I believe this study on conservative but to go a little deeper But what does it mean

jbander said:

No I try to tell everyone that because it is true and there is endless support for the premise, did you find out how stupid your president was and what a monstrous lie Bush the baby killer told to fatten his billfold, Halliburtan and Carlyle and monstrous non bid contract in Iraq and Afghanistan, Millions went into the president and vice presidents pockets. Did you look up Curveball Like I said, read it and come back with a review for everyone to see.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

Once again, you seem to be basing the idea that Bush "lied" on a single source. One who, I might add, the Germans didn't even want to allow US access to. You also don't seem to understand the concept that even if Saddam didn't have a bioweapons plant, he did have chemical weapons and he'd been working on nuclear weapons.

But your a partisan hack, so nothing I say is going to get through your little wall.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

Once again, you seem to be basing the idea that Bush "lied" on a single source. One who, I might add, the Germans didn't even want to allow US access to. You also don't seem to understand the concept that even if Saddam didn't have a bioweapons plant, he did have chemical weapons and he'd been working on nuclear weapons.

But your a partisan hack, so nothing I say is going to get through your little wall.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

It's not a rebuttal, it's a retraction and correction. I wonder whether your researchers were relying on the (now retracted) paper as a guide?

Click to expand...

Eric7216 said:

So those people who are fearful of global warming, vaccines causing autism, a return to back alley abortions, reintroduction of Jim Crow laws, etc. are conservatives?

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

It's not a rebuttal, it's a retraction and correction. I wonder whether your researchers were relying on the (now retracted) paper as a guide?

Click to expand...

jbander said:

Not even close , I gave you the DOI number what else do I have to do to hold your hand. To repeat myselt there are about 30 supporting studies, you are as ugly as they say. They even said it nicely for you poor paranoids .

Click to expand...

jbander said:

Sure it's a retraction, two years before the study I'm talking about. I guess I'll have to explain this to you regressives you can't print a retraction or a rebuttal before the paper is written.I am surprised you regressives didn't know that.

Click to expand...

jbander said:

Do you know why the united nations inspected for these items. They were given a list by the regime on where the WMD were that they knew about., He had them for one simple reason, Reagan gave them to Iraq to kill Iranians and instruction how to make them also. The inspector went to all the place listed and took the ones that could be moved and left the ones that could not be moved to be picket up by special weapons unit that does this.. War starts, soldiers find stockpile of weapons, report them and make regressive happy dance but to find out they were the ones that were left purposely by the inspector. Without your bull**** and distortions your party wouldn't even exist. Mr. Partisan hack.
If you like I'll bring up the video of Cheney saying there was no weapons of mass destruction and Bush saying there was no WMD. So with that in mind who's the partisan hack. I mean really Cheney and Bush admitting to it on video isn't enough for you regressives partisan hacks, them what would be.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

The retraction is quite recent. The data are the data.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

You really need to make up your damn mind. Either there were WMDs(chemical weapons) or there weren't.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

You really need to make up your damn mind. Either there were WMDs(chemical weapons) or there weren't.

Click to expand...

jbander said:

Hey I see your little tank for a Avatar, are you one of the bang bang heroes that I'm always arguing with , all these armed heroes , that end up shooting themselves in the foot way more often then they get a chance to defend themselves with their toys. Are you one of those??????

Click to expand...

jbander said:

There were no WMD we didn't know about. Einstein read this slowly, Both Bush and Cheney admitted on video that there were no weapons of mass destruction ,all had been accounted for but they started a war over it anyway. Saying that Saddam was still hiding them. He was hiding nothing.

Click to expand...

jbander said:

Giberish, the retraction to my comments was 2 years before my comment was written. The year is on your source page . Do you understand , you can't respond to the study I pointed out ,two years before it was written. Try to think real hard you'll get it soon I'm sure.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

I see you have mastered the art of the stereotype. Good job:roll:

Click to expand...

jbander said:

I asked you a simple question. but I will admit I don't come here to make friends.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

And you know this......how? Did Saddam personally inform you that he wasn't hiding anything?

When it comes to intelligence, many times its a best guesstimate. We thought we knew the locations of his arsenals but there was no way of knowing with 100% accuracy, especially since he moved them around a lot.

On a "positive" note, the best guess is that Saddam sent his chemical weapons into Syria.

Click to expand...

jbander said:

Jack this is to you ---m J Pol Sci. 2012;56(1):34-51.
Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies" Here is the study I'm quoting Behavioral and Brain Sciences - Abstract - Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology They are two different studies done at two different times. To repeat myself "You people are so full of bull****, the study I pointed out was done by John Hibbing u of Nebraska, supported by John Jost New York University, Matt Motyl from U of Virginia and Ravi Iyer from USC , You won't find any of those names in your bull**** rebuttal. The paper your referring to is from 2012 my article is from 2014 and after so what your trying to sell is they responded to studies that were made two years after their rebuttal. By the way there are 30 supporting papers and studies after Hibbings. "Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014
DOI: Behavioral and Brain Sciences - Abstract - Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology (About DOI), "" Do you understand???????? the rebuttal your pointing out is to a different study then the one I'm talking about, There are two, again two studies The one your referring to and the one I'm referring to. Mine was written by John Hibbings , yours wasn't. Get it yet????

Click to expand...

jbander said:

There were no WMD we didn't know about. Einstein read this slowly, Both Bush and Cheney admitted on video that there were no weapons of mass destruction ,all had been accounted for but they started a war over it anyway. Saying that Saddam was still hiding them. He was hiding nothing.

Click to expand...

jbander said:

No I took Cheneys and Bush the baby killers video response saying there was no weapons of mass destruction and that they were wrong about it. They say the were wrong , I say they lied to get us into a war that coincidentally Cheney and Bush made Millions over with non bid contracts for Carlyle group and Halliburton.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

It's not a rebuttal, and I don't care whether it concerns your study. I'm pointing out the shaky ground on which such claims stand.

Click to expand...

jbander said:

Except that's not what happened is it, You came in here and said that my study , the whole point of this thread was overridden/retracted by a someone saying they made a mistake on the study, one minor minor detail, Your information was about another study other then mine. And Now your twisting and turning to distort everything about this study, to get around one simple fact. you simply don't know what your talking about. Sorry buddy You can't come in here and say my study is bad/wrong or anything because of what happened in another totally different study. Your stretching it even a little far for a regressive.

Click to expand...

jbander said:

"There is by now evidence from a variety of laboratories around the world using a variety of methodological techniques leading to the virtually inescapable conclusion that the cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different. This research consistently finds that conservatism is positively associated with heightened pessimistic concerns for order, structure, closure, certainty, consistency, simplicity, and familiarity, as well as existential concerns such as perceptions of danger, sensitivity to threat, and death anxiety" To me this fits perfectly into my own thoughts of what makes a conservative, First correlated studies show that the older you get the more like it is that your a regressive. These are my opinion on what this means, First it shows that you got old and gave up, it shows why it is the old white mans party, It shows that they can't be dragged into the century they live in. It shows that they have become paranoid and think negatively on most things, they are scared of change and are threatened by everything from gays , the poor, the Muslims, Mexicans, government, government workers , education, teachers, women. So they are all joined together in opposition to these groups. They have become bitter , old and paranoid and they have never been this ugly in my lifetime (70 years). They, the regressive party, used all these negatives to capture this group of people but created a monster that they can't control, Their hate rhetoric ended up having a mind of it's own , moved faster then they could even keep up to and become totally uncontrollable.

Click to expand...