Au contraire, I'd say the far right is VERY radical. Look how loudly the crowd chanted "let him die" at the one Republican debate, look how they cheer the idea of carpet bombing. Look at the abortion clinic bombing and the bombing of the Olympic Park in Atlanta... all Christian done, in the name of Christ.

Global warming is settled in the science.

Who cares if gay marriage is a sin? You are not sin free, so who are you to judge them for their sin? Who are you to say that their sin is so horrible they don't deserve equal rights under the law when it doesn't harm anyone but themselves?

And I never specified you as a homophobe, and I don't really care about one's fears or anything else, but it is the prejudiced in your (talking the royal your, as in radical right, not you specifically) heart, to judge them as illegitimate and not deserving of being treated the way you would want to be treated, though Christ said to treat them with love and compassion. The Right turns their back on them... As they turn their back on thousands of women and children trying to escape horrible conditions where women are being raped and children being raped and forced into war and radicalization, because radical right Christians hate Muslims so much, they would rather see those women raped, than help them.

I also said you can disagree with them being gay. You can say it is a sin, but to deny them human decency because they sin differently than whatever sins you do, is not a valid reason to be cruel to them. That is when you cross the line, when you say you won't sell them a cake at their wedding for being gay, despite your own sins, when you say they shouldn't be married or adopt kids, despite your own sins... that is when you cross the line.

The Right do want to screw the poor. Half the people who work for Walmart qualify for food stamps, despite the fact Walmart makes enough to pay them all living wages and give them benefits and much more, but they are so pissed at the poor needing food stamps, they want to end that program so they can love on the rich people who own and operate Walmart more... it's a fucked up priority system, when you choose wealth and success over needy and poor. Jesus and the Bible were very clear on what side they were on, and today's radical Right ignore that and have taken on a false Reconstruction message, which has in many radical right circles been further misaligned with the prosperity gospel.

And, I will judge God for His people, when He doesn't speak to your hearts and minds and even puts an iota of human decency and concern, or conviction in your hearts, for the needy the poor, the foreigners who need our aid, for this planet and the its welfare for our future children's sake. I rather God damn me and my children to Hell, then be around the like of Republicans for all eternity, people who would rather see my children die, than have their tax dollars go to help them just because none of the jobs I am capable of getting provide sufficient health insurance.

I have NEVER seen the sort of Love that Christ preached and showed in today's far right Christians... And I speak that as a former far right Christian, and thinking I was showing the love of Christ... but step out side, and see what it looks like to the world. Be in the world but not of it. See what your witness is to a hurt and dying world and see that those on the right are the ones turning people off Christianity. There's a reason that Christianity is loosing ground, because the lack of love from those that are most loudly saying they are Christian, and saying everyone must be Christian or else...

The right is not radical. It is the left that is intolerable.

Global warming debate is not settled.
Gay marriage is a sin,
so is divorce, adultery and a lot of other stuff.

An you call me a homophobe ? really. SIN IS SIN
Each will be judged.

You argument is silly.. If I speak up about being gay I am repressing others.. When Gays demand I am to be silent I am begin repressed. The only difference is that I stand in the right.

The right does not want to screw the poor. We want all to succeed. But the poor stay poor by government policies, mostly created by the Democrats. Poor people are enslaved by these policies, that what what pisses off Republicans.


You would be wise not to cast GOD into the failings of man.. After all that is why he sent his SON.

It wasn't homophobic.

He was just making the joke that he enjoys watching two lesbians, but doesn't like watching two gay men.

That's like saying you're heterophobic if you don't like watching heterosexual porn.

I can take some pretty extreme humor, nothing on here was that offensive to me. The only strange thing in this comp to me was Bill Hicks having a fairly homophobic joke and I don't remember him thinking that way and unfortunately the joke wasn't really good either. Regardless, he's pretty much my favorite comedian ever.

@newtboy I have tried to explain that I like living at home, not in prison, so yes, in a situation in which I did not genuinely fear grave bodily harm I would try to avoid a disproportionately violent response. That's what the law requires. It would not matter whether the irritant in question were male, female, or indeterminate.

No one is ever "legally justified in killing" someone else, unless perhaps they are an executioner. Deadly force in self defense is sometimes allowed in order to stop an attack, but must cease as soon as the threat is neutralized.

Racist taunts have been alleged, so have homophobic taunts on the other side. It's hard to say if anyone is telling the truth.

No, Pat McCrory is a homophobic whinging loser who is soon to be consigned to the dustbin of history where he belongs.

Oh, I'd hug that guy. For at least 30 seconds. And then I'd start smelling his hair.

For shits and giggles. I love homophobes.

How Homophobic is this guy ?
Can't touch a plastic,headless dummy.

The reality is that sceptics today are targeting esjews for the same reason they have every other group of harmful cultists in the past. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a community of dedicated rationalists would be mystified and angered by the sudden rise of a new anti-rational movement; especially where that movement has been directly damaging to their own, see things like elevatorgate and prominent sceptics getting banned from conventions for wrongthink.

