Many young liberal minded people can’t tell the difference between progressive political correctness and conservatism. They think more along the lines of explicit versus non-explicit speech. You can talk explicitly about a nasty subject and still have a right wing position. But some just se the world as school marms who say “no” versus everyone else.
 May 26, 2015 at 9:54pm
This is shaping up to be the immigration election.
[-1] April 27, 2015 at 7:34pm
The man suffers from mental illness. Unfortunately, no politician will campaign saying that.
[-6] April 20, 2015 at 12:29pm
Who cares if someone is born gay? It doesn’t excuse anything. if you are an adult, you own up to having a disability and work on it. It is a behavioral dysfunction (just look at what genitals are used for) and shouldn’t be acted upon. That is hard to do and so we now pretend a disorder is a civil right so that people do not have to cope with something so difficult to deal with.
So, just exactly when was that decision to not act on that "disability" and what did that disability feel like?
[-2] November 17, 2014 at 7:37pm
I’m not against hunting as I sell hunting rifles for a living. However, I find female hunters to be gross. I’m not into that at all.
November 3, 2014 at 9:29am
Call me nuts, but I dream of a day when the whole world speaks english.
November 3, 2014 at 9:21am
Look, I’m a gun rights conservative and all but I don’t find women with a gun in their hands sexy. Its too man-ish. Not everyone gets off on that kind of stuff guys.
May 28, 2013 at 7:48pm
And yet my fellow conservatives do nothing but whine and complain about this. I don’t see them trying to get into public schools to spread their message or making in roads in the entertainment industry. They have let liberals take over churches and businesses. Liberals simply want it more than we do.
We saw it during the Presidential election. Conservatives, evangelicals, the stubborn, the arrogant, the lame, the lazy, the whiners, the chirping sectaries, the sore losers stayed home or split the vote in favor of the left's get the vote out... again... for Marxism.
It took us 100 years to get where we are and Romney I'm sure would have been at least a baby step in the right direction...
if you want to start somewhere, start with the churches. Tell me why churches do not teach the bible anymore and are mostly concerned about growing their facilities. Christians have just as high rate of divorce as non-christians
May 24, 2013 at 7:48pm
Why isn’t this a national news story? Every channel should be talking about this.
That's funny that you think those are news channels. lol.
May 20, 2013 at 5:08pm
The kid was underaged. This has nothing to do with her being gay under the law. This is something you always prosecute 100 percent of the time gay or straight.
March 15, 2013 at 10:10am
Isn’t this the guy who believes in ghosts?
March 15, 2013 at 10:04am
I’m an atheist and I sure don’t think like Dawkins does. I believe it is a human life as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg. The atheism part doesn’t matter here. Dawkins is just a monster and those come in all varieties.
Exactly, Dawkins is either mentally disturbed or just being intentionally inflammatory for attention, I suspect both...
Richard Dawkins: "Hmmmm...I'm perhaps the most famous evolutionary biologist in history. I'm a leader in the atheist movmement, I've written over 20 books, my name is on multiple research studies in peer reviewed journals.....and I'm still not relevant. I seem to be condemned to an academic backwater, speaking at Atheist symposiums in universities for like...no money.
Hey I know what i'll do! I'll attack the pro-life movement with a idiotic and classless tweet and I'll make sure the media gets ahold of it.
Now I'll be relevant again!"
So when a "fetus" is born premature and survives, that person is less human than a pig? I don't get it, Dawkins, enlighten me.
Sounds like he just supports roe v wade. he doesnt support late abortions and does support the womans choice before sentience... i hate how its "pro-choice" and "pro-life" everyone is pro-choice and pro-life, its for or against allowing abortions. both sides use word play to make their stance sound like the only logical answer
I think you're spot on, Ranger. He saw all the attention Peirs Morgan was getting with his imbecilic anti-gun rants and saw $$$$.
This is thinking of a man who doesn't believe in God thus according to the theory of evolution he evolved from apes? What else could be expected from an ape brain? Or was it a slimy thing from the sea? Probably the Thing. Get out of here with that boom boom boom and don't come back no more. That's just the thing about theories. I have a theory. Darwin was a heavy drinker.
Darkins is less human than the fetues he claims are less human than a pig. This is the kind of crap we have to deal with because the laws stops people from just beating the living sh## out of people.
In another time someone would have beat this monster until he kept his vile ideology to himself.
do aitheists believe that when a fetus is born it comes out a pig???what a maroon.well in his case he might be right.
prochoice,the right to decide either way.why do PROabortionist believe chooseing life is not prochoice"
like every where they need to CONTROL the wording.trechery,yes.
