A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 65 of 725
Quote:Although you say you are not a Republican, all Republicans in Texas say they don't read propaganda written by Democrats. If you did read, that would have been solid proof that you are definitely not a Republican. Then your assertions that you are an "Independent" would be more believable. Essentially, 6ixStringJack, you are wearing a tee shirt that says "Independent" on the front, while the back of the shirt, the part everyone but you can see, says "Republican".
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No shame at all in admitting that I don't read propaganda.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Maybe you should put your shirt on backwards? It won't look any stupider than you look now.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Although you say you are not a Republican, all Republicans in Texas say they don't read propaganda written by Democrats. If you did read, that would have been solid proof that you are definitely not a Republican. Then your assertions that you are an "Independent" would be more believable. Essentially, 6ixStringJack, you are wearing a tee shirt that says "Independent" on the front, while the back of the shirt, the part everyone but you can see, says "Republican".
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No shame at all in admitting that I don't read propaganda.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Maybe you should put your shirt on backwards? It won't look any stupider than you look now.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
I hardly read anything that JSF or Rappy or anybody else posts here either Second. They just don't post an article with every post like you and T do.
Usually, the only time I bother reading any links anybody posts here is to see how easily they could be debunked because there are no legitimate sources.
I just read the one that J0 put in another thread about the book that is being written. There's nothing in there explaining how they were able to get the information that they supposedly did.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So then, why should anybody reply to you?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I hardly read anything that JSF or Rappy or anybody else posts here either Second.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:So then, why should anybody reply to you?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I hardly read anything that JSF or Rappy or anybody else posts here either Second.
Sorry. Allow me to clarify that statement.
I read your personal opinions on things. I don't read most of the linked articles anybody posts here.
Individuals' opinions are something I find intriguing. I find no value in non-objective stories made up by the MSM on either side other than how it effects an individual's viewpoint.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I suppose your explanation why you spent so much time reading up on Gates inventing 1s and 0s, Flat Earth, algore inventing the Internet, Oswald being Lone Gunman, the falling sky, and Betsy Ross, Susan Anthony, Hamilton & Franklin being the Greatest Presidents give insight to why you're so gullible.
Originally posted by second:Quote:Although you say you are not a Republican, all Republicans in Texas say they don't read propaganda written by Democrats. If you did read, that would have been solid proof that you are definitely not a Republican. Then your assertions that you are an "Independent" would be more believable. Essentially, 6ixStringJack, you are wearing a tee shirt that says "Independent" on the front, while the back of the shirt, the part everyone but you can see, says "Republican".
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No shame at all in admitting that I don't read propaganda.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Maybe you should put your shirt on backwards? It won't look any stupider than you look now.
Is that why you refuse to attribute your posts, so 6ix will think what you plagiarized is your original words, and read the drivel you copied?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have discovered the secret childhood trauma that creates conservatives! It involves FEAR! Wouldn't you think they'd eventually grow out of it?
At Yale, we conducted an experiment to turn conservatives into liberals. We were successful!
By John Bargh, November 22, 2017 at 5:00 AM
https://goo.gl/mmUr8W
Keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe from harm is perhaps our strongest human motivation, deeply embedded in our very DNA. It is so deep and important that it influences much of what we think and do, maybe more than we might expect. For example, over a decade now of research in political psychology consistently shows that how physically threatened or fearful a person feels is a key factor — although clearly not the only one — in whether he or she holds conservative or liberal attitudes.
Conservatives, it turns out, react more strongly to physical threat than liberals do. In fact, their greater concern with physical safety seems to be determined early in life: In one University of California study, the more fear a 4-year-old showed in a laboratory situation, the more conservative his or her political attitudes were found to be 20 years later. Brain imaging studies have even shown that the fear center of the brain, the amygdala, is actually larger in conservatives than in liberals. And many other laboratory studies have found that when adult liberals experienced physical threat, their political and social attitudes became more conservative (temporarily, of course). But no one had ever turned conservatives into liberals.
Until we did.
