Stoic Patriot #racist #crackpot #moonbat hotair.com

"Naming U.S. bases after Confederates in the first place was necessarily “divisive” to black Americans"

Last I checked, they were on the winning side of the war and got freedom from slavery. Maybe they should stop being aggrieved by a name.

"a small insult among many greater ones to remind them that their feelings didn’t matter"

Which is totally not at all what tarring people who don't want to rename the forts is doing at all, right? Letting the losing side honor their dead is how you make peace. Deciding to knock that over is how you open old wounds. Duh.

Tina Korbe #fundie hotair.com

At The American, AEI resident scholar Andrew Biggs highlights an interesting study that confirms what most conservatives probably already know to be true of themselves: We understand why our liberal friends think what they think more than they understand why we think what we think.

[University of Virginia professor Jonathan] Haidt’s research asks individuals to answer questionnaires regarding their core moral beliefs—what sorts of values they consider sacred, which they would compromise on, and how much it would take to get them to make those compromises. By themselves, these exercises are interesting. (Try them online and see where you come out.)

But Haidt’s research went one step further, asking self-indentified conservatives to answer those questionnaires as if they were liberals and for liberals to do the opposite. What Haidt found is that conservatives understand liberals’ moral values better than liberals understand where conservatives are coming from. Worse yet, liberals don’t know what they don’t know; they don’t understand how limited their knowledge of conservative values is. If anyone is close-minded here it’s not conservatives.

Haidt has one theory to explain his results, while Biggs has another. Haidt says conservatives speak a broader and more encompassing language of six moral values, while liberals focus on a narrow subset of those values. Biggs says conservatives understand liberal positions because they’re inundated with them — by the media, by academia, even to a certain extent by the culture.

Haidt and Biggs both have a point. It takes just about a year of actively debating politics or witnessing the debate of politics to realize that (a) the two parties to the debate don’t speak the same language and (b) the liberal party will have few opportunities to learn the conservative’s language. It’s not only that we don’t use the same words, it’s that we also assign completely different meanings to the same words.

The president’s prattling about the Buffett Rule is a perfect example. He repeatedly uses the word “fair” when he discusses this rule that would require anyone who earns more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent in taxes. The Buffett Rule is actually officially named “The Paying a Fair Share Act.”

Conservatives have been quick to cede the word “fair” to the president. Instead of debating whether The Buffett Rule actually is fair, we’ve focused on the idea that economic growth and entitlement reform are the keys to deficit reduction. We know that our definition of “fair” is different than liberals’ definition of “fair,” so we’re never going to be able to convince liberals that the Buffett Rule actually is unfair. In a world dominated by liberal influences in the media, academy and culture, we have no choice but focus on the fact that The Buffett Rule would do very little to reduce the deficit.

If liberals understood the conservative definition of “fair,” they might better understand how it’s possible to oppose the Buffett Rule. As the debate stands at this moment, it’s conceivable that the average liberal thinks conservatives actually oppose a rule we think is fair just because we don’t think it will adequately reduce the deficit. But why would anybody oppose a fair rule? In fact, we oppose the Buffett Rule because, by our definition, it is unfair — not to mention that it does very little to reduce the deficit. (As an aside, I’ve been searching for an article in which a conservative argues explicitly that the Buffett Rule is unfair and am finding it surprisingly hard to find. Has anybody read a good one?)

The word “just” is defined as “based on right.” Our concept of what is fair starts with our concept of what is a right. Whereas progressives think that rights are given by the government, conservatives think that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Among our God-given rights is the right to keep the fruits of our labor. So far, I have never heard a good argument that we have a right or a claim to the fruits of others’ labor unless they have promised them to us for some reason. We certainly never have an intrinsic a priori claim on the fruits of someone else’s labor.

As long as he is allowed to keep what he has earned, the conservative thinks he has been treated fairly — even if others have more than he has. The liberal has a completely different definition of fairness. Liberals seem to think we have a right to the same fruits no matter what our labor.

It is true that different kinds and quantities of work yield different kinds and quantities of fruits. That is sometimes hard to take — but if, in the end, we receive the fruits we agreed to when we selected our labor, then the fruits we receive are fair. (For example, if we agree to a particular day’s wages and we receive that day’s wages, then we have been treated fairly. Nobody changed the deal to which we agreed.) In making the choice to be a secretary and not a hedge fund manager, for example, the secretary forgoes some of the fruits of the hedge fund manager — but obtains some fruits the hedge fund manager never tastes, say the fruit of more time to spend with family or the fruit of less stress. If we are not content with the fruits of our labor, perhaps we ought first to consider changing our labor, rather than demand we be given different fruits.

One last thought: Conservatives clearly have a more expansive view of what constitutes “fruits.” We do not measure success and fairness solely by money. In the example above, I recognize the worth of time off and less pressure — two intangibles. For all that liberals like to talk about conservative greed, it’s interesting that conservatives can content themselves with less money in exchange for other benefits whereas liberals seem blind to those benefits and just want the money.