Is it fair to presume that Dawkins was using himself as a point of reference when he made this statement about a human fetus?
I felt the same way when I was Atheist as well. I'm glad to know that there are reasonable people out there.
I am religious, but I always argue abortion from a secular standpoint. It always seems to reach more people that way. Could be wrong though. We saw what happened at the DNC last year at the mere mention of putting God back in their platform. And with respect to this guy I'm replying to, an atheist without morals is not "shocking" news.
Yup! A purely EVIL little man. He's uninformed or misinformed.
UNALIEN: The popular term for what he just did and keeps doing is Trolling. It's when people say things online intentionally trying to offend and provoke an emotional response.
He's a repulsive man and not because he is an atheist. Anyone that callus about the innocent unborn is below contempt.
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
The Lord looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Do all these evildoers know nothing?
As someone who is atheist (well, more agnostic), I've never understood the "a fetus isn't not a human." Technically, it's just a developing human. It still is a human. It's genetics don't change when it's born.
It's a weak argument for abortion. And this is coming from someone who is in favor of earlier term abortion.
I think that people that are willing to make a rape victim carry their rapist's baby to term are the ones being callus.
This is proof that degrees don't prove intelligence!
I don't care if he is in Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or Agnostic... he has NO understanding of causality and obviously NO respect for human life.
It is too bad that his mother didn't abort him when he was just a collection of cells...
Then you're not an Atheist, but, a phony!!
With your thinking along with others, a sperm isn't a life until it attaches to the egg?
Is a sperm a life without an egg????
Or is an egg a life, without a sperm???
Just asking! ;)
P.S. Just remember you guys are against science you're not a biologist!!
So go to your rooms and pray!!
Look thing about it ..if he thinks he came from a pig let him believe it. He will do something stupid like eat bacon and realize he is a cannibal.
Mr Dakins is the ultimate flowery go Brit wise-assery. A thirteen year old's talent for smarmy insults doesn't constitute intellectual eminene.
I am an atheist. I am also a biology teacher. I disagree with Dawkins 100%. At the instant of conception the fertilized egg is a human because it has a full human genome. Period. Being able to feel pain is immaterial to our human identity. If we follow through with Dawkin's "logic," then he ceases to be human once he is anesthetized for a surgical procedure. Therefore, it would not be murder if the physician decided to kill him at that time.
By the way, for what is worth, as an atheist and as an American, I am keenly aware of how *important* religion (especially Christianity) is to our identity, culture (it's part of our cultural DNA), and our values. My wife is a Buddhist from Thailand. My children (ages 12 and 16) are Buddhist. (I never told my children that I am an atheist - that's a choice they can make when they grow up.) However, at our home, our family celebrates both Christmas and Easter. When we put up the Christmas tree, we also have on prominent display a most beautiful creche that is over 90 years old. During Christmas, we sing religious carols, too. Also, every year, on the last day of school prior to Christmas vacation, my high school biology class goes to administrative offices and classroom and sings Christmas songs (including religious ones! Please don't complain that I stole educational time from my students. My students are tops in the state for biology scores on the state exam.) Not all atheists are in battle against Christianity. I embrace it. T
No one who actually knows God would have an abortion. They may be a member of a religion but do not know the Spirit of Life.
I don't know if atheism or scientific learning makes him think this way, but "pig pain" (and hopefully fetus pain as well) is your main reasoning against abortion? So if an organic thing doesn't feel pain you have the right to kill it? I would think it's kinda hard to measure 'pain' in an unborn anything, so even scientifically this doesn't make sense, does it?
Edit: Either way, this guy's nuts. Just wanted to throw that in there.
February 20, 2013 at 11:16am
The problem is if the WWE would cut out all of the bigoted stuff and turn this guy into a face (good guy in wrestling jargon) Swagger would be over big with the fans. The WWE doesn’t understand that its fanbase in naturally tea party leaning. They are insulting their fans without even realizing it.
January 13, 2013 at 10:11am
Personally, I think some of these women are too athletic when it comes to their build. I like a natural skinny form that is soft to the eye.
December 20, 2012 at 9:34am
Wait………….we are quoting a CNN poll here when more credible polling groups show less dramatic numbers? Come on, guys! You can do better here.
December 13, 2012 at 10:51pm
The guys remarks are incredibly racist and Griffin was more than polite about it. Griffin doesn’t have to take that crap about his beliefs.