In a new study to appear in a forthcoming issue of the European Journal of Social Psychology, my colleagues Jaime Napier, Julie Huang and Andy Vonasch and I asked 300 U.S. residents in an online survey their opinions on several contemporary issues such as gay rights, abortion, feminism and immigration, as well as social change in general. The group was two-thirds female, about three-quarters white, with an average age of 35. Thirty-percent of the participants self-identified as Republican, and the rest as Democrat.
But before they answered the survey questions, we had them engage in an intense imagination exercise. They were asked to close their eyes and richly imagine being visited by a genie who granted them a superpower. For half of our participants, this superpower was to be able to fly, under one’s own power. For the other half, it was to be completely physically safe, invulnerable to any harm.
If they had just imagined being able to fly, their responses to the social attitude survey showed the usual clear difference between Republicans and Democrats — the former endorsed more conservative positions on social issues and were also more resistant to social change in general.
But if they had instead just imagined being completely physically safe, the Republicans became significantly more liberal — their positions on social attitudes were much more like the Democratic respondents. And on the issue of social change in general, the Republicans’ attitudes were now indistinguishable from the Democrats. Imagining being completely safe from physical harm had done what no experiment had done before — it had turned conservatives into liberals.
In both instances, we had manipulated a deeper underlying reason for political attitudes, the strength of the basic motivation of safety and survival. The boiling water of our social and political attitudes, it seems, can be turned up or down by changing how physically safe we feel.
This is why it makes sense that liberal politicians intuitively portray danger as manageable — recall FDR’s famous Great Depression era reassurance of “nothing to fear but fear itself,” echoed decades later in Barack Obama’s final State of the Union address — and why President Trump and other Republican politicians are instead likely to emphasize the dangers of terrorism and immigration, relying on fear as a motivator to gain votes.
In fact, anti-immigration attitudes are also linked directly to the underlying basic drive for
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good thing your schools and colleges are breeding a bunch of millennial pussies that are made of cotton candy and rainbows. I had to work with one of them on his first night last night. 6'2", never used a pallet jack in his life and was afraid of his own shadow. He had 100 lbs and was half my age and I run circles around him.
I'm sure he's a Democrat though.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let's see. A group mindlessly believe Government would never allow them to be injected with a vaccination causing autism or other ailments, and a different group aware of Gove
Originally posted by second:
I have discovered the secret childhood trauma that creates conservatives! It involves FEAR!
At Yale, we conducted an experiment to turn conservatives into liberals. We were successful!
By John Bargh, November 22, 2017 at 5:00 AM
https://goo.gl/mmUr8W
Keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe from harm is perhaps our strongest human motivation, deeply embedded in our very DNA. It is so deep and important that it influences much of what we think and do, maybe more than we might expect. For example, over a decade now of research in political psychology consistently shows that how physically threatened or fearful a person feels is a key factor — although clearly not the only one — in whether he or she holds conservative or liberal attitudes.
Conservatives, it turns out, react more strongly to physical threat than liberals do. In fact, their greater concern with physical safety seems to be determined early in life: In one University of California study, the more fear a 4-year-old showed in a laboratory situation, the more conservative his or her political attitudes were found to be 20 years later. Brain imaging studies have even shown that the fear center of the brain, the amygdala, is actually larger in conservatives than in liberals. And many other laboratory studies have found that when adult liberals experienced physical threat, their political and social attitudes became more conservative (temporarily, of course). But no one had ever turned conservatives into liberals.
Until we did.
In a new study to appear in a forthcoming issue of the European Journal of Social Psychology, my colleagues Jaime Napier, Julie Huang and Andy Vonasch and I asked 300 U.S. residents in an online survey their opinions on several contemporary issues such as gay rights, abortion, feminism and immigration, as well as social change in general. The group was two-thirds female, about three-quarters white, with an average age of 35. Thirty-percent of the participants self-identified as Republican, and the rest as Democrat.
In fact, anti-immigration attitudes are also linked directly to the underlying basic drive for physical safety. For centuries, arch-conservative leaders have often referred to scapegoated minority groups as “germs” or “bacteria” that seek to invade and destroy their country from within.
