published Sunday, February 10th, 2013

The Drone

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 ...

186
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.
Salsa said...

Its President O'Bomber's favorite bird.

February 10, 2013 at 12:08 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Ha.

Waterboarding three terrorists was an atrocity, but droning 2,500 people--many of them terrorists--is fine and dandy, eh?

February 10, 2013 at 12:11 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

MOST PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH IT

When you waterboard a terrorist you don't know immediately if he's telling the truth or just lying to stop the pain.

When you 'drone' a terrorist there is no ambiguity. If an America joins al-Quida and vows to attack America and kill Americans I'm okay with a drone strike introducing him to 72 virgins.

That said, both the long- and short-term ramifacations are not to be taken lightly. Drones will end the expensive practice of getting permission from a foreign country to launch Air Force strikes from their military airfields. (We'll sail an aircraft carrier within a few hundred miles of a target and launch drones.) On the other hand, we're not talking about advanced technology. Many countries have already started drone programs MINUS the hellfire missiles.

The Obama policy of hitting 'middle management' terrorists has been very effective. Tarketing guys in contact with both leadership and foot soldiers, because much of their day is now spent running and hiding and wondering when they're going to blow up real good.

I'm good with that, and so are 85% of the American people.

February 10, 2013 at 1:51 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Drones are an effective war crime against people in small countries without the ability to respond. We are the bully on the playground.

The US is unrivaled at terrorism.

February 10, 2013 at 1:57 a.m.
EaTn said...

Like what robots did to the assembly worker, drones are making military ground forces obsolete. They are here and they will become a bigger threat to the citizen rights in this country than anything yet. Drones are already available as inconspicuous as hummingbirds with cameras. Your AR-15's will make a nice mantle-memento in this new tech world.

February 10, 2013 at 5:43 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova:

"How utterly convenient for you. What a good little scriptural cherry-picker you are. Did you intentionally leave out Mark 10:17?"

No I did not. Another false accusation by you. You see, I intentionally INCLUDED v17 of Mark chapter 10. This is what I wrote :

"This man had come to Jesus and asked him how he could inherit eternal life v17. He falsely claimed he had observed all of the commandments v20. Jesus knew he had not. Jesus knew his wealth was standing in the man's way from following him so Jesus told the man to sell everything. He refused and went away grieved v22."

Read the first sentence alprova. I did not leave out v17. "This man had come to Jesus and asked him how he could inherit eternal life v17"

Read the first sentence alprova. I did not leave out v17. "This man had come to Jesus and asked him how he could inherit eternal life v17"

Read the first sentence alprova. I did not leave out v17. "This man had come to Jesus and asked him how he could inherit eternal life v17"

You are one poor miserable man alprova. I feel so sorry for you but your continual misuse of Scripture when you know so little about Scripture, I just won't put up with.

February 10, 2013 at 8:13 a.m.
frayne48 said...

Drones in the air are much better than US boots on the ground.

February 10, 2013 at 8:44 a.m.
Oldhickory said...

Great cartoon for once. Our drones kill terrorists and buzzards eat their carcasses. Good job President Bush, good job President BO, and keep it going next president. We need lots more drones. Fighter drones and bomber drones would greatly enhance our military capability around the globe. Domestic drones should be used by the federal government to catch illegal immigrants and persons growing weed on our public land. Local law enforcement drones would be a great tool to document dangerous gang activity across Chattanooga or environmentally destructive trespassing at areas like Aetna Mountain to provide evidence in court. I'm also glad to see that people fully understand the semi-automatic AR-15 is really nothing special and should not be feared.

February 10, 2013 at 8:47 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova :

"You dispute the words of Jesus Christ. Jesus never suggested that one become slothful. A righteous man who gives to the poor, even if he sells all his worldly possessions, will not become a burden on society."

Your mistake here is that you mistakenly thought I was referring to the words of Jesus, when I was addressing mountainlaurel. mountainlaurelhad written in regards to the man in the cartoon NOT the man in the parable with these words :

"Indeed, he could even be someone who sold everything he once owned, has distributed all of his money to the poor and is standing on that corner to give you the opportunity to demonstrate an act of kindness and compassion. . . in other words, following the way of Jesus:"

I was pointing out that this man in the cartoon would not be following Jesus. Jesus never commanded us (that includes you alprova) to sell all our worldly goods and give to the poor.

Jesus of course knew that the man (the man in Mark, not the man in the cartoon) had not kept all of the commandments as he had claimed. Rather than confront him with that Jesus knew what was holding him back. It was his wealth so Jesus ask him to sell everything and follow him (Jesus). The man refused and went away - "22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions."

BTW I know of no one who has done such a thing as mountainlaurel suggested and neither have you. It would surely be tempting God.

If you are begging you ain't working:

6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:

7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,

8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.

9 How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?

10 Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep:

11 So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man. Proverbs 6:6-11

February 10, 2013 at 9:22 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"I was pointing out that this man in the cartoon would not be following Jesus. Jesus never commanded us (that includes you alprova) to sell all our worldly goods and give to the poor."

Wrong again, Bible Boy. Those are the exact commands of your Jesus.

Luke 12:33-34 (NIV) -

"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

For someone that accuses others of misusing "Scripture" and not knowing it, you sure are ignorant when it comes to the teachings of your so-called "Savior". Might want to spend a little more time reading your holy book, you sanctimonious turd.

February 10, 2013 at 9:50 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

The only one guilty of the continual misuse of Scripture is you Conservative.

February 10, 2013 at 10:17 a.m.
alprova said...

Chrino, in his continuing justification for his contempt for the poor, wrote:

"alprova: No I did not. Another false accusation by you. You see, I intentionally INCLUDED v17 of Mark chapter 10. This is what I wrote..."

"This man had come to Jesus and asked him how he could inherit eternal life v17. He falsely claimed he had observed all of the commandments v20. Jesus knew he had not. Jesus knew his wealth was standing in the man's way from following him so Jesus told the man to sell everything. He refused and went away grieved v22."

"Read the first sentence alprova. I did not leave out v17."

Read the highlighted sentences that you have included in your scriptural quote. What Bible did you cut and pasted them from? No version that I am aware of translate Mark10: 17-22 as you have posted.

"he falsely claimed he had observed all of the commandments and then, Jesus knew he had not"

Where did that come from? I did a search of many versions of the Bible and did not read in any one of them that the man's claim to have kept the commandments cited was false, nor that Jesus knew that his claim to have kept the commandments was false.

"21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."..."

"One thing you lack..."

One thing...

So where did you quote your version from or if what you posted was not a direct quote from any Bible, how did you arrive at any conclusion that what they man said was false?

"You are one poor miserable man alprova. I feel so sorry for you but your continual misuse of Scripture when you know so little about Scripture, I just won't put up with."

Okay, you think I am miserable. You feel sorry for me. You're a Chatty Cathy doll and you type whatever comes out whenever you reach back to pull that string coming out of your back.

I can only smile and shake my head in complete awe after reading your claim that I am the one who is misusing and know so little about scripture.

I just won't put up with [it]

You really have quite the God complex going on upstairs, don't you?

February 10, 2013 at 10:50 a.m.
limric said...

Great cartoon today Mr. Bennett. Bravo. I think you forgot to retract the nose gear though. ;-)

While George & Dick Caligula detained and tortured ‘suspected’ militants - even kids; now we just 'whack' them by remote control. Thus creating more & more hatred every day of the United States; and yes,it's illegal. Do not our laws (we being signatories of international treaties) prohibit torture? Doesn’t the Constitution forbid the government from depriving any person of life or liberty without due process of law (5th or 6th amendments anyone?); Yet Obama continues to approve the killing (Americans too if need be) of people; some of which aren’t even identified before the kill shot was launched! When you take into account the ‘collateral damage’ (how many Sandy Hooks) it’s obscene!

Last week’s testimony by John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for the head of the CIA, offered up these ~Alice-in-Wonderland statements about Obama’s drone program. “We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there's no other alternative,” he said. “We need to optimize transparency and at the same time optimize secrecy.” Adding, “There is a “misimpression” and a “misunderstanding” about “the care we take - the agony we go through” in deciding who to kill”.

HOLY SH!T !!

I'll tell you what. Every ‘progressive’ I know, and any posting in this forum, who voted for Obama did so in full knowledge of this and are, in their faux naiveté, condoning a full scale extension of the very policies they previously railed so vigorously against. And as such, they and their apologists have lost ANY moral high ground they so piously asserted for the last 10 years.

I hope you all liked George Orwell’s book 1984 – because you’re going to (are) be living in it.

~from Judge Colleen McMahons Alice-in-Wonderland interpretation

February 10, 2013 at 10:55 a.m.
rick1 said...

Limric your statement about progessives is spot on. In the past progressives (liberals) preached that you should always question authority, distrust the government, and think for yourself.

Today, progressives (liberals) demands total obedience to Democrat authority, undying loyalty to Democrat big government, and unwavering belief in Democrat propaganda.

Welcome to the United States of OBAMAMERICA

February 10, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.
tderng said...

limric said...I hope you all liked George Orwell’s book 1984 – because you’re going to (are) be living in it.

Yes,and people like oldhickory just can't wait. As the drones begin to fly over American cities(to aid in law enforcement) the rights to privacy will erode. Wonder how he will feel when he looks out his bedroom window and sees a hovering drone. They will simply be checking to make sure he's not smoking pot or plotting against the government. If they see anything else,well, that just comes with the territory.

February 10, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.
Maximus said...

I see a lot of future domestic applications for the drones. First, we can start with Bill Mahr's home, then on to the abortion clinics. As for AR15's being useless, not so fast, seen the latest Bourne movie? I think he used a sniper rifle though. Of course a hand held surface to air missle would do the trick also. Killing bad guys with drones is OK but you do lose a lot of valuable intel and also miss out on the fun at the water park which is OK by me also. Bad guys will eventually get drones so we better keep our defense department budget where it needs to be. Just sayin.

February 10, 2013 at 11:16 a.m.
nucanuck said...

limric, for the very reason you state, I could not vote for Obama in this last election. I am heartsick at the extra-legal military presumption displayed daily by the US.

Failing to vote was a very difficult decision to make.

February 10, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
rick1 said...

nucanuck, didn't you and your family move to Cananda several years ago? If you did, why would you be voting in this country?

