To be fair, it's actually an Associated Press article reposted by Fox. However as everyone else has noted, that in itself should say something; that it's pretty undeniable/solid if Fox is actually supporting claims about climate change of all things.

What do you mean maybe that's what we should be asking? That's exactly what we should be asking.

Wasn't South Park's WoW episode like this?

What you did there. I see it.

"... you sure do a good impression of a bigoted asshole."

Can't tell if trolling or just that blind. I mean, did you not first by calling ME an idiot? What is it that made you felt the need to be an asshole to me?

Woody Allen once remarked, "Confidence is what you have before you understand the problem," and it's clear from your commentary that you're just brimming with confidence and certainty in the righteousness of your opinion.

Perhaps, although are you not then projecting?

When your entire commentary rests on the assumption "anybody who doesn't agree with me is a backwards rube to be mocked," you pretty much give up any chance at being taken seriously, or of being engaged in a serious attempt at discourse. Your problem - and yes, it is a problem - is that you've almost certainly never made a good-faith attempt to *understand* the positions of people who disagree with you.

Please don't tell me that you don't see the irony in assuming something as well.

Why would people be against a law that only benefits them?

Perhaps because a significant portion (not all!) that could sway one way or another has been brainwashed otherwise as BasilBrush suggested. What, you're going to tell me that political ads are largely informational and not propaganda meant to exploit those who haven't been taught to think for themselves?

But of course, that couldn't be, could it? In your breathtaking arrogance, you've already concluded that you're right, no dissent is valid, and anybody who disagrees with you is automatically assigned the label of "backwoods idiot." I'm glad I'm not as smart as you - it must be enervating, looking down on so many people all the time.

When did I attack you and assign all as backwood idiots? I don't see any absolutes in my original post.
Look, I get that there's countless factors aside from religion and population density, yet it does it not have a significant effect on people's scopes of just how far chains of events can reach, and the amount factors people are forced to consider on a daily basis? This makes people more likely to translate that behavior to how they view social systems and their beliefs of how to keep them in order. Again I say, seriously, does it not? Because it's my understanding that it DOES, and that's the basis of my argument and my pondering. Attack this facet of my argument versus my character, because that is the root of it.

I realize that there's more than what I said affecting the whole issue, but it's a big factor none-the-less, is it not? Please, enthrall me with your superior hypotheses and insight as to why, "Somehow certain consumers would complain about a law that only benefits them."

On one hand, it's because those in rural areas tend to keep far away from the cities because the cities are so fast paced and anything to do with them is scary. Backed by them keeping their minds in religion to look for answers versus science, and raising their kids on such methods, you have a closed system that renews itself. Then you have the greedy people within the elite class understanding this, and tactically playing the idiots like a deck of cards. I wonder if the U.S. had even half the longitudinal land space than it actually does, whether we'd have either two countries from the civil war, or the south would've been transformed into a more progressive culture by default from overpopulation and integration of cultures.

As part of the summary... "from the go-ask-louis-ck-how-to-do-things dept." http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/louis-ck-records-200k-profit-on-drm-free-show_b43927

Actually I'm sorry to say but the whole auditory/visual learner thing was debunked a couple years ago. Huge upset in psychological research in recent times. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091216162356.htm

Just wanted to say thanks especially for the link.

But what browser isn't any worse?

The issue with password managers are that you then run into the issue of accessing your accounts from different computers which aren't your own.

Thanks for that link.

Actually, you're wrong. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2 Nice try though.