I disagree with those who argue that evolutionary biology and the existence of God are incompatible.
I disagree with the widely held view that it is metaphysical necessity, not nomological, that matters in the mind/body problem.
I disagree with much of what Hillary Clinton's fighting for. I do disagree with her judgment in many cases.
I believe that Virtual Reality will hit it big time. I know that some of my colleagues disagree, but I believe in it.
I did disagree with Ronald Reagan very strongly on trade. I disagreed with him. We should have been much tougher on trade even then. I've been waiting for years. Nobody does it right.
Pope Francis has taught us by his example how we can witness with our lives and actions to our faith and moral principles, but still engage respectfully with those who disagree. He's urged us to find a "new balance," going beyond the few wedge issues of our politics, so we do not lose the "freshness and fragrance of the Gospel."
I think there is a big group of people out there who disagree about what is going on. They want to have their privacy back, they want to have internet freedom.
I am still a Democrat. The main reason is because I don't like the Republican stance on some social values. Not that I disagree with all of them. I just don't think they have a right to impose it upon other people. I've been public about that.
Liberals in blue states just think that when they look in the mirror and say to themselves "I'm for the environment, I'm for the children, I'm for the gay people, I'm against war," it pits automatically, and the oppressor/oppressed leftist mindset that anyone that would disagree with them isn't conservative, they're crazy. They're Nazis, they're facists, they're evil.
Liberals in blue states just think that they are on the right side of history, and anybody that disagrees with them has to be a troglodyte or a neanderthal.
Wherever you go, whether it be a college campus or the New York Times or ABC News or Venezuela or Cuba or the former Soviet Union, it's amazing how the speech codes and the trying to shut up dissent is a defining aspect of the left because they believe so firmly in their utopian ideals that anyone who would disagree with that utopia is an enemy of the state, and they treat them as such.
I think the press, by and large, is what we call "liberal". But of course what we call "liberal" means well to the right. "Liberal" means the "guardians of the gates". So the New York Times is "liberal" by, what's called, the standards of political discourse, New York Times is liberal, CBS is liberal. I don't disagree. I think they're moderately critical at the fringes. They're not totally subordinate to power, but they are very strict in how far you can go. And in fact, their liberalism serves an extremely important function in supporting power.
A lot of people disagree with me on this, I believe in mark to market.
One is to get out of our echo chambers and sort of follow up people on Twitter and Facebook who do not agree with you. Make sure that you have friends disagree with you profoundly because if you have a friend who voted for somebody else.
We have two responsibilities when it comes to an election as citizens. We have the responsibility to vote and then to honor that vote, even if we disagree with it. That doesn't mean that we blindly follow. It just means we can't afford the president to fail.
As much as I disagree with Bernie Sanders - at least Bernie Sanders was a man seemingly of principle, a man who actually believed in something, was not surrounding himself with corruption and was moving in the direction that the people are moving.
I don't think we live in a place where we don't want people to be able to say when they disagree with the president or incoming administration.
I don't think Donald Trump is the right person because I very much disagree with him.
I think we at the faculty level have to model this behavior of having people that really truly disagree with one another be able to discuss those beliefs with one another at the level of discussion and argument and not at the level of, you know, personal attack so that our students can learn how to do that, too.
If you let someone know you appreciate him or her, especially when you're going to disagree, it gets that person's defenses down.
A surprise to others, but not to me, since I've watched this closely for eight years now, is how George W. Bush has internalized the founders' belief that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with a certain inherent yearning for freedom. In turn, Bush has applied this to his vision for the Middle East, believing that a democratic transformation in that region is possible, given that inherent desire for liberty within all hearts, including the hearts of Arab Muslims. People disagree with that, which is fine, but that's the Bush vision.
I'm starting to be a lot more comfortable with allowing people to decide for themselves and almost creating a situation that forces people to decide for themselves whether they like it or don't like it or agree with the character or disagree with the character.
Whether you agree or disagree with Barack Obama, he is getting some things done, though not in the way most Americans would prefer or what is actually best for them.
Our elected politicians do what they judge is the right thing to do. And if we disagree then I'll show them the evidence of why I disagree.
You can disagree with someone on issues, but you should never get personal. Joe Biden has never gotten personal, to my knowledge, with a fellow senator.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: