Calling out colleges for promoting the "me" culture to the current generation, does not make a person anti-educational, it makes the Realists!
If colleges ever dropped the liberal/progressive crap and focused on education, then you might have a point.
Universities will always skew left, because facts tend to. Plus Democrats are smarter than Republicans. That's why we earn more and have higher net worth on average, and require less government assistance. So Democrats get more professorships.
Also, you have to attend college to become a professor. So good luck with that.
Re: "The LordThyGod" (though I'm hazarding a guess that you're not a theist--correct me if I'm wrong):
"Universities will always skew left, because facts tend to."
Wow. Not... quite sure how to answer that, except two words: "wishful thinking". Who knew that differential equations, DNA assays, and Organic Chemistry "skew left"?
"Plus Democrats are smarter than Republicans."
...because you say so. Gotcha. Especially given the topic of this article, you really don't get the idea of "irony", do you?
"That’s why we earn more and have higher net worth on average, and require less government assistance."
"We", eh? No bias in your above answer, then? Mm-hmm.
"So Democrats get more professorships."
Be still, my heart! And that means... what, exactly? One of Matt's main points is that the universities have been largely conquered by liberalism... not because liberalism is somehow "more true or right" (liberals usually have little use for statements about objective reality, anyway, so they'd have no way to tell if anything is "more right", etc.), but because the idea of socially engineering "fresh, malleable young minds" is like the call of the siren to them. So... if liberals control the universities, then they'd tend to screen out non-liberals for job applicants and tenure... yes?
"Also, you have to attend college to become a professor. So good luck with that."
 November 20, 2015 at 6:42am
Not very. Carbon-14 is produced via cosmic radiation, and we now know that cosmic radiation flux is not constant over time, therefore C14 production is not constant over time, therefore, there’s no way to tell original amounts in a sample. Depending on the amount present, C14 dating may be accurate to only a few hundred years.
November 20, 2015 at 6:37am
@Romsquiz: Tu Quoque fallacy. It’s the liberal’s second favorite fallacy, next to false dichotomy.
 November 19, 2015 at 4:06pm
74% of these refugees are able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 34. They have passed through several safe countries to focus on France, Germany and Britain, and there is now a push to bring them into the U.S.
ISIS has claimed they would flood these nations with operatives, and we’ve already caught several trying to sneak in with the refugees. (I am continually surprised how we pretend ISIS doesn’t really mean it when they tell us exactly what they are planning).
I think, Matt, that a whole lot of these young men refugees are going to quickly form terrorist cells in the various nations they go to, or at the very least, begin colonizing by demanding the culture change to accommodate them.
And Matt's wrong on Tsarnaevs...their mother was very radical. And their family traveled back and forth to visit family. They found a radicalizing mosque and Imam here and the younger brother followed along when big brother got back from his jihadis camp experience. Doesn't Matt remember their mom making a big speech in Chechenov about how it was our fault for murdering her son. Palestinian style on the retread victim line. Let's be honest, why not take the persecuted Christians first? Obama just deported 27 Christian Iraqis, they aren't persecuted enough? Assimilating is far easier for them here in a predominantly Christian country. And I guess I missed the five year old little Muslim girls being beheaded and the Muslim boys crucified.
 October 15, 2015 at 6:33pm
Two men can’t get married. One, it’s a biological absurdity. Two, it’s a biblical absurdity.
Homosexual sex is a sin. Two men pretend marriage to give that sin moral legitimacy in society. The church seems focused on homosexual sin because homosexual activists are beating us over the head with their hate and vitriol demanding we grant their deviancy moral recognition.
I can guarantee you if a bunch of men and women started shouting for adultery rights, you’d be hearing a lot about the evils of adultery from the Christian community.
The bible is work of fiction.
Only whackadoodles would base their lives
on its man made rules and regulations.
The insanity. Kim Davis lived her life like a rutting sow
and poofy poof! Proclaims "God has forgiven me!"
THIS y'all actually take seriously?
This is a secular country.
Marriage is a civil contract.
YOU choose to make it a religious contract.
As do millions of others of many different faiths.
Which is a CHOICE.
So your post is both wrong and distorted.
YOUR beliefs do not even enter the picture
 October 15, 2015 at 6:29pm
Sorry, but you are not. Scripture is quite clear that homosexual behavior is a sin. So, you need to decide which god you follow: your Father in Heaven, or your sexual appetite.
 October 15, 2015 at 3:49pm
HarryPotter: The 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not cherry pick scripture.
 October 14, 2015 at 8:12pm
dvlman, did you actually read the verses you quoted? Because it DOESN’T say:
I was an hungered and you taxed your neighbor…
I was thirsty, and you taxed the rich publican…
I was naked and you taxed the blacksmith…
 October 14, 2015 at 2:14pm
Sadly, conservatives also fall for this trap, thinking that if we just get the right person running things, all the problems will go away. The reality is, this needs to get fixed from the bottom up. We have to shift the culture back, and I don’t see that happening.
Watch out, you are sounding an awful lot like self proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.
Yep. The best way is to start fixing these laws ourselves and not rely and obey one politican. Constitutionalists support that idea overall, unlike their conservative counterparts who demand america to be a christian only nation, fall trap to becoming racists, anfselling their souls to corps. We are looking at you and your followers, glenn.
 October 14, 2015 at 2:10pm
The irony is everything you just cited has happened by direct action of Obama, yet you don’t blame him for it.
 October 14, 2015 at 2:06pm
If you think Jesus was the original socialist, I direct you to the Parable of the Laborers (Matthew 20). Specifically verses 13-15:
But he answered one of them, “I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. DON’T I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY OWN MONEY? Or are you envious because I am generous?”
 September 22, 2015 at 5:05pm
Unnecessary. If I made abortion illegal, removed government interference in health care and health insurance, reduced taxation and job killing regulation and socialism, and promoted marriage and family, new mothers would have access to health care, a livable income, food, shelter, and all the other things you think are only possible with a government program.
That doesn't answer my question. This is a question that has 2 possible answers: yes, I would be willing to do that; or no, I would not. Simple.
Great answer frgough
false dichotomy, seriously
7truth, this is not a false dichotomy. This is negotiation. You want abortion banned, but you don't seem to be willing to give anything up to do so. You seem to think calling people sinners, evil, whatever will change their minds. Or showing atrocious acts which are so extreme, you lose viewership because of the graphic content. You all seem to think that yelling the same thing over and over again will change people minds. It won't. You're not providing any alternatives and you're not willing to go to the negotiation table.
While my point is a hypothetical, it illustrates your positions problem: you want your cake and to eat it too. If you're serious about ending abortion, you'll start providing real negotiations. Until then, you'll frequent this blog, talk with your friends, and be "disgusted" with society. You will do this, even though you could be working towards a real solution.
You present a false dichotomy. There are other choices. I do not need to shout, or convince. Neither is required. There is no justification for intentionally killing an unborn innocent, defenseless, unique, individual human being. Even removing all assistance for mothers and children could not be used to justify killing children.
This is not a negotiable position
Then, 7truth, you stand no chance on ending abortion. If you're not willing to come to the negotiation table and work something out, you'll never, ever end abortion. It doesn't have to be my plan, although I'd like for people to debate that part as it's a viable option, but you will need to be willing to negotiate. Otherwise you're just serious about being mad about abortion, not about actually ending it.
ending abortion is not my job. i just present arguments about why is a horrible and evil practice, which victimizes moms and kills babies in the most horrible ways imaginable. It will end one day. Someone way stronger will handle that.
There is no negotiable position, wherein abortion can be acceptable as an option. There is no "if you will compromise this, we will stop this." Abortion is an evil. We either have the courage to end it, or we don't
7truth, OK, you clearly have not been reading what I'm saying. I am saying abortion would be ended with an agreement that most "pro-life" people are generally against. As I've stated, negotiations are going to need to happen otherwise you will not get what you're pushing for.
Also, if this isn't your job, why do you care so much?
Again, your dichotomy is false. The position you present is not the only one, and most certainly not the best.
You ask for compromise when there can be none. it is not justifiable to say " if you guys can't agree to this, then we will keep abortion." If our culture does not have the decency to simply say "abortion kills innocent human beings" and stop it, then some hypothetical compromise that actually surrenders more of what makes us great and good is meaningless.
Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent, defenseless, unique, individual human being. It cannot be justified.
Failure to provide for the mother does not justify killing the baby.
Never handing another piece of birth control does not justify killing the innocent in the womb.
Not having any healthcare whatsoever is not justification for killing the innocent.
So your hypothetical compromise is moot, because of what the unborn are, and what abortion is. We either have the decency and courage as a culture to end it, or we do not.
ABortion kills babies. it harms women in very real ways. It harms fathers. it cheapens and demeans life. It lessens the humanity of us all by devaluing life, and removing personal responsibility, and....by not valuing the most innocent the right to live.
That is why I care. that is why I do what I can (which is far more than I am willing to discuss here, for the record.)
OK, 7Truth, you are just dumb. I am not justifying abortion. You're reading what you want.
I have given a plan to end abortion. You are saying, "We won't accept your offer to end abortion! We must end abortion at all costs, so we can't accept your offer to end it!"
That is what you're saying. You say we must end it all costs, but you won't go to the negotiating table. If you were serious about ending it, you'd be willing to negotiate a compromise that ends abortion and gives liberals something they want. However, you appear to be too dense to realize your own words. You sort of know what false dichotomy means, but you don't seem to understand "at any cost". Any cost, once again, means negotiation.
never said you justify abortion. Said that it cannot be justified. Said the compromise positions you presented were not the only ones, and not the best. Said that any compromise position that depends on yielding other things that make us great and good is not good. Said that the whole discussion is moot, given what the unborn are and abortion is. Standing by that.
Will present a better idea. Stop promoting sex to kids in every part of culture. Stop lying to them about abortion, and about the risks of sex. Stop lying about safe sex. Stop mocking abstinence and personal responsibility. Begin promoting abstinence, and its values, accross culture. In all media show it for what it is. It works 100% of the time, for eveyrone who uses it. It costs nothing. It has no side effects. It has no short or long term negative impact. It promotes self control, self respect, self sacrifice,elevating the person, and the other. It promotes all the best character qualities we would aspire to, and have our kids aspire to have.