February 10, 2013 at 11:27 a.m.
Maximus said...

Drones could be used effectively to solve our illegal alien problem. Most targets would be easily available at Wal-Mart parking lots during the first week of the month when EBT cards are made available by Barry the Welfare Pimp.

February 10, 2013 at 11:40 a.m.
limric said...

I disagree rick1

It has always been Republicans (especially during the George & Dick Caligula era) that demand total party obedience and an undying loyalty to their version of big government.

Progressives on the other hand are spineless apologists that will justify any behavior as long as it’s their actor on stage.

February 10, 2013 at 11:43 a.m.
limric said...

Maximus (Pee Wee),

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Your 11:16 had all the knowledge, and all the intellect of a piece of chipped beef on toast or an empty can of chili beans. Both produce what you post - sewer gas!

DING DONG!...KKK calling.

February 10, 2013 at 11:51 a.m.
dude_abides said...

limric said... "I'll tell you what. Every ‘progressive’ I know, and any posting in this forum, who voted for Obama did so in full knowledge of this and are, in their faux naiveté, condoning a full scale extension of the very policies they previously railed so vigorously against. And as such, they and their apologists have lost ANY moral high ground they so piously asserted for the last 10 years."

Not feelin' ya, limric. So often, instead of black and white choices, there are 50 shades of grey. When Bush eventually got to ground zero with his bullhorn, I would have agreed to anything he wanted. When he took us to Iraq, it was shocking and awful. Your own eclectic mix of opinions can confuse. You have espoused pro gun opinions here, but would you be okay with the sale of armed drones to the public? You have stated your aversion to governmental intrusion here, but would you prefer the military not be allowed to use drones at all? I mean, how important to us is ONE AMERICAN LIFE saved by the use of a drone? Will they hate us less if we send troops in to kill our targets? Hey, at least the drones don't p!ss on the corpses!

February 10, 2013 at 12:07 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Your mistake here is that you mistakenly thought I was referring to the words of Jesus, when I was addressing mountainlaurel."

Maybe you SHOULD pay attention to the words of Jesus.

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."" (Matthew 19:23-24)

Rather than a sign of God's blessing, Jesus made it clear that the amassing of material wealth is treated as a sign that someone isn't heeding God's will.

Jesus rejection of material wealth is closely tied to his rejection of earthly power. A person has to be receptive to being powerless to follow Jesus, thus, it makes sense that they would have to abandon many of the trappings of power, like wealth and material goods.

Was it a commandment? Nope. But it is a caveat or an admonition, if you will.

"Jesus of course knew that the man (the man in Mark, not the man in the cartoon) had not kept all of the commandments as he had claimed."

Where do you read that? If it is your interpretation, it is completely false. There is nothing at all to indicate that Jesus did not believe the man had kept the commandments.

"Rather than confront him with that Jesus knew what was holding him back. It was his wealth so Jesus ask him to sell everything and follow him (Jesus). The man refused and went away - "22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions."

You're half right. It was indeed his greed and worship of material wealth that Jesus pointed out to the man, but nothing at all gives anyone a reason to doubt that the man had kept the commandments.

"BTW I know of no one who has done such a thing as mountainlaurel suggested and neither have you."

Of course you don't. And because you don't, it is all the justification you need to ignore the words of Jesus.

You are incapable of reading the Bible from a metaphorical standpoint. Do I think that Jesus literally commands us to sell all our worldly goods and give it all to the poor? No I don't.

Does he admonish us to not amass more than we need to live a minimal comfortable and secure life and to share our wealth with those who have less?

I'm quite sure of it.

Thus, and this is strictly my personal opinion, but no one NEEDS an expansive estate to live on. No one NEEDS to have more than six-month's worth of income languishing in a bank account. No one NEEDS a new vehicle to drive. No one NEEDS brand-name clothing to wear. You get my drift...

February 10, 2013 at 12:10 p.m.
rick1 said...

"So God made a liberal." This is too funny

February 10, 2013 at 12:16 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Blackwater says that 85% of the American people are okay with Obama's drone policy. Sadly, he is correct. It simply reveals their shameful gullibility and inexcusable acquiescence in cowering before this country's military-industrial complex that, for its own nefarious reasons, is wanting to perpetuate this global "war on terror." Certainly we are right to be vigilant about future terrorist attacks, but we are fully capable of being on our guard against them without resorting to a policy that basically says, TERRORISTS BAD, AMERICANS GOOD. TRUST US. WE KILL BAD PEOPLE. It’s funny how many people say they hate and distrust the government but they’re perfectly okay with it when it comes to anything to do with war or the military.

Drones might be better than boots on the ground but we are still killing innocent people with them and letting this administration target whomever it sees fit, without our demanding accountability. We simply say, "Well, we're at war after all and war is hell." Furthermore, without even blinking we have willingly sacrificed our right to freedom from unreasonable searches without probable cause, our right to due process and freedom from being held without charge, our right to legal representation, and our right to a speedy and public trial….all in the name of “keeping us safe.” You might think that because you're not a "terrorist" you are safe... but just wait.

Three thousand innocent Americans were killed on 9/11. As a result we have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, all because of our thirst for revenge and under the pretense of "keeping us safe." How many more innocent people have to die to get at just one al-Qaida operative? This so-called "war on terror" has become a sick joke. We have used it as an excuse to allow our government to do whatever the hell it wants, when it wants, and how it wants....and too many people are just playing the part of the good little patriotic citizen and pledging to the flag and singing the Star Spangled Banner, feeling all warm and fuzzy inside.

February 10, 2013 at 1:04 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

rick1, that video might be funny if there were any truth to it. But of course there's not even an ounce of truth contained anywhere within it. As usual you are just perpetuating a grossly distorted caricature and stereotype of who you like to THINK that liberals are.

You know, liberals believe in pretty much the same things that conservatives believe in: hard work, self reliance, individual freedom, family, and patriotism (true patriotism, however, as opposed to nationalism and imperialism). The main difference is that we think that government (a truly representative government and not the corporate-owned one we have now) can and should co-exist with the free market. But conservatives naively think that the free market, unregulated and left to its own devices, will always do the right thing and serve all the people's needs, even though it has been demonstrated time and time again that it will inevitably resort to greed and corruption in the end.

February 10, 2013 at 1:18 p.m.
dude_abides said...

I hate to say it, but the drone genie's out of the bottle. I'm afraid we are already to the point of 'outdroning and outcounterdroning." This is a wonderful weapon for asymmetric warriors. If we can't keep boats loaded with cocaine from landing on our coastline, imagine what one drone assembled here and controlled from wherever, could do. Anything we "wright" can be wrought. Maybe Radio Shack will soon be selling 'Dronebusters' disguised as hormone-crazed woodpeckers that will seek out drones and mate them right in the aperture!

February 10, 2013 at 1:32 p.m.
alprova said...

My question is, how long before a drone collides with a jumbo jet, resulting in the deaths of a couple of hundred people?

How long before one comes flying through the windshield of a tractor-trailer, which then results in several needless deaths?

I'm sure that there is all kinds of training before one is launched for the first time, but what happens if communication is lost? What happens if the computer system goes down mid-flight?

Kinda scary to think about all this mini-planes filling the sky.

February 10, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Alpo(registered republican) says: no one needs a new vehicle, money in the bank, brand name clothing, etc.....

We have read your "woe is me" many times on this site about you and yours and the whole host of problems you encounter everyday. Allow me to give a little back:

I live in a nice neighborhood, 4 bedroom, 3.5 bath brick which I probably don't NEED but enjoy. I worked hard in my earlier years, got an education have been able to save some money and other investments which I probably don't NEED but makes me feel a little more secure. I have two vehicles in the garage which I purchased new and probably don't NEED but enjoy driving. I could go on, but get my drift?

I have been blessed and truly thankful I have good health and am able to enjoy these things in life I may not NEED but I WANT, but they came with sacrifice and a price. In addition to good genes, good health also oomes from a healthy diet, exercise, and continued sacrifice. I apologize to no one for what I have accomplished and grateful I am in a position to help others, including family, if the need arises.

February 10, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.
rick1 said...

Rickaroo,says he believes in: "hard work, self reliance, individual freedom, family, and patriotism (true patriotism, however, as opposed to nationalism and imperialism)."

I guess that is, as long as everyone follows the liberal beliefs of government controlling your life. If you are a conservative especially a black conservative you are not allowed exercise free will and to be self reliant, or to work hard to maker it on your own with out being attacked by liberals like you rickaroo. You hate it when black conservatives leave the government plantation and make it on their own with hard work and self reliance like Thomas Sowell and other black conservatives have done

You made the following comment about Mr. Sowell on 02/03/13 at 12:42pm

"Speaking of Thomas Sowell...I've never seen a black man who hates his own race more than he does. I think he actually thinks he's white. He kinda looks like Sammy Davis, Jr. and acts a lot like him too - kissing all that white ass. Sowell cracks me up every time with how he makes it so obvious how brilliant he THINKS he is. I believe he thinks of himself as a modern-day William F. Buckley. Funny."

"I guess it's a good thing that we have come so far with race relations that a black person is free enough (albeit stupid enough) today to join the very party that works against his own race's best interests - and then he has the audacity to try to portray the opposite party as the one holding his race back! I've never seen anyone who exhibits such stupidity couched in language and phrasing that make him sound so intelligent. He is the very model of convoluted thinking - BS in other words."

You Rickaroo are a racist and are too stupid to even know it.

Conservatives on the other hand believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals and their policies encourage empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

Conservatives also believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.

February 10, 2013 at 2:13 p.m.
limric said...

dude_abides,

Re. your 12:07 p.m post

No offense.

I think your confusion with my ‘eclectic mix’, and perceived contradictory, opinions are based in a certain innocent naiveté, but ultimately a ‘horse blind’ type of view.

Example: I have espoused pro-gun opinions. These are within my rights, but equivocating my acceptance of personal armed drones is a false equivalency at best. One has nothing to do with the other.

Example: You wonder about my aversion to governmental intrusion, but ask, “would you prefer the military not be allowed to use drones at all? This is again a false equivalency. One has nothing to do with the other. I think there is a perfect place for predator drones. When we are at war…but we are not at war…or are we now ALWAYS at war? As they are used now is Orwellian and illegal.

Will they hate us less if we send troops in to kill our targets”? What are ‘our targets’?

