Brain differences - Liberal vs Conservative

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

US political mud-slinging is amateur hour in comparison.

this is a bad thing?

Not at all. I'm just questioning the piety of Brits. who post about rancorous political divisions.

[Corpse]

One doesn't consider it unreasonable to dispute the claim that Sawyer saw the political disparates in America as anything approaching rancorous.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Just for you Corpse. A friend of mine's son is the author of this video and his band did the overdub.

[-)G(-Sawyer]

To be honest I think the ops reason for this post was to get an agurment going and I felt like adding some fire which worked nicely. I must say that when I refured to a divide I was talking about the UK people not the Government. As a majority there is a much less divide in this country, sure we have different viewpoints but more importantly we don't have a large part of the population interested or concerned with guns, Jesus, church, blacks or sodomy. We did have some but they left and headed west.

[burzerker]

Ahh Matt, you have had too much of the kool-aid
global warming is a toatl farce, the data used to support it is carefully chosen after weeding out all of the data that disproves it, there has been plenty of warming in the past looong before mankind had such evil things that use fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a GOOD thing, it make plants grow, there is now more plantlife in the sahara desert than there has been in ages, sounds like a good thing to me.
Second hand smoke?? Really?? I can see if you were confined in a small space with tons of smoke like a bar 7 days a week that may affect you a little, but the average person isn't. I don't smoke, I find the smell unpleasant but I know that it isn't hurting me any more than cooking with oil over a stove. And the liberals are getting outrageous with it, in some cities you can't smoke outside!! How can that be any worse than a car driving by (although I'm sure you and the Left would love to ban cars too)
Obesity is a problem but you can't really believe that the government should be deciding on what we shoudl be feeding ourselves and our children. Pretty soon it's going to be just organic sticks and twigs for us all (and don't get me started on the organic BS, what a lie that is)
You totally proved my point though about the fears that the left has, so thanks. All I want is the government to leave me the hell alone and stop removing my freedoms. I don't want to live in a damn cave with no electricity, no car, and eating grass.

[Matt-Chicago]

Ahh Matt, you have had too much of the kool-aid
global warming is a toatl farce, the data used to support it is carefully chosen after weeding out all of the data that disproves it, there has been plenty of warming in the past looong before mankind had such evil things that use fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a GOOD thing, it make plants grow, there is now more plantlife in the sahara desert than there has been in ages, sounds like a good thing to me.
Second hand smoke?? Really?? I can see if you were confined in a small space with tons of smoke like a bar 7 days a week that may affect you a little, but the average person isn't. I don't smoke, I find the smell unpleasant but I know that it isn't hurting me any more than cooking with oil over a stove. And the liberals are getting outrageous with it, in some cities you can't smoke outside!! How can that be any worse than a car driving by (although I'm sure you and the Left would love to ban cars too)
Obesity is a problem but you can't really believe that the government should be deciding on what we shoudl be feeding ourselves and our children. Pretty soon it's going to be just organic sticks and twigs for us all (and don't get me started on the organic BS, what a lie that is)
You totally proved my point though about the fears that the left has, so thanks. All I want is the government to leave me the hell alone and stop removing my freedoms. I don't want to live in a damn cave with no electricity, no car, and eating grass.

It is always interesting to me how intelligent people can hold such outlandish views. Good for a laugh though Burzerker, I needed it tonight! :)

To be honest I think the ops reason for this post was to get an agurment going and I felt like adding some fire which worked nicely. I must say that when I refured to a divide I was talking about the UK people not the Government. As a majority there is a much less divide in this country, sure we have different viewpoints but more importantly we don't have a large part of the population interested or concerned with guns, Jesus, church, blacks or sodomy. We did have some but they left and headed west.

[mrjamwin]

Matt, I'm going to direct this question to you since of the above statement you made above about outlandish views. Just so you know where I sit I'm in the same boat as Burzerker. I personally believe that the fear of global warming and second hand smoke are soley designed to oppress a certain group of people and is motivated by greed and the desire for money. Hmmm also sounds like another discussion we were just having. Anyway, why is then you or anyone that believes in the global warming myth/second hand smoke issue choose to believe the science that global warming exists/effects of second hand smoke even though there is good science showing that global warming etc. is not as real as the people on the left make it out to believe. I'll put it another way why is you choose to believe that everthing is bad? It's funny that )G( sawyer said that conversatives were motivated by fear, but everything that I see coming from the left/liberals is about fear. Here are some examples, global warming, second hand smoke which we're addressing, salt(NY city is trying to ban that) i just read an article where a school here in the U.S. is banning kids from bringing lunches to school from home because the schools don't feel they're nutrious enough. Liberals want to ban soda, candy etc. I can go on.

[Matt-Chicago]

Matt, I'm going to direct this question to you since of the above statement you made above about outlandish views. Just so you know where I sit I'm in the same boat as Burzerker. I personally believe that the fear of global warming and second hand smoke are soley designed to oppress a certain group of people and is motivated by greed and the desire for money. Hmmm also sounds like another discussion we were just having. Anyway, why is then you or anyone that believes in the global warming myth/second hand smoke issue choose to believe the science that global warming exists/effects of second hand smoke even though there is good science showing that global warming etc. is not as real as the people on the left make it out to believe. I'll put it another way why is you choose to believe that everthing is bad? It's funny that )G( sawyer said that conversatives were motivated by fear, but everything that I see coming from the left/liberals is about fear. Here are some examples, global warming, second hand smoke which we're addressing, salt(NY city is trying to ban that) i just read an article where a school here in the U.S. is banning kids from bringing lunches to school from home because the schools don't feel they're nutrious enough. Liberals want to ban soda, candy etc. I can go on.

Jamwin,

On global warming, your beliefs are in direct contradiction of peer reviewed science aka Science. Not some peer reviewed science, but ALL peer reviewed science. "The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view."

I would spend a few minutes reading this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

99.9% of all the denial literature, organizations, petitions, commercials, etc - are from the fossil fuel industry. They are ones who stand to be the most affected by any climate change legislation. The science of climate change is no different from any other science. What's the big conspiracy which keep geologists in business, or astrophysicists, oceanographers, marine biologists, etc. Do you really think all science which is not supported by industry is a conspiracy of some sort? It's outlandish.

Anyways, there is probably 0% chance anyone's mind is going to be changed in this thread, but I will mention that I am well aware of the Earth's climate cycles, that none previous could have been caused by humans, that it's only a small percent of CO2 in the atmosphere directly attributable to humans - and most comes from volcanoes and other natural sources.

My answer to that in order is: climate cycles take tens of thousands of years or longer, this is the fastest it has happened since there has been life on Earth. We now have the highest CO2 concentration in the atmosphere for at least the last 500,000 years. That small percent of CO2 (which is of course trillions of tons) human industry adds to the atmosphere have been enough to tip the balance which will lead to significant and very fast global changes - like resulting in a major decrease of the population of the planet.

Trying to find a solution to this, second hand smoke, the obesity epidemic, etc isn't about fear, it's about solving problems.
I don't know anyone anywhere trying to ban candy. Maybe from school vending machines, but that's pretty far from banning candy.

I could write much more but this is probably already too long for most people reading.

[Duel of Fates]

Ok, I know I was going to let this thread go by without further comment, but now that it has come around to global warming, I must inject some things into the conversation.

"The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view."

1. More pronounced in popular media than in scientific literature. So your saying that the liberal media is more adept at the scientific method than say . . . scientists?
2. There are many scientists that dispute and disagree with these views. Many of them have done extensive scientific research using the scientific method. (not the popular media by any means, but they seem to have gone to school for this kind of work) Not cherry picking and tossing out data that doesn't support their theories.
3. I could have sworn I read an article or saw on the news that some scientists working for the University of Illinois had come to the conclusion that global temperatures had dropped over the last decade and that is why the political left changed the battle cry from "GLOBAL WARMING" to "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE". I am sure it was a mistake or something.
4. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees? Note the fact that if you disagree, you are not in good standing with the left leaning academia, so your research is not even addressed. So that would be true, but really one sided.

That small percent of CO2 (which is of course trillions of tons) human industry adds to the atmosphere have been enough to tip the balance which will lead to significant and very fast global changes - like resulting in a major decrease of the population of the planet.

This my friends, is fear mongering to the ultimate level. IF the science doesn't hold up, then scare 'em with extinction. If you don't follow our laws, pay our taxes, give money to poorer nations to get them "green", then a whole lot of you poor people are gonna go the way of the dinosaurs. (and the left accuses the right of fear mongering?)

Global warming(climate change) or whatever the left will be calling it when that name gets old and unpopular, is the new Socialism.

[-)G(-Sawyer]

there is probably 0% chance anyone's mind is going to be changed in this thread.

You said it Matt, it's pointless and that's why I would never debate anything like this with American Conservatives. They simply don't like any idea, proposal or law that might in some why change their life style even in the smallest way. And solely relay on a blame culture, if it's not a liberal it's anther bogey man that's out to get them.