Andrew Lohr tutor Chattanooga = last post in Feb archives. This is Feb/Mar ’13 logbait.

by andrewlohr

To Bennett cartoon 1 Mar:

Bigotry exists (repent!), but when the kind of criticism Clay peddles is directed at President Obama, it cannot be bigotry, can it? If it were, he’d a hypocrite for peddling that kind of thing himself.

When our President is criticized for reasons of policy–deficit, joblessness, broken promises, going from bad to worse–that’s not bigotry. When he’s criticized by people darker than he, such as Alan Keyes or Herman Cain, or by white boys who’ve voted for Keyes and the like, that’s not bigotry. When he’s called “unpatriotic,” that can’t be bigotry, for he used that term of President Bush’s deficits, and Senator Obama wasn’t a bigot, was he?

He was relected by about 20% of the US people, not “a majority.”

Ike, TR, and Lincoln were left of Pres Obama?

To TFP (Bennett cartoon) 27 February, before editing to get it under 3000 characters:

Beats bathhouses…but when it burns, they’ll be in trouble…

Creation: Adam and Eve. (Evolution: Adam and Eve, or no kids until artificial wombs and/or virgin conceptions come on line. Artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood still require the cooperation of both sexes, albeit not in bed: Adam + Eve. Evolution shows “gay” behavior? It also shows cannibalistic behavior and parasitic behavior. “Gay” is genetic? A strongly genetic gay wouldn’t breed, so there’s an element of choice, however hard a sexual habit may be to break. And hard to break completely doesn’t mean impossible to bend or to try to break. Smoking may be hard to break, but wouldn’t you advise a smoker to keep trying?)

I’ve posted before here that there’s something to be said for allowing Registered Significant Others (RSOs) for hospital visits, prearranging for peaceful distribution of stuff in case of a breakup, and so on. But “gay” behavior is a grouping, and if “liberty” and “justice” call for tolerating such grouping, what about at least equal liberty and justice for non-“gay” groupings? It’s one thing to stop sending the cops after “gays.” The police may well have better things to do than hunt for “gays.” It’s another thing to send the cops after people who idolize evolution as described above, or who believe what the Bible, the Church throughout history, and the God-fearing sections of the Church today say to “gays,” namely “Repent and be saved! (Same as any other sinners, which is all of us except Jesus Christ.)” If a somewhat Christian outfit doesn’t want to hire “gays” or do business with them, let it keep up its standards. Liberty! Justice! I practice monogamy (thanks, Wendy); why should I subsidize insurance for people who do riskier things? (RSOs might reduce promiscuous “gay” sex, maybe.)

In I Corinthians 5:9-13 Paul tells us Christians not to worry about the fornicators of the world. outside the Church (he knew sex is very popular), “But…not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer [nasty bigmouth] or a drunkard or an extortioner; with such a one, no not to eat.” If someone calls themselves a Christian and is doing these things, Christians must not eat with them. Got that? (I hope I have now, though I don’t follow people around to make sure.) “For what have I now to do also with them that are outside [outside the church]? Do you not judge those that are inside? But those that are outside God judges.” So throw the fornicator out of the Church [until he repents. The particular man Paul was writing to the Corinthians about did repent, according to II Corinthians, and was to be let back in.]

So I don’t see that Christians have to avoid “gays” outside the Church (I used to work for one, and was once sent out to wait on a “gay” couple by good ole’ boys who preferred to laugh in a back room), but we do need strong standards inside as against other sins (“Be ye holy for I am Holy”–God). Repent [change] and be saved!

Going through old emails, I found this. Still relevant (In fact, I think I’ll post it separetely as well.)
—–Original Message—–
From: Andrew Lohr []
Sent: Sun 4/10/2011 11:03 PM
To: Letters to the Editors
Subject: evolution controversy

Evolution is the theory that it’s OK to eat evolutionists, so the 17 UTC
faculty who signed a letter (Times April 8) saying “biological evolution is not
controversial in any sense within the scientific community” have no grounds in
evolution to complain if creationists eat them or collect taxes from them.  Of
course they don’t want to be eaten, but nature red in tooth and claw won’t
defend them.  They need love:  “God shows His love for us in that while we were
yet sinners the Anointed King died for us” (Romans 5:8).  They need faithful,
Trinitarian love:  “The Father loves the Son.”  They need “Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you.”

The 17 in 500-odd words neither argued for evolution nor said where such
argument can be found.  Evolutionists need to show that breeding has no limits;
but  breeding horses with donkeys produces sterile mules.  Breeding does have
limits:  this is an observed fact, not a theory.  Evolutionists need to produce
actual living things from nonliving chemicals.  Evolutionists need to show that
nothing can produce something, or to combine eternal matter with the big bang,
and/or to combine eternal matter with the tendency of things to get messy like
my socks  rather than organize themselves.

Why no controversy?  Because evolutionists suppress dissent and doubt,  as Ben
Stein’s movie “Expelled” showed–showed as an observed fact, not  just a
theory.  Marxism wasn’t controversial in the USSR.    Evolutionists debating
creationists sometimes lost.   Some creationists have solid scientific
credentials, and an old survey  found the average rank-and-file creationist knew
more details about  evolutionary theory than the average evolutionist.

Free speech,  please.

To YFP Bennett 26 Feb:

US taxpayers already get hit as hard for health as foreign taxpayers, so why aren’t we already getting what they get? Because our government is wasting health dollars. So why should we trust our government with more health dollars and more control?

Instead, increase supply so costs go down. Increase the supply of medical personnel by letting nurses, pharmacists, etc write prescriptions, not just doctors. (Stop using laws to make favored groups rich; legalize competition.) Increase the supply of drugs by making approval easier. Increase the supply of insurance by making it easier to compete with existing companies. (Stop crony capitalism; legalize competition.)

Reduce the demand for medical services by making people pay out of their own pockets for at least some part of services. Encourage high-deductible catastrophe-only coverage, and medical savings accounts whereby we can keep what we don’t spend. Let insurers set rates according to what they think risks are, so people who make wise lifestyle choices aren’t forced to subsidize people who make foolish ones.

O’Romneycare claims to increase demand (cover everyone) while reducing supply (paying doctors less) without ‘death panels’? Why not repeal the law of gravity along with the law of supply and demand?

To TFP Bennett 21 Feb:

Relabel the cup “Liberalism.” As often, the drawing fails to speak for itself.

Liberalism has promised more than it can afford to pay for, and hallucinates that this is no problem. The Tea Party sees a problem, and sees that a government that stayed within its Constitutional functions would not have this problem. (It might have different ones.)

Our current President defends the problem against solution, with RINO help. Ron Paul would solve the problem (and bring on others). Even Paul Ryan was willing to work on it. Saint Paul would make Ron Paul look liberal: government should protect the peace of doers of good (I Tim 2:1-7) by terrorizing evildoers (Romans 13); that’s basically it.

And I see he hasn’t even tried to mention any particular problem.