the early 1990s is on the order of 3mm per year. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2011rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained

Even assuming that the current trend continues(a dubious assumption*), this is only about 1 foot of rise over the the next 100 years which will have exactly zero effect upon military operations.

As for alternative energy sources for military vehicles and equipment, those nuclear power plants in use on our aircraft carriers and submarines are the cat's meow. Good luck stuffing one in an Abrams or a F-35. War machines need very high energy densities to perform the duties expected on the modern battlefield. Unicorn farts and rainbows will not do the job.

I'm all for cutting this waste of time, energy and dollars from the Pentagon's budget.

*http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level_png

January 3, 2012 at 10:03 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Ikeithlu,

I think you may have missed the mark with the idea that those who support drug testing of .gov support recipients view those recipients as "criminals".

I don't know a single person who actually thinks that way, and I know quite a few folks who support the testing. A few of those folks actually cried with joy the day Odumba** was inaugurated, so it isn't really a right/left thing either, in my experience.

Here's my take, which is pretty well agreed upon by those folks mentioned above. (right and left) Those who receive unearned handouts from the government are, in effect, wards of the state. Their right to do as they wish with no oversight ends when when they accept the government as their provider.

Just like over-eighteen progeny who still leech off of, er, I mean, live at home with Mom and Dad, as long as one lives under another person's roof and receives their sustenance from said person(s), one should expect some level of diminished personal freedom.

Don't get me wrong on this one. I'm a supporter of the legalization of most recreational drugs. BUT, if you have the excess cash to buy drugs and the free time to use them, you obviously do not need a subsidy from the taxpayers. If you are truly busting your hump, working multiple jobs and striving to improve your lot in life, you won't have time or money for drugs.

If one is a non-productive ward of the state, I see no reason why their "privacy" is anymore important than that of actual productive, taxpaying, workers on .gov financed projects. Anyone who owns a company hoping to do business with .gov had better have a documented employee drug testing program in place, or you WILL NOT get the contracts.

Is it really correct to protect the "privacy" of those who receive unearned .gov largess, but to revoke that "privacy" if one is receiving that largess through a mutually beneficial exchange of skill and/or labor with the same .gov?

December 29, 2011 at 9:32 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"It would be interesting to know what was in those other posts about Islam, wouldn't it?"

I know what my comment contained. There were references to pedophilia, schizophrenia, and the subjugation of women. I suppose it was the fact that I attributed these things to Muhammad that was the problem. If it weren't true, why the need to censor my comment? One could merely post contradictory claims.

Apparently contradictory viewpoints are not tolerated by the "religion of peace", nor by those who live in fear of the adherents thereof.

November 26, 2011 at 11:13 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

So, Pink, you've taken it upon yourself to decide who is "TRUE" to their professed religion. I wonder how you've arrived at these wonderful powers of deduction.

I like the way your "hate, bigotry and intolerance" of those you've decided aren't "TRUE" Christians allows you to really get at the center of why it's OK to delete comments about another religion. Your post oozes with hate and intolerance.

Good job on the open mindedness.

November 26, 2011 at 8:48 p.m.
advertisement
400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, permissions and privacy policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2012, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.