Larry O' Connor #fundie hotair.com

(The article's writer mocks Ricky Jervais' reaction to Harambe's death due to him being an atheist, then proceeds to quote the Genesis on why Harambe deserved to die)

Ricky Gervais: It seems that some gorillas make better parents than some people

Ah yes. Ricky Gervais. An avowed atheist whose main goal in life seems to be to insult people of faith in such a profound way that he hopes to shame them into abandoning their beliefs. In a way, he’s an atheist evangelist. It isn’t enough for him that he has no profound belief system rooted in ethical monotheism, no, he won’t rest until you follow him into the abyss of non-belief.

So, given that background, it’s no surprise he makes the morally bankrupt comparison between a gorilla as a “parent” and a human being. Gervais is not familiar with Genesis 1:26.

In fact, the idea that man, created in God’s image, shall have dominion over the other animals, appears to be the missing moral idea that links all these rants together. And what does that tell us about the ranters?

Lanceman #fundie hotair.com

Why are liberal women always so fugly?

I’ve explained this many times.

Ugly people, deep down, and sometimes not so deep down, are angry at the world/God/nature, whatever, for making them ugly. It’s easier to place others in misery than it is to figure out how to fix themselves.

There are no ugly women, only lazy ones. It’s far easier to be a girly-boy and hang with a crowd than be a man and step out on your own.

That said, all democrats are ugly humans but not all ugly humans are democrats.

You show me an attractive democrat and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t quite swallow liberalism. Kirsten Powers, for one.

huckelberry #fundie hotair.com

GTL libs HATE anything American ,Guns, free speach, property rights and living free. real Americans are slated for destruction by the scum you would have us, “real Americans,” kow tow to. the SRM and libs don’t give a flying frig about rights,closeted or out in the right. you and me are obsolete.no terminated with extreme prejudice, whether packing in plain sight or not.they HATE us and our Americanism….. get it, period… … nothing we ,”real AMERICANS” as compared to hyphenated ,can do is ever going to assuage their HATRED,their FEAR and LOATHING except disappear. THE last person I eff with won’t have a Gun , sixshooter,pistol,side arm,revolver,HAND GUN or piece on his or her side.I’ll eff with the one who doesn’t.snark. THEY will villify …….period….

Saintolaf #fundie hotair.com

I personally know some very trust worthy people who have witnessed such a phenomenom.

There is a Greek Orthodox Priest in greece who is a fool for Christ..

He is not very educated and in fact has problems even performing the Liturgy correctly sometimes, but when he performs the Liturgy He often LEVITATES several feet above the ground!

He always gets very embarassed and apologizes when it happens.

This happens TODAY and is witnessed by thousands and thousands of people.

Many of these Orthodox Saints, after years and years spent practicing the Jesus Prayer and fasting are witnessed LEVITATING, performing Miraculous Healings and RAISING THE DEAD!

Many modern Orthodox Saints are witnessed to have performed over 200,000 miracles each!!

Are all the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of witnesses lying?

That’s a pretty arrogant and unrealistic proposition.

spacekicker #fundie hotair.com

Jesus rocks. I love my God. He’s given me strength in the toughest of times. His burden is light.

As for my atheist friends. It’s interesting that your belief in “nothing” manifests itself in the same way that anothers belief in something does, that is proselytizing it. Yet when I or other religions do it you get pissed off and say that people are pushing their religion on you, yet you are doing the same thing.

There probably is a God, so talk to him, you and the world would be better for it

And a sidenote. I know alot of Atheists and though they will protest a great deal about the next statement, I’ve always seen it to be true. I’ve never met a happy atheist. Never.
Usually it’s just cynical grumblers looking for everything wrong in well…everything.

There is a God

MikeA #fundie hotair.com

It was not my intent to insinuate anything. But one only need look at a few realities to see that there is some correlation between societies who believe in God and those who do not. Right here in America, for example, if you establish timelines for societal shifts, you can see a pattern. You can reject that the pattern means anything, but it does exist. Sometime near the middle of the 20th century, Atheist activists succeeded in beginning the removal of God and God oriented ideas from public life. That trend has grown and the vitriol and venom of Atheists against Theists caught on in the liberal political realm. If one maps those changes on a timeline and then does the same with things like drug use, child abuse, teen pregnancies, crime rates, etc., etc.; and then overlay those timelines, the picture begins to clear some. You can deny all you want that lack a lack of God in people’s lives is the cause of this, but since the facts are visible, your denial is only a belief, much as mine to the contrary. To ignore the implications of this is in and of itself a form of faith. Just a faith in something else.

RightWinged #fundie hotair.com

I learned long ago that evolution debates just go in circles and nothing ever gets solved, so I’m not going to waste any more time on it… I do however want to point out something to our conservative evolutionist friends… I’m assuming most of you recognize how completely bogus and debunked man made global warming is, yes? And setting aside the bogusness of “consensus”, the mainstream “scientific community” all sells this nonsense. The same people who sell evolution.

Now, for those of you who recognize how the “science community” has pushed and continues to push the climate change lie, don’t you think for even a second, they could be doing the same with evolution? Don’t mistake me, I’m not attempting to make a scientific argument here (as I said, that winds up being a waste of time), I’m simply raising an issue I find interesting. People recognize the dishonesty of the “scientific community” in one area, but refuse to even consider the possibility that it’s happening in another.

CyberCipher #fundie hotair.com

Maybe we should cut the atheists some slack here. After all, they have conceded that “There probably is no God.” I take this to mean that they have finally caught up with the theory of quantum mechanics formulated in the 1920s. Now that they are stating reality in terms of “probabilities”, they’re only about 85 years behind the rest of us.

As for the young lady in the interview, she was “probably” hot. Of course, THAT means that she has finite probabilities of existing simultaneously in both the “hot babe” and the “dogfaced bowser” states of existence.

At that juncture, it would seem to be a good place to ask collie if he has any comments on the “matter”.

My collie says:

You realize, of course, that if I try to investigate in order to determine the young woman’s actual state of existence, my tampering will irreversably alter the outcome.

I’m not sure AllahPundit wants to take that chance. I think he has “the hots” for her.

right4life #fundie hotair.com

you can’t give me the sequence of mutations that ‘evolved’ anything….to you even asking is ‘ridiculous’ can’t question your faith in the hairyone can we?? laughable

you’re a liar. you can’t deal with the facts, and cannot defend your hairygod darwin, so you have to lie for that racist. I’ve already proven it, you’re just too stupid to get it. no surprise, you are an atheist after all!

since you cannot give the sequence of mutations that led to humans from apes…I already have. and given the eye in a squid is very similar to a human eye…you have to believe somehow the eye evolved in very dissimilar lines, or the eye was designed…which makes more sense??? obviously design..except to the IMAMS of the hairygod darwin…

MikeA #fundie hotair.com

Directly to Allahpundit

You are not an Atheist, much as you wish to proclaim otherwise. A true Atheiest would not pursue the confirmation of others to assue him or her self his views were correct. You are a Christian who is trying like crazy to convince yourself that the sins you have committed don’t really matter. One day, and I really hope is it a long long time from now, you will come to the end of your life. Likely a Doctor will tell you that mecidal science has done all it is able to do, and that you should go home and get your affairs on order. When that time comes sir, you will almost instanty shed your Atheists cloak and you will wish you had done otherwise with your life. But I believe that you too will have an opportunity even then to make ammends; because beleive it or not, Jesus really does love you. And His promises will still aplly to you as much as they do to me. The good news of Christ is not that you can be saved because of how you lived, but in spite of it.


Seven Percent Solution #fundie hotair.com

When that terrorist in London blew up the bus in London……..

……….. I wonder who or what the wounded and dying were praying to or for?

“Please don’t help me non-god, please don’t look over my children, please don’t let me survive this, and what ever you do, please make sure this happens again, and my soul is sent to oblivion……?”

MikeA #fundie hotair.com

There’s a HUGE difference between
being RELIGIOUS and believing in God & The Word.

bridgetown on January 7, 2009 at 8:14 AM

Absolutly! Thanks for pointing that out. If one understnads that difference one sees that Atheists are becoming more religious over time.

Guardian #fundie hotair.com

Muslims love atheists for that very reason. Most Western converts to Islam were formerly atheistic. I’ve heard Imams talking about how they recruit most easily from atheists because they both agree on the first fundamental “There is no God”. But slowly the recruiter will get the atheist to add the words “but Allah”.

It’s damn near impossible to convert a true Jew or Christian to Islam. Much easier to recruit from ignorance.

right4life #fundie hotair.com

Evolution is not just a theory restricted to evolution.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM

you’re absolutely RIGHT!! its given us such wonders as eugenics, and the gas chambers…

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

and even the hairygod himself says:

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

RedSoxNation #fundie hotair.com

This guy must have missed the recent studies that show churchgoers are generally more happy and enjoying thier lives more than non-churchgoers. And they have happier marriages and better sex lives. So, I think there is a false assumption somewhere within this message.

Here’s my slogan. Believe in God and go to church; you’ll get better sex.

Now that would sell.

ThackerAgency #fundie hotair.com

That’s what it boils down to in the scientific community. They believe it is either evolution or Creation because there is no other plausible theory - when scientifically that isn’t accurate. It isn’t one or the other. It could be neither. But you can disprove one without proving the other. That’s why some idiot decided it would be as appropriate to come up with a flying spaghetti monster to mock Creationists . . . when actually they are mocking the evolutionists who created their theory exactly the same way. . . out of whole cloth.

The scientific community doesn’t recognize that as valid. So any ‘attack’ on their theory - legitimate though they may be - is dismissed as being an overly religious position.

Their need to not have a God causes their science to be flawed because they dismiss important evidence. I don’t say that to claim that science is the search for God as you claimed by quoting me. Atheists and evolutionists claim anyone disagreeing with them is ‘religious fanatic’ whether they are or not. It causes bad science.

ThackerAgency on June 18, 2008 at 1:11 AM