“Immigrants are like viruses” is a powerful metaphor, because in comparing immigrants entering a country to germs entering a human body, it speaks directly to our powerful innate motivation to avoid contamination and disease. Until very recently in human history, not only did we not have antibiotics, we did not even know how infections occurred or diseases transmitted, and cuts and open wounds were quite dangerous. (In the American Civil War, for example, 60 out of every 1,000 soldiers died not by bullets or bayonets, but by infections.)
Therefore, we reasoned, making people feel safer about a dangerous flu virus should serve to calm their fears about immigrants — and making them feel more threatened by the flu virus should cause them to be more against immigration than they were before. In a 2011 study, my colleagues and I showed just that. First, we reminded our nationwide sample of liberals and conservatives about the threat of the flu virus (during the H1N1 epidemic), and then measured their attitudes toward immigration. Afterward we simply asked them if they’d already gotten their flu shot or not. It turned out that those who had not gotten a flu shot (feeling threatened) expressed more negative attitudes toward immigration, while those who had received the vaccination (feeling safe) had more positive attitudes about immigration.
John Bargh is a professor of social psychology at Yale University and the author of “Before You Know It: The Unconscious Reasons We Do What We Do”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What causes autism
Opiate theory hypothesizes that autism is caused by a digestive disorder present from birth which causes gluten (present in wheat-derived foods) and casein (present in dairy products) to be converted to the opioid peptides gliadorphin (aka gluteomorphin) and casomorphin.
JSF when you only believe in conspiracies and refuse to keep up with what is going on in the real world you miss things like this. It makes you look stupid as you pass on stupid and destructive information.
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Americans unify against foreign threats. Can we unify without one?
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17094874/political-polarizat
ion-correctness-american-politics
In his fascinating review of The People vs. Democracy, S Hamid says the book suffers from a last-chapter problem: Its diagnosis of democracy’s ills is persuasive, but its prescription for reform — which rests on technocratic policy ideas and the development of a liberal form of national identity — is wan.
I recently read Amy Chua’s Political Tribes, and it, too, suffers from a last-chapter problem: Its diagnosis of tribal thinking in politics is important and persuasive, but its prescription for renewal — more inclusive rhetoric and more one-on-one conversations — is small and unconvincing.
I’d say the same of How Democracies Die. It, too, is a necessary exploration of fractures in American democracy, and it, too, has no real idea how to treat the ills it finds.
What all these books have in common is that at their core, they examine the collapse of a dominant and unifying American identity and try to imagine how one could be rebuilt in an era of demographic division and economic stress. If their answers aren’t necessarily persuasive, that’s because the underlying problem may not, at this moment, have an answer.
It’s a quirk of the publishing industry that authors are asked to limn a devilishly hard problem and then cleanly solve it in the last-chapter. Problems wicked enough to write books about often lack good solutions. Sometimes the best you can really do is offer a better diagnosis.
Still, I’ve been trying to ask myself what answers to America’s political divides might be persuasive. What might be powerful enough to begin to reverse partisan polarization? To ease the anxieties that erupt amid rapid demographic change? To refashion an American identity that seems sturdy enough for the 21st century?
Answers at www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17094874/political-polarizat
ion-correctness-american-politics
I wonder if it’s a coincidence that American identity is embattled and American politics is tribalizing at a time when there isn’t a unifying threat abroad. What we think of today as the American identity was forged amid the two world wars and then the threat of the Soviet Union. It is not that America has escaped the tribalism endemic to all societies, but that we have often used external threats and foes to widen the definition of “us” as a way to fight a “them.”
I want to be clear about this: I’m not hoping America goes to war, or that we find a unifying identity by coming together to loathe a distant foe. Rather, I fear that we will. Or, to put it differently, I fear that in the past, that’s what we have actually done. And we underestimate the role that’s played in our national identity and political stability, and so underestimate the depth of the problems we face now.
This is, I think, a cause of the last-chapter problem in many good books. Sometimes what solves hard problems isn’t a solution at all. Sometimes it’s another hard problem.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME