Jun 29, 2013 at 19:43:47
“The liberal dogmatism that exists in America today is worse than anything that existed in the Medieval Era. If you dare to speak out against the modern dogma of "absolute tolerance" - or just accidentally say something that is contrary to it - you will immediately be subjected to a liberal-media-inquisition.
The new inquisitions are worse than the old ones. In the past you were at least given a fair chance to defend yourself publicly. No such mercy exists today. Anyone who breaks liberal dogma will be instantly judged and condemned. You will immediately be stripped of your livelihood and humiliated in front of the whole world. You will not be physically flogged; but you will be verbally flogged for months until the Liberal Inquisitors are satisfied that you have learned your lesson.”
Bikerscorned0591 on Jun 30, 2013 at 23:05:41
“Jr73340, it's sad to say it, but you've spoken the truth about these problems in this country. Will things ever change for the better?”
Chriscynthia Phillips on Jun 30, 2013 at 15:20:20
“You're an idiot.”
Allessior on Jun 30, 2013 at 08:02:06
“Except if you are Alec Baldwin, who in the past few days went on a homophobic tirade and the media inquisition is somehow missing.”
Jerry Jer Cornett on Jun 30, 2013 at 00:15:44
“Total FAIL on your comment . The Inquisitions of the medieval era as you put it , did not give people a fair chance to defend themselves publicly . Sadly Paula represent alot of people in the united states very well . She came from a era in the south filled with hate and intolerance .It's not her fault hate and racism are taught your not born with it . I understand paula it's not her fault how she was raised and whom she was raised with ,However she in this day and age being a star of a certain stature shoudkl be able to broaden her vocabuylary and refraim from saying the N bomb . If she can not handle being in the spot light she needs a different job. I think the corporations and the american people will not tolerate our spokes people to be narrow minded racist .”
“....though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
Notice what this does not say. It does not say that she agrees with the Bush administration on those two key points. Rather, it states these two claims in her own voice and on her own authority. As the preceding paragraph of her speech said:
"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change."
Indeed, it was on the initiative of President BILL CLINTON and Vice President AL GORE, both of whom delivered extremely tough speeches warning of another round of confrontation with Saddam Hussein, that the Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act that year, making it U.S. policy to remove the Baathists from power. It was the Clinton administration that bombed Sudan, claiming that a factory outside Khartoum represented a chemical-weapons link between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden.
As Sen. Clinton reminded us in the very same speech, it was "President Clinton, with the British and others, [who] ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets" in Iraq. On its own, this is enough to make childish nonsense of her insinuation that an "obsession" with Saddam took root only after the Bush-Cheney victory in 2000.”
“YEAR OF THE RAT by Christopher Hitchens (February 12, 2007)
...On Hillary Clinton's campaign visit to New Hampshire this weekend, she was asked by an audience member to describe her 2002 vote [in favor of the Iraq war] as a mistake "right here, right now, once and for all, without nuance." Until "we hear you say that," the questioner went on, "we're not going to hear all these other great things you've said." Not for the first time, she declined to oblige. Instead, she took refuge in the softer claim that she couldn't know then what she knew now, and in the following rather bizarre view of the Bush administration's policy:
"From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I'm not a psychiatrist; I don't know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession."
If she continues in this vein, then someone is going to remind her of how truly agonizing an effort to ride two horses can be. The record is very plain and easy to look up. Here is what she said in her crucial speech of October 2002:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members.."”
“The standard treatment for pedophilia in the past (70s and
80s) was one year of psychological treatment and then return to work. Shocking,
I agree, but people in those times simply didn't understand what pedophilia
“Conservatives have been forced to act precisely because gay people are insisting on taking their homosexuality OUTSIDE the bedroom and into the streets and the Churches. If they simply did their activities in private, instead of having parades in the streets and trying to force ministers to marry them, this wouldn't be an issue at all.”
werewolf90210 on Aug 1, 2012 at 11:25:54
“You're bigotry will not put me back in the closet. Trust.”
SarcasticDragon on Jul 31, 2012 at 19:14:48
“Unfortunately, we continue to be homosexuals even when we leave the bedroom, (and I mean unfortunately for the bigots and homophobes). We are gay even when we are single, we are gay even when we were adolecent virgins, because it is not only about what you do in the bedroom. And unfortunately, we have to work, pay taxes, go on vacations, pay medical bills, support our families, we meet people from other countries, we fall in love, we die and leave wills and all of that fun stuff that regular people do. But, for us is a challenge every step of the way; for you is a freedom, a right, a law.”
