“Funny how this happens with Democrat presidents.”
Ruby Ridge occurred during Bush Sr.’s term.
[-2] February 11, 2016 at 9:28am
“This demonstrates why Ted Cruz is strong enough to re-institute the Judeo/Christian principles our free, democratic society is built upon. ”
Establishment clause anyone?
[-1] February 11, 2016 at 9:26am
“Obey us ….we are the Nazi’s in power…. Suddenly a little government worker has to listen to the mob.”
The mob? You mean the courts and the law of the land? And by the way, suggesting that issuing marriage licenses to consenting adult couples is akin to giving in to Nazis is a blatant insult to those actually victimized by the Nazis.
[-4] February 11, 2016 at 8:05am
“They don’t have machine guns!”
Sure, BurntOrange was wrong there, but do you really think that this is a big issue? The occupiers have openly threatened federal officers with weapons. Doesn’t matter whether they are automatic or semiautomatic.
February 11, 2016 at 8:04am
““In fact, very patient with this whole takeover of public property”
“Hey, you can’t stay there! This belongs to everyone!””
PLEASE, please tell me that you actually understand the distinction here. I would like to think that you have basic comprehension skills to understand the difference between, say, walking on a public sidewalk, and standing on a square of sidewalk brandishing a gun and telling everyone else that they can’t walk there. PLEASE tell me that this distinction isn’t lost on you.
[-3] February 11, 2016 at 8:02am
We don’t have open borders.
 February 11, 2016 at 8:02am
Haha. More conspiracy nonsense. Clearly you folks have very little idea of how the internet works. But that’s fine. You’ll all just spout your conspiracy nonsense, and then when nothing happens as you predict, you’ll move on to other implausible and wacky theories.
 February 11, 2016 at 7:59am
“There is no such thing as federally owned “public property”. If there was, the FBI would have to move in on the oval office. The Constitution forbids federal ownership of such land.”
Oh? Where does it say that in the Constitution? Please do tell.
[-3] February 10, 2016 at 6:17pm
“The type of “love” that gays are talking about, unfortunately, is actually lust.”
Deborah, do you know any gay couples? I do. I know married gay couples who are as committed to each other as my wife and I. You are simply making things up and generalizing about things you know nothing about.
February 10, 2016 at 6:15pm
“Harry: more ignorance from you
Who are YOU to say a child cannot consent to something?
Now you start the “age of accountability” argument or when does “understanding” happen at what age, you speak for them?”
You are starting to scare me a little here… These are defined clearly through laws. They are not subjective, and no one is suggesting that we change these laws.
February 10, 2016 at 6:12pm
“I wonder how many People I met and crossed in the streets around the world came to know or suspect that I am straight. I guess no one. Because the only thing they see is another man passing- by.
Besides I never confronted anybody about it.”
What an inane comment. No doubt you have passed many, many gay people on the street, and were never the wiser.
February 10, 2016 at 6:11pm
How funny. So many of you are complaining about the gay lifestyle being thrown into your faces, and yet you are all seeking out and taking the time to read and comment on articles like this. I suspect that the so-called gay lifestyle has little if any effect on your lives otherwise.
[-2] February 10, 2016 at 6:04pm
Regardless of what any of you say that sex is “for,” I find it awfully funny that you anti-government types want the government to be able to legislate what sex is for.
[-12] February 9, 2016 at 12:01pm
White Privilege is having the nerve to claim that you are an expert in what all blacks do.
[-16] February 9, 2016 at 11:59am
So… despite centuries of legal discrimination and denial of civil rights, as well as long documented racial prejudices in the public, there are NO external forces that might make it more difficult for blacks and Hispanics to succeed?
[-20] February 9, 2016 at 11:55am
First of all, I may have missed it, but this video never claimed to depict “all of history.” Second of all, where’s your counterexample?
[-21] February 9, 2016 at 11:25am
Hate? Who is being “hated” here?
 February 5, 2016 at 9:50am
Evolution is entirely testable. It has been tested millions of times. Every time a fossil is dug up, evolution is tested. So, when you can find fossils of modern animals that can be dated to be millions of years earlier than those animals should have developed through the processes of evolution, then that is grounds for a legitimate challenge to evolution. When you dig down and find a fossil layer with trilobites and then, say, a giraffe all dated to the same era, then that is a legitimate challenge.
 February 5, 2016 at 9:41am
“By and large, evolutions act like elitists staring down their noses at uninformed peasants, and respond emotionally. Whereas creationists tend to sound more logical, patient, and non-judgmental.”
It has nothing to do with condescension. Creationists deliberately and willfully misrepresent evolutionary theory, and they deliberately and willfully misrepresent what a “theory” means in a scientific context.
How are evolutionists supposed to deal with opponents who repeatedly display their lack of understanding of the basic features of evolution?
 February 5, 2016 at 9:36am
“I personally, have never witnessed an animal ‘evolve’ or alter its genetics to suit the environment.”
I recommend that you actually read an explanation of evolutionary theory. It is astounding to me that so many of you who are so willing to reject evolution have no idea of what it actually is.