December 5, 2012 at 4:38pm
Guys, I got out of high in 1998 from a small rural school that graduated about 60 kids and the school system was trying to get us to not only accept homosexuality but transgenderism as well. They even brought one before us to try to indoctrinate. I’m always looking at other conservatives and saying out loud “You are just NOW catching on to this problem !??” It amazes me that my movement is always about 2 decades behind when it comes to recognizing changes in youth trends regarding social issues.
Why SHOULD we view someone as inherently less moral on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity?
In the eyes of many, if you are asserting, for no reason whatsoever, that we would consider an entire class of people intrinsically less moral on the basis of arbitrary trivial differences, then YOU are the problem not them--you are no different than the racists of the past and present, and you create all the same kinds of social problems when you fabricate moral differences that AREN'T there. If you could give ANY credible reason to think your beliefs are TRUE, the situation might be different--but as it stands, there seems to be no support offered for your assertions besides your own prejudices, preconceptions, and appeals to authority.
TTA - How you behave does affect your morality like it or not. And why should we be tolerant and accepting of everybody on this planet? It means that you have no morals if you follow the tolerance dogma.
By your dogma of tolerance, we should accept people who practice bestiality or incest or polygamy or polyandry or any other deviant behavior.
"How you behave does affect your morality like it or not. And why should we be tolerant and accepting of everybody on this planet? It means that you have no morals if you follow the tolerance dogma."
Nice--argue against something I never said. I said that there's no credible reason, or at least none have been presented, to treat homosexual or transgender (because gender roles DEFINITELY aren't a byproduct of culture and completely arbitrary...) people as intrinsically immoral. You, on the other hand, make a WILD generalization from this to ALL people--no, obviously we can't allow EVERYTHING. But there are good REASONS why SOME things should be stopped, like wanton gratuitous murder--where are those same reasons for homosexuality or transgenderism? What's inherently immoral about a man wearing a dress, or a woman working (which IS, by the way, a violation of gender roles that have existed at one point), or two people of the same sex having a consensual sexual relationship (when you wouldn't call it immoral if the same thing was going on and one of them just HAPPENED to be of a different sex)?
"By your dogma of tolerance,"
You mean, by the dogma of tolerance you've fabricated and imputed to me (we call that a strawman argument)
"we should accept people who practice bestiality"
No, non-humans cannot unequivocally consent.
If it's consensual and doesn't involve children, I see no inherent difference between incest and non-incestuous sexual relationships.
"or polygamy or polyandry"
Depends upon how you define it. But assuming we aren't talking about law, which is different than morality and has different (not wholly different, just not coextensive) considerations, there isn't really a reason it should be viewed as inherently morally different than bigamy--like bigamy, if it is at the mutual informed consent of the parties, why should it be seen as immoral? Why should it be morally different (which isn't to say you must want it yourself--just to say you need to have a good REASON to call it IMMORAL, to say it SHOULDN'T be done by anyone, not just that you WOULDN'T do it).
"or any other deviant behavior."
Well that's hopelessly vague--it would depend upon the behavior, just as in EVERY case above as I've shown. The problem of conservatives you are showing here is you want to jump to categorical absolutes, when that's completely unnecessary and unwarranted--you have a brain with the capacity to reason FOR a reason; because it is USEFUL to do so. Now USE it.
TTA - In other words, you're an idiot. Deviancy isn't subjective. Sexual deviants are mentally ill. Transgender (I don't mean someone with gender chromosome abnormalities or who's a hermaphrodite) people think that they were born the wrong gender, meaning that they're not living in reality (neither are you leftists living in reality for that matter). Homosexuals also spread around nasty STDs (why else are their percentages of STDs higher than heterosexuals if it weren't immoral?).
You're stupid tolerance and diversity crap causes societies to collapse in case you missed it.
December 3, 2012 at 10:21am
If you dont combine social issues with economic ones we lose when one is ignored. That is what is happening with gay marrigage and pot right now. Heck, we ran a progressive repub and lost on economics too. We don’t really have anyone fighting for us at the leadership level.
December 2, 2012 at 12:16pm
This is what happens when you lay off the culture wars for even one second.
December 2, 2012 at 11:41am
You can’t be a person of faith and be gay. Your going against what your religion stands for. It is kinda like saying I am a conservative but then voting for every progressive position there is. Come to think of it, alot of Republicans already do that. Nevermind, carry on! LOL