How important to us is ONE AMERICAN LIFE saved by the use of a drone”? Who has been ‘saved’? At the expense of Whom?!

Your statement; “So often, instead of black and white choices, there are 50 shades of grey” is a perfect example of what apologists use to justify any behavior as long as it’s their actor on stage.

Hey, at least the drones don't p!ss on the corpses”! Maybe not literally, but figuratively we are p!ssing all over a people we do not know, cannot see or hear - and certainly on their children.

To stand in muted silence is to acquiesce as the USA completes its transformation into a rogue nation.

"We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia." We are all turning into Winston Smith’s.

February 10, 2013 at 2:20 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Thank you, rick1, for thinking enough of one of my past posts to have saved it - even though your intent is to use it against me. Frankly, I've never given enough credence to anything you say to give it much thought, even as I'm reading it, let alone go to the trouble of saving it for future reference.

February 10, 2013 at 2:24 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

" 'Hey, at least the drones don't p!ss on the corpses'! Maybe not literally, but figuratively we are p!ssing all over a people we do not know, cannot see or hear - and certainly on their children." - limric

Very well said!

February 10, 2013 at 2:27 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

"Read the highlighted sentences that you have included in your scriptural quote"

Yes.

The "He falsely claimed he had observed all of the commandments v20. Jesus knew he had not." statement by me was NOT a SCRIPTURE QUOTE as you claim. Number 1 (v20) is not a Scripture quote it is reference It was a statement by me pertaining to the false/mistaken claim the man had about keeping the commandments.

"I did a search of many versions of the Bible and did not read in any one of them that the man's claim to have kept the commandments cited was false, nor that Jesus knew that his claim to have kept the commandments was false."

The man had asked Jesus in V17 "Good Master, what shall I DO that I may inherit eternal life?" The man also said regarding the keeping of the commandments - "Master, all these have I observed from my youth."

If you understood sin and sinful man and Scripture you would know this man had done no such a thing. Under the Mosaic law the people and the priests were constantly offering sacrifices for their sins ( the breaking of the commandments ).

Now, these two sites will explain very clearly why this man in the Mark passage and anyone else can not earn their Salvation in any way whether by doing good works or obeying the commandments. There are scores of other sites detailing why earning your Salvation can not be done. These two should convince all but the most hardened.

LIKE THE YOUNG MAN IN MARK 10:17-22 THERE IS NOTHING YOU OR I OR ANYONE ELSE CAN DO IN THE FORM OF WORKS TO EARN THEIR 'SALVATION.

Again, do not lose site of the fact the man in this passage asked "Good Master, what shall I DO that I may inherit eternal life?"

http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR258.htm

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1659

February 10, 2013 at 2:32 p.m.
nucanuck said...

rick1,

Americans living in any country around the world retain the right to vote in US national elections.

February 10, 2013 at 2:45 p.m.
MickeyRat said...
February 10, 2013 at 2:45 p.m.
dude_abides said...

limric, none taken. I will say, though, that I haven't seen one person here that isn't naive, when you think about it. I mean, you don't really believe your (or my) posts here will change the world, right? But still we post. We've both posted some whimsical stuff here, as well. Didn't mean to force you into defense mode (i.e. perceived contradictory opinions [not my take]) Also, I wasn't equivocating your acceptance of those examples, they were rhetorical questions to illustrate our (my?) ability to be confused by what could possibly be construed as grey areas in our national discussion. Would it not be naive to believe that we're not at war? Forever?

February 10, 2013 at 3:03 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Ouch, limric, you stripped away my context and turned my topical corpse desecration (in the news today) reference into a hanging curve! You could at least rule Rickaroo's line drive foul.

February 10, 2013 at 3:16 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova :

"There is nothing at all to indicate that Jesus did not believe the man had kept the commandments."

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. Mark 10: 21&22

Again, your words:

"There is nothing at all to indicate that Jesus did not believe the man had kept the commandments."

Scripture:

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. Mark 10: 21&22

Again, your words:

"There is nothing at all to indicate that Jesus did not believe the man had kept the commandments."

Scripture:

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. Mark 10: 21&22

February 10, 2013 at 3:17 p.m.
alprova said...

patriot1 wrote: "Alpo says: no one needs a new vehicle, money in the bank, brand name clothing, etc....."

If you are going to attribute something to me, at least have the courtesy to represent it truthfully.

"We have read your "woe is me" many times on this site about you and yours and the whole host of problems you encounter everyday."

Atta boy!! No need to be a half ass. Go for the hole thing.

"Allow me to give a little back:"

By all means...

"I live in a nice neighborhood, 4 bedroom, 3.5 bath brick which I probably don't NEED but enjoy. I worked hard in my earlier years, got an education have been able to save some money and other investments which I probably don't NEED but makes me feel a little more secure. I have two vehicles in the garage which I purchased new and probably don't NEED but enjoy driving. I could go on, but get my drift?"

Sir, I specifically offered that what I wrote was an opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. Everyone has free will to choose to live their lives as they please.

As far as I am aware, you and I have not sparred over the issue of the poor nor have we had any disagreement with what is written in the Bible. So I fail to understand you responding to my post, unless of course, you are feeling a little guilty for some reason or another.

"I have been blessed and truly thankful I have good health and am able to enjoy these things in life I may not NEED but I WANT, but they came with sacrifice and a price."

What sacrifice did you make and what price have you paid?

"In addition to good genes, good health also oomes from a healthy diet, exercise, and continued sacrifice."

How nice for you.

"I apologize to no one for what I have accomplished and grateful I am in a position to help others, including family, if the need arises."

No one has asked for you to apologize for anything. If you trust that you are living your life the way that you believe is as it should be, that's fine and dandy.

Your choice to respond to something that was not directed to any one person in particular may indicate something touched a nerve within you. While that was not my intention in the least, that's something you need to work out with yourself.

Your problem is not with me.

February 10, 2013 at 3:21 p.m.
dude_abides said...

alprova... patiot#1 is starting to sound like Maximus the 'Grate'!

February 10, 2013 at 3:27 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "If you understood sin and sinful man and Scripture you would know this man had done no such a thing."

So it WAS YOUR INTERPRETATION that the man was lying and that Jesus knew it. And you intentionally substituted that interpretation in the middle of a scriptural quotation?

Unbelievable.

"Under the Mosaic law the people and the priests were constantly offering sacrifices for their sins ( the breaking of the commandments )."

Be that as it may, that has nothing to do with what Jesus said in Mark 10:17-22.

"Now, these two sites will explain very clearly why this man in the Mark passage and anyone else can not earn their Salvation in any way whether by doing good works or obeying the commandments."

I don't need to read "explanations" by anyone to understand the relevance of the words of Jesus, to my status of salvation in Mark 10:17-22.

"Again, do not lose site of the fact the man in this passage asked "Good Master, what shall I DO that I may inherit eternal life?"

And he told him in no uncertain terms exactly what he had to do. There was nothing complicated in the least, nor nothing to misunderstand.

I don't know you, or a thing about you, other than you are quite convoluted in your beliefs, but this, your latest attempt to twist the words of Jesus, is about the most outrageous effort on your part to date.

Again, and as always, your problems are your own. Your soul is yours to maintain. You are not about to make it mine.

February 10, 2013 at 3:54 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova :

"So it WAS YOUR INTERPRETATION that the man was lying and that Jesus knew it. And you intentionally substituted that interpretation in the middle of a scriptural quotation?"

Another false accusation by you. Here is what I originally wrote to mountainlaurel which had no quotation marks then. Your lack of reading comprehension is on you if there is any and if it is not just another way of escape from your numerous errors. The words are mine. The v17,v20 and v22 are references to the verses in the passage. Yes, you can fault me for not knowing that you are/were unable to figure that out.

"This man had come to Jesus and asked him how he could inherit eternal life v17. He falsely claimed he had observed all of the commandments v20. Jesus knew he had not. Jesus knew his wealth was standing in the man's way from following him so Jesus told the man to sell everything. He refused and went away grieved v22."

February 10, 2013 at 4:28 p.m.
alprova said...

dude_abides wrote: "alprova... patiot#1 is starting to sound like Maximus the 'Grate'!"

It's easy to see that I've pissed him off at some point in the past. Can't remember what it was all about, but then, I don't carry grudges around on my shoulder like some people do.

Maximus is full of stuff, no question about that. patriot1 was very likely being completely truthful in relating what he owns.

He indeed is unapologetic and apparently he also thinks that it's a-okay to take a poke at other people who have been more open about their personal lives in here.

"Woe is me?" "Every day?" I hardly think those are fair or justifiable characterizations or observations.

I'm happy for the man and truly hope that his future doesn't deliver any personal setbacks, or any untimely deaths of loved ones, or any negative health issues, that have been a part of my life.

I am the last person to feel sorry for myself because I know many people who have experienced similar or worse throughout their lives.

I am an optimist, always and forever, and with each and every incident that I have endured that has knocked me out of my saddle, I deal with it, regroup and recoup, and then get back on that horse and keep on riding.

February 10, 2013 at 4:31 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova :

"Do I think that Jesus literally commands us to sell all our worldly goods and give it all to the poor? No I don't."

Then why are addressing me with that? If you were not siding with mountainlaurel then why all the discussion with me? Why didn't you address mountainlaurel, she is the one who wrote :

"Indeed, he could even be someone who sold everything he once owned, has distributed all of his money to the poor and is standing on that corner to give you the opportunity to demonstrate an act of kindness and compassion. . . in other words, following the way of Jesus:"

"Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

My argument in essence was that her use of Mark 21-22 did not prescribe us to do the same as her very far fetched idea of what was going on in the cartoon.

Now, both of you THINK. Since neither of you have given the name of even one person who has done such a thing as "has distributed all of his money to the poor and is standing on that corner to give you the opportunity to demonstrate an act of kindness and compassion. . . in other words, following the way of Jesus:" how can you differ with what I said about the cartoon which is fact the most often the case?

February 10, 2013 at 4:45 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Another false accusation by you. Here is what I originally wrote to mountainlaurel which had no quotation marks then."

"This man had come to Jesus and asked him how he could inherit eternal life v17. He falsely claimed he had observed all of the commandments v20. Jesus knew he had not. Jesus knew his wealth was standing in the man's way from following him so Jesus told the man to sell everything. He refused and went away grieved v22."

Look at what you quoted for verse 20. WHERE DOES EXACT QUOTE APPEAR IN ANY BIBLE EVER WRITTEN?

"He falsely claimed he had observed all of the commandments v20"

Verse 22 appears to have been equally misrepresented from wherever source you are quoting it from.

"Jesus knew he had not."

What version of the Bible is it that you read and trust to be God's word?

Mark 10:17-22 as it appears in the New International Version;

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

19 You know the commandments: 'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.'

20 "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

"Your lack of reading comprehension is on you if there is any and if it is not just another way of escape from your numerous errors."

The error seems to be emanating from you. No version of the Bible I have ever ran across inserts the wording you have quoted thus far.

"The words are mine."

Apparently so.

"The v17,v20 and v22 are references to the verses in the passage."

Verse 17? Yes. Verse 20 and 22? Not on your life or mine.

"Yes, you can fault me for not knowing that you are/were unable to figure that out."

What version of the Bible did you obtain those verses as quoted?

I think the answer to that question may well explain why your beliefs are so off-track.

February 10, 2013 at 4:52 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Then why are addressing me with that? If you were not siding with mountainlaurel then why all the discussion with me?"

Because you have cited an egregious case of man changing what was written in the Bible...a point that I have made repeatedly, that you and some others have argued.

Further, you are incapable of using logic to understand that much of what is written in the Bible is offered as a metaphor.

"Why didn't you address mountainlaurel, she is the one who wrote, "Indeed, he could even be someone who sold everything he once owned, has distributed all of his money to the poor and is standing on that corner to give you the opportunity to demonstrate an act of kindness and compassion...in other words, following the way of Jesus:"

Because, it appears that Jesus absolutely called on a man to do exactly that, with the exception of begging, of course.

You don't deny that, do you?

"My argument in essence was that her use of Mark 21-22 did not prescribe us to do the same as her very far fetched idea of what was going on in the cartoon."

In a sense, yes he did, again with an exception to beg, and I offered the exact context which explains what he meant. Read Mark 10:23-25, preferably from a more mainstream version of the Bible.

"Now, both of you THINK. Since neither of you have given the name of even one person who has done such a thing as "has distributed all of his money to the poor and is standing on that corner to give you the opportunity to demonstrate an act of kindness and compassion. . . in other words, following the way of Jesus:" how can you differ with what I said about the cartoon which is fact the most often the case?"

You've never heard of someone giving up all of their worldly possessions to enter the Priesthood or to become a Nun, to live a bare existence in a Convent?

You want names? How about Mother Teresa? I believe she died about as dirt poor as one can be. She owned nothing that I am aware of. Her dedication of passing on any wealth that she is responsible for handling to the poor, is unquestionable.

February 10, 2013 at 5:15 p.m.
patriot1 said...

alpo(registered republican) asks what sacrifice did you make and what price did you pay?

We (family) did not have a lot while I was a child and I, like a lot of others, had to work nights and weekends to get through school. I can remember selling plasma to get me over "that hump" or buy that book I needed. When someone says I don't need this or that, yeah, it kinda rubs me wrong. I probably have more than I deserve but I don't think of myself as wealthy. I am sorry for your misfortune and I truly wish you the best.

February 10, 2013 at 5:18 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova:

"This man had come to Jesus and asked him how he could inherit eternal life v17. He falsely claimed he had observed all of the commandments v20. Jesus knew he had not. Jesus knew his wealth was standing in the man's way from following him so Jesus told the man to sell everything. He refused and went away grieved v22."

"Look at what you quoted for verse 20. WHERE DOES EXACT QUOTE APPEAR IN ANY BIBLE EVER WRITTEN?"

It doesn't, that is your strawman, your invention in an effort to squirm out of your error. My - He falsely claimed he had observed all of the commandments v20 is a statement about v20 and not a quote of v20. The omission of quotes means that it was a statement by me, not a quote from Scripture.

I would have put v20 in quotes. You failure to grasp that is your fault not mine.

Now, referring to v20 "And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth."

See how I used quotation marks to indicate these words were from the Bible and not mine. This is how we do it when we write, so that we will know who says what.

Now, to the essence of what the man claimed. It was false because neither he, nor I, nor YOU are anyone else except Jesus have observed all of the commandments. This is common knowledge or not? I want an answer from you on that.

Furthermore, Jesus did know that he had not observed all of the commandments. Even if you don't know how Jesus knew that the man had not in fact observed all of the commandments there is a clue in the passage.

See if you can figure it out.

February 10, 2013 at 5:38 p.m.
alprova said...

patriot1 wrote: "We (family) did not have a lot while I was a child and I, like a lot of others, had to work nights and weekends to get through school. I can remember selling plasma to get me over "that hump" or buy that book I needed."

I can identify with all that. Lots of people have had it rough at times. The only thing I have to offer in response, is that it is so easy for people who eventually find their way to prosperity or an easier life, to forget how hard some people have it at times.

If one is a Christian and heeds the words of Jesus, there are things that people should do, if they are able to do it.

'nuff said.

"When someone says I don't need this or that, yeah, it kinda rubs me wrong."

Sir, it was never offered as a personal criticism of how anyone chooses to live their life, nor was it directed at a soul on this Earth.

"I probably have more than I deserve but I don't think of myself as wealthy."

Compared to many, you probably aren't. Compared to others, you may be wealthy. But clearly, you have EARNED all that you have and there is nothing at all shameful in that, as you know.

Please understand that I do not have any issue with what you have, nor would I ever presume to know your inclinations or attitudes about charity. I would never ask you to relate your charitable contributions.

I'm quite open about many things, but that which I do for others is one thing that I never discuss with anyone, not even my wife. I have never claimed a deduction on a tax return. But that's me...

"I am sorry for your misfortune and I truly wish you the best."

Thank you for that. It truly means a great deal to read it. As I wrote, others have had it much worse than I have. Life deals us all a hand of cards to play. Some win...some lose.

Whatever I did in the past to aggravate you, I humbly apologize for. I do try my level best to never get personal, but I am as human as everyone else. I slip. I get aggravated too. I know that I sometimes go for the throat. I'm working on improving that.

February 10, 2013 at 5:46 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova :

"Because you have cited an egregious case of man changing what was written in the Bible...a point that I have made repeatedly, that you and some others have argued."

You will have to clarify that. I suspect a red herring in an effort to change the subject.

February 10, 2013 at 6:19 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova :

"Because, it appears that Jesus absolutely called on a man to do exactly that, with the exception of begging, of course." "You don't deny that, do you?"

Ah, but you just attempted to divert attention away from the fact that mountainlaurel used that Scripture to justify that begger in the cartoon.

February 10, 2013 at 6:20 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"I have been blessed and truly thankful I have good health and am able to enjoy these things in life I may not NEED but I WANT, but they came with sacrifice and a price. In addition to good genes, good health also comes from a healthy diet, exercise, and continued sacrifice. I apologize to no one for what I have accomplished and grateful I am in a position to help others, including family, if the need arises." - patriot1

One of the things I have the hardest time understanding is where so many of you conservatives and libertarians get the idea that we liberals hate success, nice (material) things, business owners, every aspect of the free market, etc. Most of the liberals I know live in nice houses such as you describe, patriot, they drive nice cars, go on vacations, and buy things they WANT, not just what they NEED. It really irks me that you guys keep perpetuating the lie that we liberals all want nothing more than to live in some socialist worker camps, with everybody making equal wages and squashing any and all expressions of individual freedom. As far as the way we live our lives, there really is very little difference, at least in the middle class, between conservatives, liberals, independents, or libertarians.

The people who go to the trouble of defining themselves as to being a liberal or conservative or whatever generally are educated and successful enough to be able to reflect upon who or what they are. Those who are the true deadbeats and, for whatever reasons, lack ambition or motivation to make a better life for themselves, most likely couldn't even tell you what the difference is between a liberal or a conservative, although they will probably pretend to relate to one or the other of the labels. There are just as many deadbeat trailer trash rednecks on welfare or food stamps and calling themselves conservatives as there are inner city deadbeats living off of the government and calling themselves liberals.

For those of us who take the time debating the issues, our fundamental difference is in how we view the government's role in our lives. We don't like apathy, indolence, filth, squalor, or ignorance any more than you do. We all would prefer that people make their own way and not need any kind of assistance, neither from a charity or from government. But even though many people do take advantage of the government's largesse, we believe that the safety nets do more good than harm, because there are so many people in dire straits for whom that is oftentimes their only life-line. It seems that too many conservatives today just want to lump everybody who is down and out into the category of "taker" and say to hell with them, it's their own fault, let them rot.

February 10, 2013 at 6:22 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova :

"My argument in essence was that her use of Mark 21-22 did not prescribe us to do the same as her very far fetched idea of what was going on in the cartoon."

In a sense, yes he did, again with an exception to beg, and I offered the exact context which explains what he meant. Read Mark 10:23-25, preferably from a more mainstream version of the Bible.

Ah, but your "with an exception to beg," does refute you doesn't it. The man in the cartoon is not following Jesus, he is begging. No stretch of the imagination can make that otherwise.

February 10, 2013 at 6:26 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "It doesn't, that is your strawman, your invention in an effort to squirm out of your error."

My error? You intentionally misrepresent what is written in the Bible, making assumptions not in evidence, including that of Jesus, but it is my error to question it?

There is absolutely no end to your delusion, is there?

"I would have put v20 in quotes. You failure to grasp that is your fault not mine."

I see...

"See how I used quotation marks to indicate these words were from the Bible and not mine. This is how we do it when we write, so that we will know who says what."

Despite your explanation as to how you post scripture and your words, I'm quite sure that I am hardly alone in any confusion in what you posted.

It's like pulling teeth to get a straight and relevant answer from you to any question.

"Now, to the essence of what the man claimed. It was false because neither he, nor I, nor YOU are anyone else except Jesus have observed all of the commandments. This is common knowledge or not? I want an answer from you on that."

Of the specific commandments that Jesus cited, "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother," I'm quite sure that many people go through their lives without failing to honor those specific five commandments, at least after they are old enough to be accountable.

*"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

"Furthermore, Jesus did know that he had not observed all of the commandments. Even if you don't know how Jesus knew that the man had not in fact observed all of the commandments there is a clue in the passage."