robv89121 on Jul 31, 2012 at 03:01:24
“"forced" by asking for equality. Let me ask you this, on my taxes, do I get a discount for being gay? A church gets one for being a church. Odd isn't it that a non-taxpaying entity has more right than a tax paying one. Makes no sense. I can not speak for any gay person other than myself, I do NOT attend parades NOR would I get married in a christian church if it was the only building in town not on fire during my commitment day and we had no water. I have no interest whatsoever in changing the minds of ANY christian out there. You are free to feel any way you wish just like a racist is free to hate mixed marriage couples or a gym teacher can hate fat people. However, disliking, hating or disagreeing with someone does NOT give you or anyone else the right to pass laws against their equality. As stated, for me personally what a christian thinks of me is irrelevant. They are not high on my list of priorities until they are standing in the way of my rights. ”
“The kind of committed relationships that you are talking about are often mocked by gay-rights activists, especially during gay-pride parades. What they are promoting in those parades is clearly the opposite of committed, loving marriage.”
Tonelook on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:17:28
“JR73340 commented: The kind of committed relationships that you are talking about are often mocked by gay-rights activists, especially during gay-pride parades. What they are promoting in those parades is clearly the opposite of committed, loving marriage. MY COMMENT: Your eyes see only hate, I see parades where parents were marching in support, were military, police, clergy..., marched with pride, where children walked with their proud parents, where families marched together. You see what you choose to see. Often tears have swelled in my eyes from the advancements, from the love, unity and family pride that I have witnessed.”
“Comparing racial discrimination to homosexuality is illogical. Color is a characteristic, not a behavior. A behavior can be wrong or right; a characteristic cannot. For example, male babies born with two Y-chromosomes (X and Y = male, X and X= female) tend to be more violent than ordinary males. This scientific discovery does not automatically mean that violent behavior is now acceptable. Every person has a gene for color, but since it is a characteristic (not a behavior) it is morally irrelevant (or morally neutral). My point is that being born with a genetic proclivity towards a particular behavior does not in any way make it morally neutral. It does not automatically convey on it the same moral neutrality that a characteristic like color has. All men are born with a proclivity to cheat on their wives. That doesn't make the behavior of adultery acceptable.”
Contact1972 on Jul 31, 2012 at 13:28:48
“Are you saying you can choose to be gay?”
lambdin1 on Jul 31, 2012 at 11:00:05
“I guessing; but were you Home Schooled?”
Neal Washburn on Jul 31, 2012 at 10:10:03
“Way to justify your discrimination and bigotry! If someone doesn't think or act or like the same as me, it must be a choice they make and has nothing to do with the way they are wired!?! Please consider looking beyond your limitations and discrimination... because if sexual preference is a choice, when did you choose to not be gay?”
Keith Hewitt on Jul 31, 2012 at 07:56:58
“Homosexuality is a born trait, therefore it is natural. It's not hard to understand. And not all men are born with a proclivity to cheat on their wives, or even their husbands.
It's your examples that are the most telling. You compare the love of a same-gender couple to violence and adultery. The difference is that your examples are generally considered negative and harmful. This shows how you personally view homosexuals. Love between two people, regardless of gender, is neither of these things.”
“What's the difference between a baby one hour before it's born (still in the mother) and one hour after (when its out)? Why can you kill it in the first case but not in the second?”
greyskieeyes on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:29:43
“1) Abortions are not legal past the 28th week(but they are not performed past the 25th week) and a full gestation period is 40 count that FORTY weeks. You cannot legally end the life of either and not face criminal consequences... so legally speaking in terms of terminating life... neither is sanctioned or protected.”
Now Now on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:29:40
“Ok just for arguments sake, where anywhere in this country are abortions happening on babies one hour before it is born? And where... ummmm name me like any state in the U.S. where that isn't a criminal act? Let's say for arguments sake that (not knowing whether you are male or female) you are a female and are gang raped then become pregnant. The Doctor determines that you are at high risk of dying because any one of many medical conditions that put women at risk during child birth. So you might die but the government "mandates" that you must have the child. So why is your life less important? Wouldn't you be the victim of crime by the rapists and also the government? Just asking... :)”
bluestems on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:16:36
“States have outlawed late term abortions (when a fetus is likely to be viable outside the womb)”
K August on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:13:46
“huh? one hour before it's born? nobody does that.......”
cavegal on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:11:49
“An example would be Texas which has the highest rate of uninsured children in the country. Even higher than Mississippi which is considered the poorest state in the union and that is saying a lot.”
cavegal on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:10:30
“Once children are born into the lower income brackets the Republicans experience real joy in taking away any benefits that could keep them alive like food stamps and healthcare.”
“We physically punish our children when they do something wrong (aka spanking, no dinner, stay in their room). Hence, is not it somewhat silly to suggest that we have NO right to inflict ANY pain on a terrorist when was planning to kill hundreds of people?”
chocolate cherries on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:59:00
“That makes 0 sense. These are not children...they are men, for one. For another, for someone to WANT to inflict pain says more about that person than the would be terrorist. Have you ever been tortured? McCain has, so I think he is a little more informed about it.”
Joel Redman on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:51:49
“No, in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you want kangaroo courts, you can move to another country. I hear Russia is pretty good with torturing people. Maybe you'd be happier there.”
Sam1USA on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:18:12
“By your tortured logic, people should be punished before they actually do something and if it involves physical and mental violence, all the better.”
Wide Stance on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:03:24
“Thanks for that disturbing look into your mind.”
shothot on Jul 31, 2012 at 01:52:10
“How juvenile and irrational. What goes around comes around!”
“I have great remorse and sympathy for every teenager who was molested by a priest. However, the truth needs to be told and put in context. Extensive studies have been done on pedophilia and they all say the same thing. In almost all professions involving children (daycare, sports teams, schools) the number of pedophiles is about 0.1%. This proves two things. First, pedophilia has NOTHING to do with the Catholic Church or its teaching on celibacy. You are far more likely to encounter a married pedophile in a school or daycare than a celibate pedophile in a church. As one old women in my parish put it, "So, the solution to pedophilia in the Catholic Church is to let them get married and have CHILDREN???" Pedophilia is a societal problem, not a Christian problem. Most of the pedophiles in the Catholic Church (over 90%) involved the molestation of boys. Yet, nobody would suggest that this fact alone proves that all homosexuals are pedophiles. That would be a nasty stereotype. You should give Catholics (and all Christians) the same respect.”
Helgacita on Jul 7, 2012 at 02:32:12
“Dear JR.....apart from priests and those who do the lord's work molesting children and ruining their young lives, the problem within the church is THE COVER UP! Sorry, but you cannot apologize for that!”
RichardWad on Jul 7, 2012 at 01:59:49
“Since this story has nothing to do with a priest or Catholics, your rant just sounds defensive.”
“Not at all. In many ways I think women are better than men, especially when it comes to behavior. I am simply saying that men and women are not equally good at everything. Each gender has its own strengths and weaknesses, and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that. Women excel at some things, men excel at others. In many ways they are opposites. Women and men should use this truth to their advantage by trying to focus on what they are naturally good at. That is my argument. They should not try to ignore this truth because of some misguided notion of absolute equality (actually "absolute sameness") between the sexes. It's simply not true. Women and men are equal in dignity. They are not identical. As for the second part of my argument - yes, I do believe that radical feminists today are encouraging women to be ambitious and power-hungry (traits that have been traditionally associated with men). These are not good traits in males, so why try to copy them? Even worse, why try copy them at the expense of your own strengths?”
“Possibly. It's equally possible you're not getting my point or just have nothing to say. Try to be open minded and reaosnable. Bullies just want to silence people who disagree with them. If you see a genuine error in my argument point it out. How am I confused? Please tell me and I will try to explain myself better.”
Querent on Jul 6, 2012 at 23:44:12
“Are you, or are you not arguing that women are inferior to men? That seems to be the clear thesis of your first comment. Are you trying to criticize feminism on the basis that it tries to model correct behavior for women on that of male corporate officers? Either or both of those ideas are factually incorrect.”
“Equal pay is exactly what the Occupy Movement wants, and women have successfully accomplished that. But that just isn't good enough for most modern feminists. They want women to be ambitious, power-hungry and greedy. They want women to be promiscuous and insensitive. They want women to sit in bars, drink beer and get drunk. Basically, they want women to be men, and that is the one thing they can't be. Modern feminism is a modern surrender. The modern feminist has decided that men (with all their deplorable, immoral habits) were the better gender after all. Real womanhood - which involves the incredibly complex, dignified and noble task of raising children and running a household (which comes so naturally to women) - has been rejected in favor of male stupidities.”
“That wasn't what I said. I said, "why do
feminists get offended when a man dares to suggest (the obvious reality) that
men and women are different and hence contribute to the workplace in different
ways?" If a parent has one child who is good at sports and another who is
good at writing, should not the parent encourage those natural proclivities?
Does it make any sense to tell the one who is naturally good at sports to become
a writer, and the one who is naturally good at writing to go into sports? It's
not about forcing anyone to do anything; it's about common-sense. You can do anything you want.”
Querent on Jul 6, 2012 at 20:25:50
“You seem very confused. Good luck sorting it out.”
“What is really lacking in today's marriages is a genuine spirit of self-sacrifice. Real love is self-sacrifice. Commitment simply means making a choice to sacrifice (let go) of all other women except your wife (because she is special to you). That's why women cry on their wedding day. The man takes a vow that the woman he is marrying is special to him.”
“Color is a characteristic, not a behavior. A behavior can be wrong or right; a characteristic cannot. For example, male babies born with two Y-chromosomes (X and Y = male, X and X= female) tend to be more violent than ordinary males. This scientific discovery does not automatically mean that violent behavior is now acceptable. Every person has a gene for color, but since it is a characteristic (not a behavior) it is morally irrelevant (or morally neutral). My point is that being born with a genetic proclivity towards a particular behavior does not in any way make it morally neutral. It does not automatically convey on it the same moral neutrality that a characteristic like color has. All men are born with a proclivity to cheat on their wives, that doesn't make the behavior of adultery acceptable.”
lib2dbone on Jul 7, 2012 at 01:58:28
“"ALL" men are not born with any broad and sweeping 'proclivity'. You missed my point entirely. My main point, and the only point I made or addressed was that conservatives had to be fought so that blacks could vote and have the same rights as whites 50 years ago. The white 'libruhls' who stood up were castigated by conservatives. Party labels don't matter. Conservatives now turn their hate and bigotry on gays, because their insecurity, fear and inability to adjust to new situations causes frustration and anger in them.”
BlueKoi on Jul 7, 2012 at 00:27:28
“The flaw is that morality is culturally subjective, you are not born with morals. there is no "Moral Gene"
Everything is morally neutral until society places a moral value on it .
There is nothing inherently morally wrong about homosexuality , or anything morally superior about heterosexuality. As humans we do not use sexuality only to reproduce the species . And that is the biggest flaw in your argument .”
RESPONSIBIL on Jul 6, 2012 at 23:23:22
“I will support you. I support you, not for your vote but rather because you are right.
Many are born with predispositions. But a man can choose to go with it or decide to not go with it. The major difference between men and the animals and beasts of the field.
Homosexuality is chosen. It could not be otherwise.
Men choose Homosexual unions for as many different reasons as there are different personalities. However, claiming that there is no choice is basically saying you are not in control of yourself or what you do or allow to happen to your body. It is, has been for a long time and is now a great lie, the statement that they do not choose.
All men who do such things make a choice. No one can make that choice for them but they can be there to make it easier as a transition. Nevertheless, a choice has to be made and no one is responsible except for that individual.
That is truth and that is also my opinion. Homosexuality is definitely a chosen behavior.”
Stanley Bonk on Jul 6, 2012 at 17:33:39
“The flaw in your analysis (which is otherwise well-reasoned, I might add) is that behaviors are right or wrong. What's your standards for that?”
“Feminists like to encourage women to "climb the corporate ladder" of greed, corruption and power that men have (supposedly) prevented them from climbing throughout history. But are not these feminist ambitions in direct conflict with the values preached by the Occupy Movement, who want to bring down the rich, the powerful and the overly-ambitious? If men are not superior, why are feminists constantly encouraging women to emulate their bad behavior and to be more like them? If men are not superior, why are feminists outraged when a man dares to imply that women are genuinely different from men, and have something different to contribute to the workplace?”
RetiredUSAF05 on Jul 4, 2012 at 04:22:38
“A woman can do anything a man can do, and in many circumstances exceed the male counterpart.”
Querent on Jul 4, 2012 at 04:14:18
“Maybe because it's obviously up to women what they have to contribute to the workplace. Not men. I don't know any feminist who "encourag(es) women to emulate (men's) bad behavior and be more like them." That is a straw man. In fact, your whole argument is a straw man.”
Killermolls44 on Jul 4, 2012 at 03:00:43
“I guess asking for equal pay and rights is too much. Poor poor insecure man.”
“"The right brain controls the artistic abilities of a person. A person with a predominant right brain over the left brain will be more artistic, creative and spontaneous. On the other hand, a person with a more active left brain as compared to the right brain will be more logical, precise, analytical and controlled."
“If that's all it means I see little point in calling it a marriage. You can have legal contracts with complete strangers that mean nothing to you. ”
Taterhead McGobstopper on Jul 7, 2012 at 12:09:15
“What do you mean, "if that's all it means?" That's why we have a 50% divorce rate. Marriage is an extremely important legal status and few seem to understand it as such. That's why marriage equality is important. Not because of some romantic idea that will differ from one person to the next, but because we gain and lose rights and responsibilities via the LEGAL status of marriage. And btw, you can also have marriage between strangers who mean nothing to each other. It's not all that common, but certainly is possible. And it's possible because that's what marriage is ... a legal contract. Nothing more. But nothing less ...”
ima062002 on Jul 7, 2012 at 01:07:12
“But he is correct. Marriage in this country, like in most Western nations is not a matter of religion, it's a contract, granted by the state you live in and one that can only be resolved by the state. People are free to add any kind of meaning they want to it, but it's still basically a contract with legal implications.”