But why should the focus be suddenly so sharply on one group of irrationalists, to the apparent neglect of the others? Because esjudaism is the fresher and more exigent threat. Everyone in the current generation who's capable of correcting their ideas about religion, ghosts, scientology and psychics has basically already done so. Whereas esjews, like their frequent allies and ideological partners the islamists, seem to be gaining ground and converts every day. There's more opportunity and more need to change minds there than elsewhere.

Controversially I'm going to claim that 'youtube sceptics' spend a lot of their time on social media. Some of them make their living through social media. I think it's possible to understand why so many of them object so strongly to the tsunami of censorship that's devastating speech on those platforms in response to social justice hysteria; to suppression of the fictional and fascist concept of 'hate speech', to the false reports and takedowns of youtube videos, to twitter's Ministry of Truth and Safety, to reddit's constant ideological purges.

Now, why are so many of these anti-esjew sceptics white males? Well for one thing because most people in the english-speaking world are white, get over it and stop screeching about diversity. More substantially because most people are idiots. Let me explain. When you have a terrible ideology, obviously you look to stupid people for converts, but when you have an explicitly bigoted ideology, one that demonises certain groups of people while advancing special privileges for others, you narrow your focus even more and direct your propaganda efforts specifically at stupid people in the classes you're pretending to represent. You don't get many jewish friends of national socialism, and you don't get many white male esjews. It's not that these people are sitting on their throne of privilege chuckling down at the poor minorities struggling up to meet them. It's that they're a bunch of retards, but the wrong kind of retards to be esjews.

So opposition to esjudaism comprises: every intelligent and moral person in the world, male and female, black and white, gay and straight; a bunch of stupid straight white men; conservatives and other defectives; actual misogynists, homophobes and racists who imagine we're on their side.

TLDR: Sturgeon's Law.

First, I always point out Christianity's faults, specifically Westborough and Mormon secs...it's like you listened to me for years, then decided to belligerently use something I said over and over again against me just because it felt good? I get that you can't remember everything we talk about, but the gist should be gotten at least.

Second, just like the Bible, the book itself is homophobic. Are there fantastic Muslims? Sure. Just like I am sure there are good Scientologists, which I am sure you must defend. But their religion is against psychology medication, period. Does that mean all practice it? No? Well shit, then their doctrine gets a free pass!

I spoke only of their book--not of them. You then support that book, so not sure if that qualifies as supporting Muslims in general (Hint, since I NEVER once said anything about Muslims themselves, you didn't actually defend them. That means you supported the literal doctrine of the Koran.)

So yeah...care to explain how your Progressive beliefs jive with the Koran?

What they mean is, they want to say all the racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynist bullshit they can spew out. And still have everyone like, respect and not marginalize them afterwards.

That's a pretty big can of worms you're opening there newt.

Do you REALLY want to make it ok for people to legally discriminate for any reason?

You'd be comfortable with shops refusing services to gays or non-caucasians or atheists or insert-your-own-prejudice-here?

"Awww, but we could boycott them!"

So, a libertarian market solution then? Those don't work. Because as soon as you allow a business to be racist or homophobic or whatever, you will have racist, homophobic assholes queueing up to support them.

Sorry, but you don't get to impose your values on your customer (regardless of whether your values are good or evil). Unless what you're being asked to do is actually illegal (and that includes hate speech, so asking a baker to make a KKK cake would cover that), you suck it up and do your job.

If you want to make a political point in your business, there are other ways to do it. Source your materials through fair trade. Tell this moron Trump supporter that the profits from his t-shirt are going straight to Hillarys campaign fund.

"All you gay Muslims who will be condemned by even the moderates as sinful abominations that deserve death at least." Yes, tell it like it is Samantha...oh wait, you didn't. Sad part is Trump has supported the LBGT cause more than Hilary ever could...

Much like the homophobic Baptist preacher, but at least Christianity has come fairly reasonable (not too reasonable mind you) way towards letting individuals be individuals...even if they dislike their lifestyle.

I feel she is bad as Trump over her record. Racist? Check. Even Obama spit on her apology when she went to ask for forgiveness for her blatant racism, then exploded on him when he wasn't about to be a fool.

Chronic liar? Check. I know some embellishing is to be expected but there is a certain point when it becomes too much. Florida Governor Rick Scott is a great example of batshit crazy lying. Sarah Palin is too. Yet they never claimed to be under sniper fire, downplayed a massive federal investigation (because she tried to be shady because she is fucking stupid) and lied about their record every chance they got.

Homophobic? Of course we can't ask and won't tell...I mean if those faggots try to marry she won't support it unless it wins her an election...stupid faggots... Oh wait, definitely against LBGT. Check.

Bribed? Check...

Inciting? Check. If it serves a purpose sure.

I could go on and on. But to do so is to lessen my own validity. And if you aren't sure about those examples, don't ask me to cite them please. They are well-known and anyone not paying attention to their candidate of choice doesn't deserve a to be handed the information they should know...

Organisation name contains the word "Family"? Odds on it's a bunch of homophobic arseholes.