Another example of right wing evil

Where did you get that idea?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, my guess is that you take it from ancient tribal myth.But if you studied some anthropology you just might learn something about how the real world actually is.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Don't get all excited.I don't consider theo-cons to be conservatives. They are statists, as long as the state enforces their beliefs. You can't be a statist and a conservative.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You want intolerance?Nobody beats the "progressives" for intolerance.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I don't watch Glenn Beck. Sorry to hear that.I believe in working for my living and paying my own way.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sorry, no.Socialist principles involve taking what I have earned--at the point of a gun--and giving it it those who have not earned it. That gets old real quick. It removes the inventive for me to work.Does the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" mean anything to you?

What in all of this gives someone the right to take at the point of a gun what someone else earns, no matter how it is earned?What I take from your post is that progressives are champions at class envy. This probably goes back to Marx.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Dr Adequate and Nuggin--You two seem to be promoting the policy that the state has the right to take anything it wants from the individual based on it's presumed "need."It is a short distance from "anything" to "everything" ala "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)." Who decides?At the point where a society ends up with more takers than makers, what is to keep the makers from leaving? And if the makers leave, who then will support the takers in the style in which they would like to become accustomed? (Recall the parable of the goose?)What we are seeing is Bread and Circuses (q.v.).The downward spiral we see promoted by many to "tax the rich" is viable only as long as we have "the rich." When you destroy "the rich" or drive them away, who then will support your failed policies?In a broader sense: Why should I work to support you?ps. John Galt was right.

Can you think of any reason why some people should pay a higher rate than others that does not involve class envy or Bread and Circuses?And do you not agree that Marx and his "From each according to his ability" nonsense is totally discredited? Or is that what you are pushing?