how so?

not less perhaps, but the conclusions are definitely different.

STFU Jackass!!!!!

Brilliant rejoinder!

Hey Ares, you're against civil rights for all humans, and that makes everything you say irrelevant. Your opinions don't count.

I'd love to hear your reasons for making such a claim, and I would further love to hear how you justify being open minded and understanding of complexities (as per the article) when you flat-out reject and aggressively attack any views contrary to your own.

"Only opinions that support my own are important." That is the charge you are making with that comment. Truly an impressive point of view.

I never said the words that you quoted. You'd like to hear my reasoning? My reasoning for what???? Stating that you don't support civil rights for all humans?

Gays deserve civil rights. I don't have to accept your beliefs, because your beliefs are flat-out WRONG regarding the issue. Please, tell that to a former slave or a woman in the early 1900s who was denied the right to vote. YOUR position regarding civil rights is indefensible.

What in the hell are you talking about? I don't recall gay rights or slavery being brought into any of this, are you insane?

Combative situations like what? War? Maybe there are other solutions...

His comment doesn't frighten you does it/? Or too simple?

See how simple that is :)

And what is the charge you are making? Conclusions can be formed? Yes...do you see something wrong with these scientists' conclusions?

Who said anything about gay rights? You seem to be associating conservatives with homophobia. Is that association based on anything in particular? Some might say conservatives are the first in line to stop government from regulating marriage, but you seem quick to jump to the idea that those who think same sex marriage is wrong is also wrong--possibly because if that view was legally enforced it would create a frightening situation for you/? What about the fact that all people can vote now: minorities, women, even gays?

i think he thinks your a conservative, based on the fact that you don;t think the article proves that conservatives should be at all considered relevant in the voting process since they are against human rights, and thus you don't believe in human rights either.

I'm specifically talking about Ares. He is against gay rights. Easy. Done.

****I**** brought gay rights into this conversation based on your statements, and based on our prior discussions about gay rights. You're against gay rights. So I'm relating that fact to your comments here.

Not too hard to figure out!

You seem to be against the right for white supremacist, patriarchal, heterosexual individuals to express their opinions in a public forum.

Against the right? No. You're just loads of misinformation, aren't you?

His views regarding homosexuality & gay rights, although he has the right to express them, are flat WRONG. And I'm here to remind him of that fact.

If you are also against gay rights, you are equally WRONG.

Wrong how so? Values are relative, and rights are subjective so unless you can scientifically verify his ignorance, there isn't really anyway to disprove him from what I've seen, though we're all deeply grateful for your presence.

Liberal comes from Liber, which means Freedom doesn't it? Isn't that the most conservative symbol out there?

While Liberals give into their demands because...?

Most assuredly!

Due to some early childhood trauma that gives them anxiety forever after?

someone is over compensating for his tiny anterior cingulate cortex...

In a two party system, it seems like it is a sports team. Please tell us what conclusions we can draw from this study. Are there no "others?" "A" does not equal "non-A" does it?

Your picture has a person physically representing "fuck you" to others. Nice.

I don't know this is an article about a study. I can be open minded about the whole thing but then again I can't draw to much from a study I haven't read.

"Are there no "others?" "A" does not equal "non-A" does it?"

I'm not against the idea of people being fundamentally different or physically predisposed to certain ideologies. I just think the way this idea was applied by a lot of current members is simplistic, absolutist and at the same time contradictory.

I'd argue a world view or personality is an amalgamate of a lot of little stuff and whatever inference we can draw from a single aspect of that individual is negligible. If not I think we'd of figured out the human condition by now.

Wow nice "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal Pee Wee.

Sounds complex. You must be liberal.

This study says those subjective viewpoints correlate with PHYSICAL differences as well. That is the significance of this study. Do you not think that this study concludes this?

Drinking beats teaching any day. What do you write?

Phenomena is caused by a God to be feared, not forces to be understood!

Good Lord ! You just proved their point.

That is priceless

lol @ people voting you down because they cant interpret satire... voted up my friend

Can Truth be intuited?

How are metaphysics proved?

They aren't lacking in solidarity though...

The only ones who have ever referred to Obama as the messiah are douchbag conservatives.

Careful, your amygdala is showing.

Amen !

If you believe Obama goes against everything liberals stand for, why do you continue to portray him as a super-lefty? Inconstency doesn't help your argument. As it happens some of us believe he has been playing way too nice with the dictatorial House denizens, as he was doing earlier when Democrats had the majority in both houses. When you extend a hand of bipartisanship and the other side keeps whacking it with a ruler, you should get a clue and get on with business. It may have escaped your notice that Obama last week appointed Jeff Immelt, big dog at GE,to head his innovation and jobs committee, all smiling and enthusiastic and full of compliments. This was right after he said he was going to go after corporate tax evaders. As you may also know, GE paid zero taxes last year. In some cases he's carrying out YOUR agenda, not ours. Pay attention, don't generalize, and you'll feel a lot better.

And conservatism is sociopathic which happens to be? Thats right a mental disorder

What liberal ideals is he working against? Better Jesus as a messiah than Obama right? While I won't argue that people probably projected a lot onto Obama he may not initially deserve, I fail to see how that is a mental disorder

Maybe Obama didn't want to impose his beliefs, as that would be much too frightening, electing to organize opposing viewpoints into productive dialogue instead, and using the "captains of industry" to run the machine...

Mistake?

Its the independents--shit gets too conservative, then too liberal, then too conservative... No one is ever good enough so they quit switching sides. Once they figure out who actually helps them they'll probably stop switching. America is a pendulum swinging back and forth. Also, whoever has the most (homeschooled) children ends up having the most votes in 21 years...

:(

Sounds to me like Congress needs to attend a few team building workshops :-)

They still do that, it's called Golf. only without the friendship across the aisle part.

That just sounds horrid. Bad! Bad! :)

Bush on golf course right after 9/11: " Al Quaeda is a bad terrorist group and we're going to go get them [or words to that effect] Now watch me take this shot."
Golf--eeeeeeeeeew. When I saw Obama playing, I thought I'd puke.
P.S.
If anybody can find and post that Bush video here, it would be great.

Communication and effective/productive dialogue is key then?

Maybe someone brings the hookers and blow, and everyone has a good time? Whaddya say?

Simple but direct.

One group profits, relaxes, and plays; another group is bombed, tortured and repressed.

And both kill innocents.

Thank you, darlin'! I knew somebody would come through. As stated elsewhere, I'm no techie. Vote you up.

Indubitably.

fuck your comment!!!

lol!

uh, its called twenty twelve--look it up.

I'm familiar with the 2012 myth, but I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote.

what are you talking about? have you used up your stock of water and batteries from Y2K yet?

"Religious people want to pretend that there is some uniting structure or plan maintained by an omnipotent caretaker because that makes them feel beter."

2012 as the uniting structure--it is a religious belief in a point of time that offers uncertainty (transformation to what...?) AND complexity. Fear and hope.

no, that would be giving into the fear

Yes, it is one example of one religious belief that some people have.

Or is it in fact a scientifically verifiable reality that will be actualized in the near future? Like the second coming

If you BELIEVE it will happen in the near future, it's a BELIEF.

It is impossible to scientifically verify the future.

It is only scientifically verifiable after the fact- like all of the previous doomsday dates and beliefs about the second coming that have come and gone with no event at all.

All we have about the future is probability- such as the fact that it is highly probable the sun will rise tomorrow, and there will be a new day.

The second coming ranks as an incredibly low probability- especially since there is no definitive proof of a first coming, and the source of the information has proven to be unreliable on previous occasions.

ah, so the fact that society is unsustainable will only be verifiable after it collapses. no need to worry about it then!

There is no logic to your reply at all- not even the slightest bit.

As I said, we have the concept of probability.

If there is a probable negative outcome, OF COURSE things should be done to prevent it.

No rational human being thinks the future is carved in stone and is verifiable to us in the present, and no rational human being would use that fact as an argument to suport inactivity.

no, they fear everything external to themselves.

intelligence meaning--science? They FEEL what's right, and they know in their hearts what's real. Doesn't that count for anything these days?

So that explains it then....3 out of 4 liberals in this family and one of them is always talking about God. I'll have to quit trying to enlighten that one because it's probably pointless.

Nice!

I don't know. Maybe you're being somewhat sarcastic, but I tend to think that's a dangerous way of thinking about it--that conservatives "biologically can't help it." As others have said, there are those who flop sides. My parents did in their late 40's. Acting as if something is unfixable creates only a problem of bigotry and leads really only to greater polarization--for it's not as if conservatives would acknowledge a study like this anyway, and just submit.

right! they're just retarded!