NCclimber

I notice no one commented on your link. For those who didn't check it out, the most charitable states are overwhelmingly "red states". Guess who was at the bottom of the list?

Ok. Back it up. http://neuropolitics.org/Right-and-Left-Brain-Hemispheric-Asymmetries-Part-2.htm Section one, paragraph six, male conservatives only see the world in Good and Evil. This is counted as more rational behaviour than the ability to see shades of grey. Section one, paragraph eleven, female and male conservatives are far more likely to be scarily religious. Questions 8 and 28 to me show a bizarre contradiction in the responses. Also, note that the study is designed to highlight gender differences, rather than across the board political differences. WOW How intellectually dishonest. And you still haven't explained how the marriage amendment was close to passing. How about it?

From what I've read in this thread, many people question the validity of its assumptions.

the irony. Beat me to it. Blues, Dave Wouldn't it be fun to see which group uses more unkind political labels in SC.

Ok. Back it up. http://neuropolitics.org/Right-and-Left-Brain-Hemispheric-Asymmetries-Part-2.htm Now. How about explaining how the Marriage Amendment was close to passing.

How does this support your claim that Einstein discover that Newton's Laws were a "fraud"? Was Newton deliberately incorrect?

Considering the socialist leaning of the typical American liberal have to do with feeding at the public trough, which is primarily funded by the upper income earners AND NOT with contributing to the overall welfare of society, I'd say implementing a national compulsory service requirement is practically impossible. We're talking about telling 18 years olds to give up two years of their lives. Can you imagine the civil rights issues that would ensue? Case in point, compulsory service IS rejected by the conservatives for teh use of their privs. Thank you for doing so. What are you talking about? What are you talking about? If it is a law or added to teh Const, who cares? If it is the law then they can cry all they want. I think we all see a trend here of which side is really the patriotic one. What are you talking about? I don't think I make any claims regarding the Conservatives take on this. You seemed to infer a lot. I really don't see any reason to defend positions you made up for me. Give a response other than, What are you talking about? And I'll respond. How did you conclude that I made any claims about the POV of Conservatives in the posts above?

I'm not sure how this answers my question. Are you saying fraud is synonymous with being incorrect?

Considering the socialist leaning of the typical American liberal have to do with feeding at the public trough, which is primarily funded by the upper income earners AND NOT with contributing to the overall welfare of society, I'd say implementing a national compulsory service requirement is practically impossible. We're talking about telling 18 years olds to give up two years of their lives. Can you imagine the civil rights issues that would ensue? Case in point, compulsory service IS rejected by the conservatives for teh use of their privs. Thank you for doing so. What are you talking about? What are you talking about? If it is a law or added to teh Const, who cares? If it is the law then they can cry all they want. I think we all see a trend here of which side is really the patriotic one. What are you talking about? I don't think I make any claims regarding the Conservatives take on this. You seemed to infer a lot. I really don't see any reason to defend positions you made up for me.

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment was close to passing? No kidding. I thought it got smacked down hard. Please, tell me why you it was close to passing.

More people die from skin cancer (where there's a much more measurable cause and effect) every year than the subjectively estimated number of ETS lung cancer deaths each year. Whatever should be do? Require everyone to cover up? Do you favor the banning of trans fats? How about installing breathalizers in all cars? Banning dodgeball? How about trampolines? Make them illegal? The point I'm trying to make is any health benefit of this ban is probably so small it wouldn't be measurable. Meanwhile, 25 percent of the population is being told by the government that something they do, that is very much a part of their day to day life, is now illegal... banned... VERBOTEN!!!

Considering the socialist leaning of the typical American liberal have to do with feeding at the public trough, which is primarily funded by the upper income earners AND NOT with contributing to the overall welfare of society, I'd say implementing a national compulsory service requirement is practically impossible. We're talking about telling 18 years olds to give up two years of their lives. Can you imagine the civil rights issues that would ensue?

What seems to missing from this discussion is any evidence of that secondhand smoke in an enclosed space has any effect on people outside of thar space. Over the years I've lived in at least 10 multi-unit buildings. I don't recall a single place where I smelled smoke (tobacco or other) or food aromas, while my doors and windows were closed. The only time I recall smelling others' cigarette smoke was when an adjacent neighbors were smoking on their deck and the door to my deck was open. Was it a petty nuisance? Yes. A health risk? I laugh at such an assumption.

Is this like claiming something is "fake but accurate". I guess this only works if future evidence proves the intial claims to be correct. Going back to one of your previous posts - how did Einstein discover that Newton's Laws were "a fraud"? Do you see a difference between theories or claims being flawed versus being fraudulent? Leakey's conjectures were not fraudulent, and they were confirmed by later discoveries. I thought the point wasn't about Leakey's conjectures, but rather the conjectures of other's about the significance of the find.

Is this like claiming something is "fake but accurate". I guess this only works if future evidence proves the intial claims to be correct. Going back to one of your previous posts - how did Einstein discover that Newton's Laws were "a fraud"? Do you see a difference between theories or claims being flawed versus being fraudulent?

It sounds more dramatic. Especially when it's used in a dishonest fashion. I'd probably ask you to back it up. What I wouldn't do is come back with lame ass counterpoints, like the ones I've read here. I've shown that there are libs who act with logic and cons who act with emotion. They are always exceptions, especially when you cherry pick.

Perhaps we should appy the standard to automobile exhaust. If you open your window and traces of CO2 waft in, then by jolly someone should pay. Fair is fair.

I made no accusation. I merely offered a premise. I'm a bit unclear if you understand the meaning of accuse. Throughout this exchange, you've compared the rightwing extremist POV to the leftwing moderate POV. To me that seems like a dishonest comparison or an illogical one? I'm not sure which. What do you think?

Then you have never read a thread on this forum about gay marriage. The number two opposition (behind biblical reasons) for non-legalisation of gay marriage is the idea that it will make the respondant feel differently about the worth of his own marriage. So, what you're saying a people who take issue with dramatically changing the historical definition (and institution) of marriage are really saying "These two guys can't marry! I'd never be able to look at my wife in the same way again"? WOW. Talk about distorting one's position. Are you familiar with the concept of critical thinking? Nope again, as the rhetoric goes the legalisation of pot for medicinal use will of course lead to a push for full legalisation, then your child will be lead on from marijuana to heroin! Whats that, we use a stronger version of heroin in hospitals already? Alcohol is more dangerous than pot anyway? Damn liberal lies! Again, it's about critical thinking. You sound off in a rather dramatic fashion (kind of a leftwing version of Rush Limbaugh) and then try to take the logic high ground? How ironic? Back to the thread topic - do you think the girl in the OP is representative of conservatives in general or more of a fringe zealot?

Yep.. when the money goes to facilities so your church is bigger and more ostentatious than the other churches in town.... and your pastor has a lifestyle that he had only hoped for when he started... the big houses.. the airplanes.. the cars....hell that is what our pastor did... Got any actual facts to support your claims or is this just fabricated blather? I'm really interest in hearing about your pator taking church funds to buy airplanes.

If you want to start other threads about these topics, I'll chime in, but your comparative viewpoints above were pretty ridiculous. The con view on gay marriage was one I've never heard of. You talk about medical benefits of pot versus opposition to complete legalization. This comparing the reasonable aspects of your POV versus the extremist, unreasonable (read - fringe element) side of the other side is lame.

Thanks for such a fair-minded portrayal of conservative views. Your open honesty is so refreshing.

I remember when John Stossel was the darling of the Left, until he started questioning their sacred cows. Then he "Became The Scourge of The Liberal Media". And for everyone wants to disqualify religous donations - do a little research... find out how much of those donations go towards running the church and how much goes towards charitable efforts. You might be surprised.

Seems like a combination of the two would be the best policy. This seems to be in contrast to the premise that liberals are emotional and conservatives are logical.

He's a "very conservative religious activist"? Are you just making this stuff up, today?