"No one is good — except God alone..."* Geez...I finally understood something you wrote. Scary.

That still doesn't indicate that the man had not kept the specific commandments cited by Jesus or that Jesus knew anything to the contrary, and he certainly didn't question the man's claim.

"One thing you lack..."

"See if you can figure it out."

I did, but you're making assumptions about what is written, and we are miles apart in our understanding of Mark 10.

You make your assumptions to justify your contempt for many who are poor. I make no such assumptions.

February 10, 2013 at 6:28 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova:

"You've never heard of someone giving up all of their worldly possessions to enter the Priesthood or to become a Nun, to live a bare existence in a Convent?"

Ah, another red herring, another attempt to change the subject. Yes, but they do get a salary, and they are not dressed in beggar clothes and standing on a street corner begging are they?

They are busy, teaching Scripture, caring for others, helping others, they are working not on a street corner begging.

What will be your next try to justify standing on a street corner begging others for money?

Just don't misuse Scripture to justify begging and slothfulness like mountainlaurel, neither of you are very good at it.

February 10, 2013 at 6:34 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Ah, but you just attempted to divert attention away from the fact that mountainlaurel used that Scripture to justify that begger in the cartoon."

Permit me to take it one more step;

How does anyone know that any person with their hand out, their hat out, or one who may be holding a sign, all soliciting for a donation of money, is not Jesus Christ himself, popping in to see how many people are heeding God's will?

Even if I give money to someone who does not use it for sustenance, and instead buys booze of drugs with it, I have done my level best to emulate Jesus.

I do so with no expectation of any reward by God. I have been ripped off many times by those soliciting money under false pretenses. I have not hardened my heart one bit or become cynical as a result of it.

I hope I never will.

February 10, 2013 at 6:36 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Ah, but your "with an exception to beg," does refute you doesn't it. The man in the cartoon is not following Jesus, he is begging. No stretch of the imagination can make that otherwise."

Luke 16:19-31

Try again...

February 10, 2013 at 6:56 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Ah, another red herring, another attempt to change the subject. Yes, but they do get a salary, and they are not dressed in beggar clothes and standing on a street corner begging are they?"

I don't presume to know much about the Catholic Church, but nuns especially take vows of poverty. No salaries for them.

"What will be your next try to justify standing on a street corner begging others for money?"

When have I tried to justify begging? I haven't, but I do not look down on people who do. That's your little red wagon bumping your hind end.

"Just don't misuse Scripture to justify begging and slothfulness like mountainlaurel, neither of you are very good at it."

I'll tell you what...You stop attempting to speak for God, and I'll ignore you completely, because you are not very good at that.

February 10, 2013 at 7:03 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Thanks for the post Rickaroo...I don't always agree with you but I can line up with a lot of that.

February 10, 2013 at 7:13 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

I'm as guilty of name-calling and my own personal biases as anybody but I honestly believe that we all have more that unites us than we realize.

February 10, 2013 at 7:48 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative proclaims: “mountainlaurel used that Scripture to justify that beggar in the cartoon.”

As usual, you’re being less than straightforward as to what really occurred, Conservative.

Yesterday, you suggested the beggar in Bennett’s cartoon was a “sluggard.” I responded and asked how you drew this conclusion. I also listed several other possible scenarios in regard to the economic status of Bennett's beggar - different from your "sluggard" scenario.

The last scenario that I offered really seemed to unsettle you, which I find a bit odd. Are you troubled that I offered a scenario suggesting the beggar might have been someone who had been rich at one time but had given all of his money to the poor OR are you troubled about the possibility that a raggedy beggar might be Jesus in disquise.

February 10, 2013 at 8:22 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Love it! Undercover Jesus!

Clandestino Capo di tutti capi. Checking on the "earners." LOL

February 10, 2013 at 8:45 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "...and Marxist politicians like Barack Obama encouraging them to do it till its raw cause he's going to take care of them."

Exactly what wording can you point to, that came from Barack Obama's own lips, that gives anyone the impression that "he's going to take care of them?"

You and others spout this crap all the time, but none of you can back it up. Well...here's your chance.

It's hard not to notice the bigotry contained in your remarks.

Hate much?

February 10, 2013 at 9:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Posts like that are why no one takes you seriously.

February 10, 2013 at 9:09 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "alpo I am glad you at least agree with most of my statement about Progressives."

They are so over the top that nothing needed to be addressed. Such thoughts are merely farts in the wind.

"Obama is a Progressive. Progressive existence depends on keeping large number of people poor, in chaos, ignorant, and dependent on our national baby daddy Obama himself."

Like I stated...farts in the wind.

February 10, 2013 at 9:26 p.m.
GameOn said...

Federal mandate kills thousands of pounds of Red Snapper and destroys habitat. http://www.local15tv.com/news/local/story/Explosive-Fed-Mandate-Killing-Thousands-of-Red/xj8T4zPamkOGc8fuT40W_Q.cspx

February 10, 2013 at 10:28 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Follow the money, JonRoss! LOL you d!ckhead.

February 10, 2013 at 10:38 p.m.
GameOn said...

Super Bowl Commercial Spoof

February 10, 2013 at 10:46 p.m.
GameOn said...

Sorry Rick1, I did not notice you posted the God Made a Liberal video earlier. Funny enough to see it again though.

February 10, 2013 at 11:09 p.m.
dude_abides said...

The Pope's resigning to take a consulting job with Lockheed Martin. When asked if his stepping down had anything to do with the perpetual sex scandal the Catholic Church is going through, he replied, "I don't even know that kid, and even if I did, we were only playing leapfrog."

February 11, 2013 at 7:19 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova, mountainlaurel :

alprova, you wrote:

"How does anyone know that any person with their hand out, their hat out, or one who may be holding a sign, all soliciting for a donation of money, is not Jesus Christ himself, popping in to see how many people are heeding God's will?"

mountainlaurel you wrote:

"are you troubled about the possibility that a raggedy beggar might be Jesus in disquise."

There are few reasons why Jesus would not disguise himself as a beggar and why it would be impossible for Jesus to be that beggar depicted in the cartoon. I will attempt to convince you both with just one.

It's basic Theology 101 that Jesus is Holy! That means that Jesus is sinless! Jesus is morally perfect!

JESUS IS SINLESS! JESUS IS MORALLY PERFECT!

For Jesus to be on a street corner in disguise as a beggar would be sin. Why? Think, both of you think.

A DISGUISE IS DECEIT, A LIE!

JESUS CAN NOT AND WILL NOT DECEIVE OR LIE!

ALPROVA, JESUS CAN NOT AND WILL NOT DECEIVE OR LIE!

MOUNTAINLAUREL, JESUS CAN NOT AND WILL NOT DECEIVE OR LIE!

February 11, 2013 at 7:45 a.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"For Jesus to be on a street corner in disguise as a beggar would be sin. Why? Think, both of you think...A DISGUISE IS DECEIT, A LIE! JESUS CAN NOT AND WILL NOT DECEIVE OR LIE!"

Wrong again.


Jesus in disguise.

Luke 24:13-16 -

"Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him."


Figurative Jesus as the 'least of these'.

Matthew 25:35-41 -

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ "


Read your Bible, conservative. You're getting schooled by an atheist.

There are plenty more examples of your god and angels coming to earth in disguises. Genesis 18 and 32 are good examples.

February 11, 2013 at 8:15 a.m.
caddy said...

SEN. RON WYDEN: Let me ask you (CIA Nominee John) Brennan) several other questions with respect to the president’s authority to kill Americans. I’ve asked you how much evidence the president needs to decide that a particular American can be lawfully killed and whether the administration believes that the president can use this authority inside the United States.... What do you think needs to be done to ensure that members of the public understand more about when the government thinks it’s allowed to kill them, particularly with respect to those two issues, the question of evidence and the authority to use this power within the United States?

JOHN BRENNAN: I have been a strong proponent of trying to be as open as possible with these programs, as far as our explaining what we’re doing. What we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues, but at the same time optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security. I don’t think that it’s one or the other. It’s trying to optimize both of them. And so, what we need to do is make sure we explain to the American people what are the thresholds for action, what are the procedures, the practices, the processes, the approvals, the reviews. The Office of Legal Counsel advice establishes the legal boundaries within which we can operate. It doesn’t mean that we operate at those out of boundaries. And, in fact, I think the American people will be quite pleased to know that we’ve been very disciplined, very judicious, and we only use these authorities and these capabilities as a last resort.

We have to optimize transparency

We have to optimize secrecy

guess which one will end up getting optimized?

It does make me wonder where ALL the War-Hating liberals went. Once Obama came on the scene, even striking at US citizens without any mention of due process was no longer an issue it seems. Enjoy your Boy. Thing is, your boy may be coming after you and yours next. Today, it's "supposed" terrorism. Tomorrow, its all about your undocumented guns...or your thought that Muslims aren't so peaceful after all.

February 11, 2013 at 8:20 a.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"It does make me wonder where ALL the War-Hating liberals went."

Still here laughing at you warmongering, WingNut hypocrites.

"even striking at US citizens without any mention of due process was no longer an issue it seems."

You mean the US citizen that was a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda, the Imam for 3 of the 9/11 hijackers, counseled the Fort Hood shooter, and called for jihad against America?

"Thing is, your boy may be coming after you and yours next. Today, it's "supposed" terrorism. Tomorrow, its all about your undocumented guns...or your thought that Muslims aren't so peaceful after all."

Slippery slope argument. Try again.

February 11, 2013 at 8:25 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "JESUS IS SINLESS! JESUS IS MORALLY PERFECT!"

Jesus himself disputes that in one of the very verses of scripture that has been the focus of controversy by yourself.

Mark 10:18 - "18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good — except God alone."

"JESUS CAN NOT AND WILL NOT DECEIVE OR LIE!"

Was Jesus a perfect man while on Earth? Although few and far between, there is scripture that suggests that Jesus was not perfect. Is he perfect now? The Bible does not make that clear. Would it be a sin for him to come to Earth as we have suggested? Why would you think that?

Did Jesus deceive or lie? One instance in the New Testament seems to offer that he did.

John 7:6-10 NLT - "6 Jesus replied, "Now is not the right time for me to go, but you can go anytime. 7 The world can't hate you, but it does hate me because I accuse it of doing evil. 8 You go on. I'm not going to this festival, because my time has not yet come." 9 After saying these things, Jesus remained in Galilee. 10 But after his brothers left for the festival, Jesus also went, though secretly, staying out of public view."

