Ray Comfort has all the debating prowess of a half-sleeping alley-wino. "Grrrr, I'm not a monkey, Look at my eye! I found a watch in the woods, and someone must've put it there..."

When he speaks, it becomes painfully clear he doesn't fully grasp either side of the argument. He constantly references ideas and arguments on both sides of the debate that are decades old, and he somehow manages to misconstrue and mangle them none the less. Makes all humans, creationists and "evolutionists", look bad.

Why, why, why, why, why, why, why, are they ever mentioned in the same sentence?

The two concepts should be entirely removed from one another in any society that embraces personal privacy/freedom. Ugh!

To put it in NBC terms, that sounds like something Ryan from The Office would've said during his brief stint living in NYC.

Oh you silly small-towners, with your quaint hopes and dreams. How cute...

Totally agreed - who cares about Beck? But then again, that's not what I find interesting here.

What makes this "news" to me, is that Forbes would go limp and spineless as a jelly fish to avoid condemnation from the man. It's pretty pathetic, really.

You make a good point, but for a politician to cite Jesus and Ayn Rand as two major influences (as many in the GOP no doubt do) takes a certain amount of doublethink. Rand's entire philosophy is starkly opposed to concepts like "Blind Faith", sympathy for the weak, "surrendering yourself to Jesus/God", etc., etc.

It's akin to saying your greatest heroes are Ghandi and Ghengis Khan.

Harsh, but 100% correct.

That is, until we invent a more accurate, inoffensive term for "an individual who's mind/body/thoughts/labor are for sale to the highest bidder".

But then again, I don't think it'd be possible coin such a term without it being offensive.

Thank you!

There is no "War on Fox", or any such similar nonsense, and I'm tired of hearing it. The admin. just called it like it is, and apparently, that constitutes a front-page, headline-grabbing "War" these days (while actual wars are lucky to be mentioned in the last pages/minutes).

The POTUS didn't ease regulations during the 2+ decades that he was using/abusing on a daily basis.

Speaking of abusing a controlled substance daily for over TWO STRAIGHT DECADES, I suggest all posters quit asking "What's wrong with this guy?!"

I find that the answer is pretty self-explanatory, considering Beck's 20+ year quest to torch his every last brain cell.

Assuming the "climate change hype" is true, fewer people (or at least, no more pop. growth) is pretty much the only way to solve it, so essentially you're proposing putting out a fire by drowning it in gasoline.

And really, Russia? Oh course they have population problems given their economic/social/governmental instability, and the fact that a huge portion of their nation is essentially uninhabitable to human/animal/plant life. Good lord, you could not choose a weaker argument against stabilized population growth if you tried.

And no, i don't hold the view that having lots of people is necessarily a bad thing, there's just that pesky issue of world consumption approaching breaking point, and the possibility of ensuing catastrophe if we just cross our fingers and keep making more and more and more people.

Bill's certainly fighting the good fight on this particular issue, for we all know, that there is a serious shortage of human beings on the face of the earth.

Breed on, breed on, 'til every last scrap of food, land, oil, and water, is not just accounted for, but viciously, ravenously fought over.

Yeah, trying to refute/counter-point that column is pretty impossible, seeing as how it's just accusational rant, totally void of facts or examples.

I mean really, it's pretty much on-par with what I'd expect out of any uninformed, angry, amateur blogger posting on news site. But to think that a mainstream national news paper would run it...wow...Their editor must be on a bender.

...Wow, it really does feel good to call anyone that disagrees with you "America-hating Radical"...

Thanks Bill!

Seriously, if the building caught fire, or if you had a heart attack, went into diabetic shock, suffered a severe laceration, or any other similar time-sensitive medical trauma, Ikea would kill you.

There's just no way out once you've entered down that little blue labyrinthine path of shame. I would not be surprised to hear that shoppers had lost their way and starved to death within Ikea's walls, were it not for all the meatballs.

I would not want to be trapped within Ikea's confines after hours, for that I suspect, is when the Minotaur prowls.

Ask the same question, but preface it with "Are you willing to spend 5-10 trillion dollars over 10 years, and roughly 5-10 thousand American lives to invade...", and I assure you that number drops to about 3.3%.

I think in America, we've become conditioned to make the jump to "tough talk" as a first response, for fear of sounding weak, or like a "bleeding heart" or an "idealist", or a "hippy". Let's face it, in American political discourse, these labels are far "dirtier" words, than labels like "warhawk", "fearmonger", or "sociopath".

Yeah, we're kind of messed up like that...