Neocon has come to mean “A person not on the left who I disagree with politically”.
Thus, like most invectives the definition changes based on the person using the term.
 April 9, 2015 at 10:15am
Politicians, or anyone else who happens to being steamrollered.
 April 7, 2015 at 12:06pm
Does bracket selection indicate intelligence?
If so, queue up “smartest man in the (empty) room” jokes since 6,996,358th of 11,570,000 is below average.
Explains the draw: Vote for him, you will feel good about how smart you are! (By comparison.)
 April 3, 2015 at 10:31am
Of course big business is against religious freedom for shop owners, eliminating protections for small shop owners will drive some of them out of business, which is good for big business.
Big business isn’t a conservative enterprise, it’s at best agnostic, and at worst anti-freedom.
 April 2, 2015 at 10:33am
Any one else notice how as part of any highly suspect or criminal action launched by this administration they also launch an investigation? That way they can always say “We don’t comment on ongoing investigations.”. “Oh, okay, its part of an investigation. I guess we’ll hear “why” when there is a new administration in power.”
He's a comedian, defending a fellow comedian. I'd say it's an occasion where a celebrity is actually speaking to his expertise.
I think comedians have been catching a lot of flack from the politically correct crowd. Chris Rock says he will no longer perform his act on college campuses. Evidently, Norton has been receiving the same Liberal PC rebuke-fest. Liberal College professors are even speaking out now. First they created the monster and now the monster has started attacking its masters.
Thanks for your replies, they are all good points.
 April 1, 2015 at 11:24am
So much for the liberal mantra that the heart is all that matters.
 March 31, 2015 at 12:56pm
Hey zapparules, I thought I drop you a line, how’s it going dude?
(I’d replay to your message to me, but I can’t figure out what it was supposed to say. Can you write it again with all of the words and/or as complete thoughts? All I can figure out is you want Pence to do it with Obama, which considering the topic sort of makes sense. I guess.)
 March 31, 2015 at 11:57am
I say take a page out of Obama’s playbook:
1. Blame someone else for signing this into law.
2. Demand an investigation.
3. Go golfing.
Not: Do wish the Re;publicans would become more skilled at dealing with these amoral , Far Lefties. Republicans need a Machiavellian approach to deal with the Luciferian tactics of Alinsky.
No, let's take a page out of Beck's playbook.
1. Stoke hysterical rage over an incident, showing how it will inevitably lead to the collapse of our way of life.
2. Get your loyal followers to buy subscriptions, overpriced clothing, etc.
3. Move on to the next outrageous incident that will inevitably lead to the collapse of our way of life.
It's going down, down, down, down
It's going down, down, down, down
It's going down, down, down, down
Setting it up just to knock-a knock-a knock-a it down
Down, down, down
Hey. Many of don't care HOW it come about so... If Pence wants to go to the supposed Obama
playbook.. Have at it.
First: Keep wishing
Second: Simply becoming "more skilled at dealing with" will NOT retain / bring about what one wants - what the majority are against.
Ah yes. A more 'cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous' approach is what the Republicans need. Good thinking.
Nothing like holding fast to that 'glimmering city on the hill' standard - eh?
When you think your 'opponent' cheats, well... That makes it OK for you to cheat then as well - eh?
When you're enemy tortures... That makes it acceptable for you to 'sell your soul' and torture too - eh?
Freedomof religion? No…..Freedom of speech? Yes
Freedom of religion? No…..Freedom of the press? Yes
Freedom of religion? No…..Freedom of peacable assemblee? Yes
What the hell. They are all rights in the same damn Amendment. If you deny one, then deny them all. If you demand one then you must demand them all. What a bunch of hypocrits.
drip,drip,drip.....if they give in to the riff raff, ourConstitution will be eroded by the mob ! A bunch of degenerative idiots. Let them wallow in their sloppy lives!
There is nothing anti-God about my position. I believe in God.
Hmmm... could it be that you are making crazy assumptions about things you know nothing about?
The words of a lion, and the will of a schizophrenic bipolar indecisive coward. JUST the kind of guy that pseudo-Repubican't conservatives need in their corner, when you say what you mean, but don't mean what you say...
"The Supreme Court clarifies the Free Exercise Clause as protecting religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws. This case, which also revived Thomas Jefferson's statement regarding the "wall of separation" between church and state, introduced the position that although religious exercise is generally protected under the First Amendment, this does not prevent the government from passing neutral laws that incidentally impact certain religious practices." So to summarize the Supreme Court is right as reflected in numerous decisions that reinforce the above position and you are wrong. Its freedom of religious beliefs and religious practices that do not infringe upon the rights afforded through religiously neutral laws that apply to ALL citizens.
@JRook…except….Hobby Lobby. the concept of corporate personhood is clearly established and religious freedom HAS to bs supported or their is no freedom of thought or action. It’s the FOUNDATION of those concepts. A human being can’t DO what he wants or THINK what he wants if he can’t BELIEVE what he wants. Take away our beliefs, religious or otherwise, and we truly have nothing. What we're getting to here is "It's ok for you to believe in yourself as long as it's okay with the government."
HE SURRENDERS TO THE HOMOSEXUAL CULTURE
Screw the people who voted him into office. Over half the people in America do not have any representation. Who is he to veto this Law that he already signed.
THE HOSTILITY OF TEXAS AND UTAH IS GROWING
It is time to begin thinking outside of the box.
 March 31, 2015 at 11:48am
Sounds like he’ll fit in over there nicely.
And hurray for social media, without which he wouldn’t have been able to fully express himself.
 March 30, 2015 at 3:10pm
Don’t worry Dattebayo, they lie about hating guns too. Oh wait…
 March 30, 2015 at 2:44pm
The governmental voice of tolerance has spoken…
Man this law must be expected to work really well or all of this push back wouldn’t be so strong.
 March 30, 2015 at 12:45pm
Is this one of the 57 states he didn’t have time to visit on the campaign trail in 2012?
 March 30, 2015 at 10:28am
He’s now on food stamps? HA!!! Take that America!!! (Yo “ModerateRepublican” this is an example of my tax dollars supporting something I don’t agree with, as if _anyone_ has far to look for examples.)
Hurray for social media and the idiotic behavior it encourages!
I wonder what happened to his savings. Did he use that up? If his wife is working, why are they on food stamps. Serves him right.
 March 30, 2015 at 10:08am
Re Taxes: Well I think it is safe to say that everyone who actually pays taxes has their taxes go to protecting things and people they disagree with. EVERYONE. ALL THE TIME. WITHOUT FAIL. This would be a good argument against TAXES not against this law.
Ironically on the religious hypocrisy front from what I’ve seen the hypocrisy appears to mostly be coming from the people who go looking for religious business owners to shut down, screeching about “tolerance” when they can’t tolerate those people’s religious beliefs.
So I guess hypocrisy is a two way street? Unlike tolerance?
 March 27, 2015 at 6:57pm
A scary monster at that.
[-2] March 27, 2015 at 6:46pm
Ripe, I’m not the one that has problems sleeping, you are (according to what you wrote). I was just making sure that bit of absurdity is what you actually meant to write.
Anyway I’m still waiting for an explanation of what George’s statements are supposed to mean if he doesn’t have an agenda Re:Gays. (i.e. a “Gay Agenda”)
 March 27, 2015 at 3:43pm
If that is the correct response (a capitalistic backlash), why is it necessary and desirable for “civil rights” commissions to force businesses to violate their owner’s principles and consciences in the first place? (This bill was a response to such actions)
Why not just boycott the businesses that you find objectionable instead of forcing your personal brand of morality upon them?
 March 27, 2015 at 1:29pm
Reality is what is real, and apparently to you embracing reality means living in fear. (Simply going off of what you have written here.)