Liberals will never compromise on abortion, or any other thing they want. Compromise is always giving them what they want.
My word, abortion kills innocent babies in the womb! it harms women. Why do we need a compromise of any kind? End it! It has no place in any civilized society. End it before it degrades humanity, and our culture, any further
Serisouly - Nice try, but your question choice is wrong because your premise is wrong! Your 2 options are NOT the only options available. Frgough correctly identified other viable choices that you completely ignored. And besides, if you defund PP & decide to send those funds to another abortion clinic, we would be funding the same horrible practices we have seen PP doing. If you watch those videos, read the titles of the executives being interviewed. Some of them are the heads of the abortion-providing community at large, not simply PP. Frgough and Matt Walsh are both correct. Incidentally, are you still under the mistaken belief that Planned Parenthood clinics provide mammograms and prostate checks, etc? You would be wrong. They all REFER those requests out. Getting a license to perform mammography is a very serious, complicated, & expensive process and requires a specially trained technician as well as a radiologist trained specifically to read mammograms. Their personnel must notify patients of results using a very strict protocol. If a single step of the mammogram is done sloppily, it could result in misdiagnosis and death -- which ironically is the GOAL of an abortion clinic. Ask Hillary, Chelsea, Elizabeth Warren & Nancy Pelosi where they get their mammograms (or Bill Clinton his prostate checks....) and I can assure you that it is not at a Planned Parent clinic! There is not a single PP clinic licensed for mammograms in the USA.
 July 3, 2015 at 1:30pm
Suggest you go back and read a book on basic human biology, focusing on the chapter on sexual reproduction. Because then you won’t sound like such a fool when you go around denying basic biological science.
 July 3, 2015 at 1:29pm
Actually, the sin you are illustrating right now is bearing false witness. Because your accusations are just that. A false witness.
Archeology is most definitely a very soft science. For the simple reason it’s almost impossible to do any sort of laboratory experimentation to independently verify your claims.
When you assemble bones and then take a vote to see if you did it right, you barely qualify as scientific.
 June 9, 2015 at 10:52pm
Except, apparently, the lifetime of soft tissue.
 June 9, 2015 at 10:51pm
No, the evidence suggests that our dating techniques are horribly inaccurate and the bone is not 75 million years old.
Real scientists aren’t afraid to go where the evidence leads. If chemistry tells us soft tissue can’t survive for 75 million years, and we find soft tissue in a bone dated to 75 million years, then the only conclusion you can reach is that the bone is either contaminated or is not 75 million years old. There are no other options.
June 9, 2015 at 10:48pm
Or more likely, TheMotWay, our dating techniques are horribly inaccurate and the bones are not 75 million years old, but instead a few thousand.
But nobody wants to follow the evidence precisely because that would be the conclusion.
 June 9, 2015 at 10:46pm
Laws of chemistry. That’s why not. If these folks were the least bit scientific, they would be jumping up and down in excitement because finding the soft tissue means their dating techniques are completely wrong and everything they thought they knew needs to be completely re-examined. True scientists would be unable to contain their excitement at the possibility of overturning and entire paradigm.
 June 9, 2015 at 10:41pm
While you are proudly touting your moral scientific superiority, you might want to take time to consider the chemical impossibility of any sort of soft tissue surviving for 75 million years.
Finding any type of soft tissue, in a truly scientific discipline, would be incredibly exciting, on the order of discovering red shift being caused by something other than expansion of the universe, because it would overturn an entire accepted understanding of how we thought things were.
True scientists find that exciting.
In simpler terms: soft tissue in dinosaur fossils is smoking gun evidence that the fossil is not 75 million years old, or even a million years old, or even 100,000 years old. In fact, it would be a stretch to consider it 10,000 years old.
'In simpler terms: soft tissue in dinosaur fossils is smoking gun evidence that the fossil is not 75 million years old, or even a million years old, or even 100,000 years old. In fact, it would be a stretch to consider it 10,000 years old.'
But, the dates test at 75M years and '..we have discovered structures reminiscent of blood cells and collagen fibers in scrappy, poorly preserved fossils'. So, yes, how did this happen?!? Yet something else to investigate! I posted above a response with a good vid at least explaining some of the dating methods. I hope you'll give it a listen so you will at least know what Science does have to say on the subject.
The scientists pretty clearly state that remnants of soft tissue are known to survive occasionally in ancient fossils, and these are indeed small remnants.
If you really want to go with numbers, Yuka the wooly mammoth is 39,000 years old and has quite a bit of soft tissue still intact!
Science cannot date anything with accuracy according to the methods it uses. All of them use multiple untestable, unproven, and often factually incorrect assumptions to arrive at a date. Science can, with great precision measure and count isotopes, but it cannot say anything about history because no one can go back and take initial measurements. Evolutionary scientists make assumptions based on the evolutionary timeline in order to prove the evolutionary timeline...it's textbook circular reasoning.