T or F: If ur not a liberal by 25, you have no heart. If ur not a conservative by 35, you have no brain.?

Question

I say that this is true, except that I guess that means I skipped over ever having a heart. That would make me sad, but again, no heart! Just call me the Tin Man.

Thats ridiculous Peter K... It's not about "evolving" in to a conservative... It's about growing up. I know, you'll say that's the same thing, but it's not.

It's essentially about being an uninformed kid who's too idealistic for his own good, and later after being in the real world, realizing "what's what", and what a pile of crap liberalism is.

skeptic, your problem is equating evolution with science. You can call it a matter of opinion, but YOU are he religious zealot who dogmatically believes in evolution. You're one of those "creationists hate science" folks... When we don't.. We hate when people create a fairytale and call it science, when it can't be tested or demonstrated.. But thanks for providing an excellent example of a liberal diverting the topic when you have nothing to say.

skeptic goes off the deep end defending Father Charlie and his God of Time again.... what passion you have to defend your religion skeptic. I have nothing to say to you when you immediately jump to talk of teaching creationism in the classroom.. No one said anything about that. How about just teaching science? Not made up fairytales that have to be changed and spun and folded in half everytime real scientific discovery is done? How about just reporting what we know, and not what you speculate? Even a few from your own side do a good job of explaining the major problems here, and they only scratch the surface!
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200606.htm#20060614a

by the way, once again I have to point out how none of this has anything to do with my question here, but like every other liberal, you wave your magic wand and talk about what you want to talk about instead of actually responding to the question. Now get to your classroom/temple and bow to your God of Time and impossible chance.... (also, you might want to rethink some of what you believe to be "nonfunctional"... read some of your own Bibles, they are constantly discovering that everything they thought was useless or leftovers, are in fact quite necessary)

Answer 1

watch out heartless maniac coming through woooooooo hoo hoooooo

Answer 2

That's right. Liberals are all brainless. Bill Clinton was getting blow jobs in the White House. Thank God we have a man of intergerty and character like George Bush now. Let's get this country on the right moral track.

Answer 3

Well Tin Man, I would think that what you have written is just a dumb politically correct saying. I see very little truth in it actually. It implies that we are born liberal and evolve to conservatism. Since true conservatives do not believe in evolution, your supposition cannot be true.

Answer 4

I would want to say so cause when you are young you just kinda follow the pack on things,..whatever is in at the time you follow..However I cant say that cause if you look around there are tons of liberals over 35 on this site and off of it, that just follow the flow and dont , cant, and WONT think for themselves

Answer 5

Individuals on both sides ask lots of worth while questions and put out a lot of wisdom.

the same can be said about the nonsense that exists on both sides.

Answer 6

Winston Churchill.

But I don't think he gave ages, he just said that if you were young and not a liberal you had no heart, and if you were old and not conservative you had no brain.

Which makes sense, when you're young, you're idealistic.
When you're old, you're crotchety and staunch about defending what's yours.

Answer 7

True many years ago, not true considering the inequality of today.

and of course said by someone who had wealth

Answer 8

True. Generally the older you get, the more conservative you get.

Answer 9

This is coming from a guy who thinks science is bunk as an evolution denier?

OK sorry, just because I and every reputable scientist out there and all available scientific evidence say that evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories to date I guess does not make it so. Especially when the religious fundamentalist obviously have the least biased opinion.


But maybe you're right. Maybe we should be grateful the conservatives have saved us from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Maybe we should be glad they turned a national surplus into one of the greatest national debts of all time. Perhaps it is only Bush who could have stopped Bin Laden. Perhaps we can get creationism taught in out schools so we will surely be ahead of the scientific standards of the rest of the world I think you've converted me.

You live in a fantasy world that demonstrates your misunderstanding of the scientific method when you make an absurd statement like "evolution can not be tested or demonstrated"...

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

Answer 10

yea cause when ur younger you were taught to share and you care about ppl so ur liberal and when ur older you work and want to keep ur money so ur conservative