February 11, 2013 at 9:02 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

alprova said...

conservative wrote: "JESUS IS SINLESS! JESUS IS MORALLY PERFECT!" Jesus himself disputes that in one of the very verses of scripture that has been the focus of controversy by yourself.

Mark 10:18 - "18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good — except God alone."

February 11, 2013 at 9:02 a.m.

============================================

What a blasphemous lie that is and what a blasphemous liar you are.

You don't know God from a hole in the ground.

I have known it all along.

Now, will you definitely state whether you profess to be a Christian or not?

Just state "I am a Christian" or "I am not a Christian"

February 11, 2013 at 10:01 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

nucanuck said... "Drones are an effective war crime against people in small countries without the ability to respond. We are the bully on the playground."

Yes, and we are making more enemies with the practice. I am absolutely tired of politicians telling us we have to endure loss of rights because we live in a dangerous world (that our government has created for us). Accepting the notion that our government should play the role of the world's policeman has resulted in a police state back home.

February 11, 2013 at 10:27 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: "There are few reasons why Jesus would not disguise himself as a beggar and why it would be impossible for Jesus to be that beggar depicted in the cartoon."

You’re not getting the bigger picture, Conservative. . . You continue to ramble on about Jesus in your posts, but you seem unable to grasp the basic message of Jesus when it comes to things like kindness, compassion, and the poor.

Easy123 certainly gets it and has even provided a biblical passage from Matthew 25:35-41 that clarifies the message rather clearly: "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. . . Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Exactly what do you think Jesus was saying when he said: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brother of mine, you did for me?” It should be rather obvious to even you that Jesus is not supporting your perspective and that we should view raggedy beggars as “sluggards” - unless, of course, you're claiming that Jesus was a "sluggard."

February 11, 2013 at 10:56 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "What a blasphemous lie that is and what a blasphemous liar you are."

You really need to educate yourself to what blasphemy is.

" don't know God from a hole in the ground."

Who are you to make that judgment?

"I have known it all along."

Excuse me, but am I supposed to care what conservative almighty thinks he knows?

"Now, will you definitely state whether you profess to be a Christian or not?"

To you? Absolutely not.

"Just state "I am a Christian" or "I am not a Christian"

That subject is not up for discussion with you. Believe whatever you wish.

February 11, 2013 at 10:59 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: "When you 'drone' a terrorist there is no ambiguity."

I believe you’ve oversimplified this situation, Blackwater48. For starters, there is the critical issue of “collateral damage” when it comes to the deaths and injuries of innocent civilians, including children of a country’s citizenry.

It’s one thing when a country is at war with another country, but it becomes something quite different when a country like the U.S. is at war with some terrorist organization that happens to be operating within the boundaries of a certain country.

It seems to me this type of scenario can only increase the level of hostility of any country’s citizenry against the United States - and understandably so since the terrorist organization is not representing the views of the citizenry of that country.

February 11, 2013 at 11:38 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Oh, I almost forgot to credit Bennett for bringing up a topic worthy of discussion. The repetition of his typical hot-button issues has been pretty boring for quite a while.

February 11, 2013 at 11:40 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

my quote:

"JESUS CAN NOT AND WILL NOT DECEIVE OR LIE!"

your blasphemy :

"Was Jesus a perfect man while on Earth? Although few and far between, there is scripture that suggests that Jesus was not perfect. Is he perfect now? The Bible does not make that clear. Would it be a sin for him to come to Earth as we have suggested? Why would you think that?"

=========================================

What a blasphemous liar you are!

You don't know God from a hole in the ground.

I have known it all along.

Now, will you definitely state whether you profess to be a Christian or not?

Just state "I am a Christian" or "I am not a Christian"

February 11, 2013 at 11:42 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "It seems to me this type of scenario can only increase the level of hostility of any country’s citizentry against the United States - and understandably so since the terrorist organization is not representing the views of the citizentry of that country."

This is true no matter who is in the whitehouse. It baffles me how anybody can support the execution of acts of war with no declaration of war, all in our name. We are the ones who end up bearing the burden while the government is able to use the mess they create as an excuse to further expand their power.

February 11, 2013 at 11:44 a.m.
caddy said...

Paranoid ? Yes, the point seems to be lost on many.

Many Americans seem to miss the point, thinking that expropriation or death by droning is wrong just because the wrong groups are in power, choosing the wrong causes for subsidy or those marked to murder w/o due process. This is where the horror stories are offered, and horrible they are: of subsidies to promote abortion, subsidies to photograph crucifixes in jars of urine, subsidies for all manner of evil in the name of the good of killing a few bad guys. But expropriation and sanctioned murder by our government would be wrong even if each of its causes were good. Consider the following progression on the subject of expropriation alone. Similar scenarios can be made for the murder of ones citizenry without due process. If you think it can't happen to you IN Time, you are all fools. Famous last words: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

1. On a dark street, a man draws a knife and demands my money
   for drugs.

2. Instead of demanding my money for drugs, he demands it for
   the Church.

3. Instead of being alone, he is with a bishop of the Church
   who acts as bagman.

4. Instead of drawing a knife, he produces a policeman who
   says I must do as he says.

5. Instead of meeting me on the street, he mails me his demand
   as an official agent of the government.
February 11, 2013 at 12:22 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot says: "It baffles me how anybody can support the execution of acts of war with no declaration of war, all in our name."

I can only say this drone business certainly seems like a very dangerous slippery slope to me. I keep asking myself what if other countries started to follow our example and developed a list of people in the U.S. they considered to be their enemies. What happens then?

For example, The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, based on the Nuremberg Charter, convicted George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their lawyers of war crimes. What would we do if this War Crimes Tribunal decided to launch a few drones in an effort to seek justice? Is this going to be OK with us? I don’t think so.

February 11, 2013 at 12:34 p.m.
conservative said...

mountainlaurel,

Trying to change the discussion will not change the fact that you claimed the depicted beggar had sold all he owned and was following Jesus. It is absurd to believe Jesus would today approve of anyone who would do as you suggested:

"Indeed, he could even be someone who sold everything he once owned, has distributed all of his money to the poor and is standing on that corner to give you the opportunity to demonstrate an act of kindness and compassion. . . in other words, following the way of Jesus:"

February 11, 2013 at 12:50 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "I keep asking myself what if other countries started to follow our example and developed a list of people in the U.S. they considered to be their enemies. What happens then?"

I still remember how I felt immediately after 9-11, I was ready to sign up and go kick some a$$. Then later Ron Paul came around and challenged us to consider blowback and how our actions abroad do not look all that different from 9-11 from the perspective of someone living on the receiving end of our actions. The memory of my own feelings after 9-11 crystallised Ron Paul's message.

I am not saying we should not respond strongly and with overwhelming force when we are attacked, but we are engaged in all kinds of activity that goes way beyond that. The US would be much more respected and admired if we were not running all over the world peeing in everyone's Wheaties.

February 11, 2013 at 12:53 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

Isn't it okay, just once in our history, to have Big Brother on OUR side?

The voters put their golden boy in office to take care of nasty little matters like the defense of innocent civilians over here.

The unmanned drone is a technological development which promises a cheap deterrent against all enemies and all forms of weapons. It truly is a weapon which is CHEAPER by hundreds of millions per copy than any other manned platform with similar capabilities. The systems necessary to counter drones are vastly more expensive than the drones themselves.

This one might actually bring peace to the world.

Think of this scenario. Would China dare to use force against a nation which could send 10,000 pilotless aircraft against their military and industrial targets? Defenders run out of bullets, and missiles, and eventually an attacker will get through. The price of drones can probably be gotten down to 10 for a million dollars. One billion dollars could buy 10,000 of them. One stealth bomber costs a billion dollars.

Do the math. Balance the budget AND maintain a strong defense against aggressors.

February 11, 2013 at 12:56 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

prairie dog,

It is not the drones themselves. They are potentially a great tool. It is the misuse of drones, This goes for all technology for that matter. The rapid advancement of technology is making us numb to all of the ethical questions it is putting before us.

February 11, 2013 at 1:06 p.m.
caddy said...

Well said, BigRidgePatriot. I'm just one of those guys who thinks America missed its window of opportunity with Ron Paul. He was brilliant on fiscal matters and spot on, not weak, as many thought on foreign affairs. Instead, 51 % of Americans seem to think the liberal spending, big-government, entitlement president is a better option. Cultural Marxism / socialism does have its appeal for the uninitiated.

February 11, 2013 at 1:23 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

Ridge,

When in the history of the world have there not been crooks and tyrants?

Firearms made knights in armor obsolete. The long bow was an evolutionary step in that direction.

It is certain that somebody will try to use a drone against a civilian political target in this country. It's no different than the KKK bombing churches back in the 1950s and 1960s. We're already in a state of affairs which would allow a talented tinkerer to construct his own drone and carry out an attack. So, you can count on it. They will be infrequent, but it will happen.

So far, our Navy has never launched a Polaris missile against an enemy. That's because procedures are in place which prevent it.

The use of drones can be strictly regulated by the federal government. Why? Because the federal government owns the airspace over this country.

Drone strikes within the United States should require "national command authority" permission. That means the President should be the one releasing the launch code. As the head of the Executive Branch of the government, command-in-chief of the armed forces and the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States, it should be his decision to make.

I've got a friend who was bullied into taking a plea deal on a DUI charge by local police. She was told that the injuries she suffered in a car accident were inconsistent with a car crash, and had to be the result of a domestic assault. She could either file charges against her husband, or they would charge her with DUI. It was too late (the next morning) to take a blood test, and they falsely claimed that she had refused a blood alcohol test the night before. The local prosecutor was running for office on an anti domestic violence platform, and he needed as many cases as he could get before the election.

What's the lesson? Don't leave this stuff to the local yokels. They will find a way to profit from it.

What did she ultimately do? She got a lawyer, pled guilty to the DUI in return for probation and loss of her license for a year, and lived through it.

What's the lesson? Ethics mean nothing to anyone anymore. The only hope is to push the decision as high as possible, and hold the decision-makers responsible for it. It's all about politics.

You might as well try to stop police from patrolling in automobiles on the grounds that it's an unconstitutional violation of our civil rights to have the police out watching for crimes before they actually occur.

February 11, 2013 at 1:29 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

prairie_dog said... " Ethics mean nothing to anyone anymore. The only hope is to push the decision as high as possible, and hold the decision-makers responsible for it. It's all about politics."

I guess you are OK with us conducting drone strikes within the borders of sovereign nations without declaring war on those nations. I am not. This ongoing practice demonstrates to me that we cannot trust the federal government with the power we have allowed them to take. IMHO, it is time to start reigning them back in.

Drones are great, we should and will continue their development. I have no problem with a pilotless airforce, it is probably imperative that we lead in this area if we are going to maintain air supremacy in the future. BUT, let's not get so love struck with the technology that we allow our government to use it recklessly.

February 11, 2013 at 1:40 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "It is absurd to believe Jesus would today approve of anyone who would do as you suggested"

What's absurd is any thought that you know what Jesus does, did, or will do in the future, because the undeniable fact is that you have not the first clue what Jesus is capable of doing.

February 11, 2013 at 1:51 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

caddy said... "Cultural Marxism / socialism does have its appeal for the uninitiated."

...or the indoctrinated. Our government run schools are not interested in teaching the people how to think for themselves and maintain a healthy scepticism of government. The public school system was intended to train the youth to be good contributors to the economic system that the uber wealthy in cooperation with politicians are managing, not necessarily in the best interest of the great unwashed.

We are just going through the natural life cycle of a democracy. When federalism was turned around through the amendment process we lost the core of The Constitution and became functionally a democracy rather than a constitutional republic.

February 11, 2013 at 1:59 p.m.
limric said...

Questions from the Prairie,

Isn't it okay, just once in our history, to have Big Brother on OUR side? NO

The voters put their golden boy in office to take care of nasty little matters like the defense of innocent civilians over here. WTF does that mean!

The unmanned drone is a technological development which promises a cheap deterrent against all enemies and all forms of weapons. Er ye sure aboot that laddie? Best te be doin sumoor research.

It truly is a weapon which is CHEAPER by hundreds of millions per copy than any other manned platform with similar capabilities. Predator without armaments: 4-7 mil. +or- per copy, an f-16 between 15-20 mil. +or- per copy. Do the math. You putting an inordinate amount of faith in a system (death by remote control) and on its user to do the right thing. To which the users have all shown bad faith!

The systems necessary to counter drones are vastly more expensive than the drones themselves. Not by a long shot Caddy.

This one might actually bring peace to the world. Not bloody likely (pun intended).

Think of this scenario. Would China dare to use force against a nation which could send 10,000 pilotless aircraft against their military and industrial targets? China already has over 10,000 drones. Thousands of which are converted soviet Migs.

Defenders run out of bullets, and missiles, and eventually an attacker will get through. The price of drones can probably be gotten down to 10 for a million dollars. One billion dollars could buy 10,000 of them. One stealth bomber costs a billion dollars. One stealth bomber (the B-2) is 2 billion.

  • Defense against aggressors*?? Who are you kidding! The USA is the most globally intrusive/aggressive military empire since the late British. And as of late, has very much in common with that of Imperial Rome. Both foreign and domestically.
February 11, 2013 at 2:02 p.m.
limric said...

And the Oscar for best actor for a big mouth vindication series goes to….LIMRIC. Yea..roar of the crowd during 30 second standing ‘O’. :-D

“Worse Than Obama's Kill List? American Support for It” ”Obama has done little to rescue civil liberties from predecessor's damage and much to deepen concern”

by Jon Queally

For long-time critics of Obama's handling of numerous policies left over from his predecessor George W. Bush, that assessment won't be especially shocking. From his failure to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, to his signing of the controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the recent alarm caused by a leaked "white paper" summarizing aspects of key Office of Legal Council memos that describe the legal basis for targeting individuals for assassination by drone (both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens), the Obama administration has little to boast about regarding its record on civil liberties. Perhaps more troubling than the disappointment of once hopeful Obama supporters, however, is the degree to which the poll reveals how comfortable many US citizens are with some of the most aggressive techniques that the government now justifies as being necessary to fight the so-called and ongoing 'global war on terror.'

As The Hill reports, of the 1,000 Americans polled (a bipartisan group of likely voters) most were "inclined to support the government in its lethal attacks on citizens and non-citizens it deems to be terrorists." And continues:

The poll found that 53 percent of likely voters said it should be legal for the U.S. government to kill non-U.S. citizens who meet that description. Meanwhile, 44 percent said it should be legal for the U.S. government to kill American citizens who it believes are terrorists and present an imminent threat. By contrast, 21 percent of respondents thought such an action should be illegal if the target is a non-U.S. citizen. A slightly higher percentage of voters, 31 percent, thought killing individuals whom the government believes are terrorists should be illegal when the target is an American citizen. A significant proportion of respondents — 26 percent and 24 percent, respectively — said they were not sure if such attacks should be legal, regardless of whether the target was an American or not. When asked whether they oppose or back the administration’s drone program, however, a significantly higher percentage of voters voiced their support. Sixty-five percent of respondents said they support the use of unmanned drones to kill “people in foreign countries whom the US government says are terrorists and present an imminent threat,” while just 19 percent of voters said they oppose the policy. So what's most troubling is not perhaps that Obama is "as bad as Bush" but that for a growing number of US citizens, the definition of "bad" has become as elastic as the Office of Legal Council's use of the phrase "imminent threat".

Cont.

February 11, 2013 at 2:29 p.m.
Oldhickory said...

As we should, the US buys and operates the most drones and they're much less expensive than manned fighter aircraft. Drones are already the future for all military aircraft. Soon we'll have drone tanks and ships.

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/11/drones-businesses/?iid=Lead

February 11, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
limric said...

Cont. from 2:29

As Glenn Greenwald, legal blogger for The Guardian, wrote following the release of the assassination "white paper" obtained by NBC News last week: If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable. And in a http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/progressives-defend-obama-kill-list on Monday, Greenwald (I command everyone to read this) explores the issue even further, making the point that though public opinion is tracking in a terrible direction when it comes to these policies, it is too simplistic to derive that such policies thrive because the public endorses them. In fact, Greenwald argues, the true cause is fielty to the established parties that make a series of previously unconscionable policies acceptable only because Republican and Democratic leaders have used their own authority to abrogate legal norms and a media system -- that coddles power and enables uncritical thinking on such matters -- has largely pushed out opposing views. In particular, whenever the two political parties agree on a policy, it is almost certain that public opinion will overwhelmingly support it. When Obama was first inaugurated in 2009, numerous polls showed pluralities or even majorities in support of investigations into Bush-era criminal policies of torture and warrantless eavesdropping. That was because many Democrats believed Obama would pursue such investigations (because he led them to believe he would), but once he made clear he opposed those investigations, huge numbers of loyal Democrats followed their leader and joined Republicans in opposing them, thus creating majorities against them. Obama didn't refrain from investigating Bush-era crimes because public opinion opposed that. The reverse was true: public opinion supported those investigations, and turned against them only once Obama announced he opposed them. We see this over and over: when Obama was in favor of closing Guantanamo and ending Bush-era terrorism policies, large percentages supported him (and even elected him as he advocated that), but then once he embraced those policies as his own, large majorities switched and began supporting them. Progressive willingness to acquiesce to or even outright support Obama's radical policies - in the name of partisan loyalty - is precisely what ensures the continuation of those policies. Obama gets away with all of this because so many progressives venerate leader loyalty and partisan gain above all else.

Sniffle sniff, “I want to thank the academy….and all the wonderful people that made this award possible.” “The Caligula’s, Barack, Hillary, Rush, Sean, Mark, BRP, Jesus general and so many more. ” Thank you – than you one and all!*”

February 11, 2013 at 2:33 p.m.
Leaf said...

My scroll finger is getting sore from zipping past Conservative and alprova's ongoing debate.

February 11, 2013 at 3:37 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: “The rapid advancement of technology is making us numb to all of the ethical questions it is putting before us.”

Yes, it's the ethical questions that need to be sorted out:

“We are in the same position now, with drones, that we were with nuclear weapons in 1945,” said David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker.

“For the moment, we are the only ones with this technology that is going to change the morality, psychology, and strategic thinking of warfare for years to come.”

“But it’s inevitable that other countries — including countries that are hardly American allies — will follow. Then what?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/business/media/the-inconvenient-but-vital-drone-debate.html

February 11, 2013 at 4:45 p.m.
limric said...

So JonRoss, it’s just lefties that are mass murderers? Hmm……

Andrew Philip Kehoe killed his wife, and 43 other people (including 38 children), and injuring 58 people by setting off bombs in a school in Bath Township, Michigan. I think he was upset about property taxes. That sure sounds like a conservative issue……doesn't it?

San Ysidro McDonald's massacre. 1984, James Oliver Huberty (Republican) killed 21 people, including five children, and injured 19 others.

The Luby's massacre in Killeen Tx. George Hennard (right wing nut job) killed killing 23 people.

Oklahoma City bombing -- initially attributed by numerous media experts to Arab terrorists but actually the work of right-wing militia-movement supporter Timothy McVeigh! You stand corrected - SPANK!!

In Brockton, Massachusetts, in January 2009, neo-Nazi Keith Luke (Republican) sought to storm a synagogue, but never made it. He wanted to “kill as many Jews, blacks, and Hispanics as possible.” In his rampage, he murdered two Hispanics and raped and wounded a third before, near the synagogue, he was wrestled to the ground by ordinary (jews) citizens.

Jim David Adkisson said he hated Democrats (like you do) and deemed the church part of the “liberal movement.” opened fire with a shotgun on an audience of about 200. Republican would be a safe bet.

Joseph Stack, infuriated by U.S. tax policy, crashed his small plane into an Austin office building housing 200 IRS workers, killing himself and two others and injuring 13. Violence, he wrote in a “manifesto,” is “the only answer” to oppressive government policies. Ie. Republican!

I saved the best for last: Early 21st century, Iraq & Afghanistan. Pre-planned and executed by a large criminal cabal known affectionately as the Texas Mafia. Officially referred to as, the Bush Administration. Thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed. Thought I forgot about that one huh ?

The murderous right wing is still with us. The racists and the skinheads and the neo-Nazis are still here.

In a recent DHS study they concluded: The combination of the election of the first black president and environmental factors that echo the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries is invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements. To the extent that these factors persist, right wing extremism is likely to grow in strength.

Don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers.

February 11, 2013 at 5:05 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

alprova said...

conservative wrote: "JESUS IS SINLESS! JESUS IS MORALLY PERFECT!"

Jesus himself disputes that in one of the very verses of scripture that has been the focus of controversy by yourself. Mark 10:18 - "18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good — except God alone."

=============================

What a blasphemous lie that is and what a blasphemous liar you are.

You don't know God from a hole in the ground.

I have known it all along.

Now, will you definitely state whether you profess to be a Christian or not?

Just state "I am a Christian" or "I am not a Christian"

February 11, 2013 at 5:11 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JuanRosshole,

"you proved my point by your inability to come up with more than a couple of mass killers who are not followers of Progressivism."

What point does that prove?

"The chaos created by Progressive creatins like Obama and Pelosi are directly responsible for most crimes in this country."

You're one ignorant son of a bitch. You can't even begin to make the logical connection between Democrats/liberalism/progressivism and crimes/mass murderers. Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches. By your logic, mustaches cause people to become genocidal dictators.

February 11, 2013 at 5:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"And limric you are an idiot."

Pot meet kettle.

"Most of the Progressive aperatus in this country supported the war in Iraq."

I call bullsh!t.

"Only when it didn't go well did the obamist see an opportunity to destroy the U.S. And destroy it they did."

Spew your ignorance! Bask in your bullsh!t.

"Not even CNN or NPR will be able to gloss over the steaming feces that is Barack Obama."

You know all about steaming dumps. You come here to puke a few out every day.

February 11, 2013 at 5:30 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

nooga said... "The terrorist have already won, since 9/11 we have lost rights and freedoms we would have fought wars over in the past. You can be held indefinitely with out being charged, without your family even being notified you have been arrested by the United States Government. They can enter your house and search it and leave without ever telling you they have been there. As far as privacy is concerned, it's a done deal you don't really have any. If it didn't start under Clinton is most certainly did under Bush and it hasn't slowed down for a minute. Kind of reminds me of the song about Santa, he sees you when your sleeping etc,etc."

I agree with most of what you say, but the terrorists have not won unless by winning you mean they have a large US military presence in the Middle East and are being subjected to drone attacks. The idea that the terrorists have won probably comes from the idea foisted by the Republicans that the terrorists despise our freedom and care about what is going on in the United States. That is much more convenient for "the worlds policeman" than admitting that the terrorists are fed up with our meddling and presence IN THE MIDDLE EAST. They tell us this every time they have an opportunity but we do not listen.

It is the progressives that have won, by rallying us against the threat that they created for us in the middle east.

February 11, 2013 at 5:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"Hitler and Stalin took power through cunning and a compliant fascist press, just as the bastard Obama has."

Absolutely nothing in this statement is factual. Try again.

February 11, 2013 at 5:31 p.m.
limric said...

Pffftt. He he he Yea right JonRoss. Whatever.

You know? The great prince Obama issues commands, founds states, vests families with fiefs -- Inferior people should not be employed.

So how about that, Mr. Smarty Pants Job Creator? Mr. College Hater? Mr. Tax Evader? Mr.Darth Vader! What have you done for the empire lately? Hmm?

Give it rest. You're out of your league.

February 11, 2013 at 5:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

WingNuts have a hardon for that video. It's been posted 4 times on this thread alone.

February 11, 2013 at 6:21 p.m.
limric said...

And now it’s time for breakfast at The Cranky Christian Conservative Party headquarters. Also known as the CCCP….hmmm.

Starring JonRoss & his pal Conservative (Connie).

Connie, I have something awesome to reveal to you.

Yes Jon.

Two flying saucers just landed on my plate.

You mean the eggs, Jon?

Let's just call them - The phenomena.

Well, I think you've got your phenomena scrambled.

Uh, pass the syrup please, Jon?

That's a good idea Connie, but syrup won't stop them! What next? Hmm, I think they’re trying to eat my toast. They’re Socialist Saucer eggs!!

Uh, pardon me, Jon, but you’re sounding crazy this morning.

HA - that's just what they want you to think.

JON! Stop eating with your hands, use your entrenching tool

Oh Connie, the whole world is spinning.

Well Jon, when you think about it, is pretty darn lucky for us! Cause If it were flat, all the Republicans would fall off!

WHAT?!?! Oh yea.....

Say Connie, Lets invite over a bunch of immigrants after lunch and make drones!

February 11, 2013 at 6:38 p.m.
jjmez said...

nucanuck said... Drones are an effective war crime against people in small countries without the ability to respond. We are the bully on the playground. The US is unrivaled at terrorism

What's even more disturing is not all those being counted as terrorists after the drone attacks are actually terrorists. If the dead are males they're being counted as terrorists to boost the terrorist body count. The same as not all those killed and labeled insurgents under Bush were actual insurgents. Americans should be concerned. Many police agencies already have Drones. They're just not presently equipped with fire power, but they can easily be equipped. In some cities in Texas and other areas, Drones have already been used by code enforcers to peek into citizens backyards. That's how, in Texas, a lot of homeowners were caught with illegal inground pools in the backyards. As the old saying goes: The chickens always come home to roost. In this case, at some point will L.E. have Drones equipped with firepower they'll use to hunt down American citizens on American soil for a minor traffic violation? Don't laugh. Just a few short months ago, a trooper in Texas opened fire from a helicopter in the air, like in a war zone, upon a pickup truck they were chasing they thought had crossed the border illegally. The trooper was a war vet.

Another concern, it's disturbing that these Drone attacks could be used to make a mockery of Dr. Kings stand on peace, against war andviolence, for equality and justice and respect for human life all around the world, even our enemies. Is President Obama being misled? Misused? If so, how might this overall affect, not only the U.S. at some future date, but especially fellow African-Americans who struggles for centuries against injustices, and brutal, torturous terrorist acts committed against them? You can't be for peace, justice, humanity and respect for human life only when you're the one being affected and touched personally by injustices.

February 11, 2013 at 6:42 p.m.
limric said...

JJmez,

If L.E. finds Chris Dorner, and and they get scared.....He may be our first domestic test.

FOOSH - BOOM!!

February 11, 2013 at 6:55 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Boy, you are in rare artistic form tonight limric! I am still not sure what to think about you lumping me in with The Caligula’s, Barack, Hillary, Rush, Sean, Mark, and Jesus general.

February 11, 2013 at 7:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Bask in your ignorance! Let it wash over you!

February 11, 2013 at 7:46 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Limric said: "If L.E. finds Chris Dorner, and and they get scared.....He may be our first domestic test."

When it comes to the Dorner case, it sounds to me like the people in L.A. have more to worry about than drones - talk about scary scenarios:

“A 71-year-old woman delivering newspapers with her daughter remained in intensive care Thursday night after she was shot twice in the back by Los Angeles police detectives during a massive manhunt for a fugitive ex-LAPD officer, according to the womens' attorney.

Emma Hernandez was delivering the Los Angeles Times with her daughter, Margie Carranza, 47, in Torrance early Thursday when police officers apparently mistook their pickup for that of Christopher Jordan Dorner, the 33-year-old fugitive suspected of killing three people and injuring two others. Hernandez was in stable condition late Thursday.

The officers riddled the women's blue pickup with bullets in the 19500 block of Redbeam Avenue. Carranza was also hit, according to attorney Glen T. Jonas, and received stitches to a finger.

"The problem with the situation is it looked like the police had the goal of administering street justice and in so doing, didn't take the time to notice that these two older, small Latina women don't look like a large black man," Jonas said.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/manhunt-newspaper-carrier-icu-shot-by-police.html

February 11, 2013 at 8:06 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss ignorantly wrote: "obastard is the first president who could never get Secret Service clearance to protect himself because of his lifelong association with violent domestic terrorists."

Totally false...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/security.asp

February 11, 2013 at 8:24 p.m.
jjmez said...

mountainlaurel said: "When it comes to the Dorner case, it sounds to me like the people in L.A. have more to worry about than drones - talk about scary scenarios: “A 71-year-old woman delivering newspapers with her daughter remained in intensive care Thursday night after she was shot twice in the back by Los Angeles police detectives during a massive manhunt for a fugitive ex-LAPD officer, according to the womens' attorney"

Very true. Now they're reopening the case and re-investigating if Dorner was wrongly fired. He was supposedly fired for filing a false report against a Trainer. Was it really false? Would be interesting to know what was in that report. Shucks! All the cops I've ever known who filed a false report against a citizen got promotions, but this one got fired? interesting

February 11, 2013 at 9:30 p.m.
GratefulDawg said...

"Ted Nugent will be in the audience for the State of Union message... --JonRoss"

But wait, if Ted is in D.C. who will play the Squanto Room at the Aces and Faces Casino and Motor Lodge in Skidmark, Oklahoma? Perhaps Teegarden and Van Winkle can fill in for him on short notice.

February 11, 2013 at 10:03 p.m.
GameOn said...

Hate Crime Atlanta ignored by the media

Police have not disclosed a motive, but during his testimony Thandiwe said the shooting may have stemmed from beliefs he held about white people as an anthropology major in college.

"I was trying to prove a point that Europeans had colonized the world, and as a result of that, we see a lot of evil today," he said. "In terms of slavery, it was something that needed to be answered for. I was trying to spread the message of making white people mend."

The night before the shooting, Thandiwe said he attended a gathering to discuss helping black people find equal footing and was upset that two white people were also there. The lingering anger caused him to bring his gun with him to work the next day, he said.

http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/crime/man-confesses-to-fatal-midtown-atlanta-shooting/nWBKF/

February 11, 2013 at 11:22 p.m.
limric said...

GameOn

I think 'hate crime' is a type of 'thought crime'. It has no place In a country that reveres free speech. The crime is the crime. What his thoughts (or anyone's) were are irrelevant.

February 12, 2013 at 6:05 a.m.
GameOn said...

I agree limric but if this had been white on black every network would be exploiting it.

February 12, 2013 at 9:13 a.m.
caddy said...

^ Reminds me when Jamie Fox held up up his "Major Award" a few weeks back and shouted, "Black People are the most talented people in the world."

White person says that, and what do you think happens ?

February 12, 2013 at 10:56 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.