Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread. - Page 6

Originally Posted by trumptman

Yes, now all you have to do is explain how everyone's brains grew and shrank in respective areas to alter their votes since their votes aren't based on ideology, but biology per you and your study.

now all you have to do is explain how everyone's brains grew and shrank

Originally Posted by SDW2001

So he makes the clear assumption that conservative beliefs are motivated by fear, and I have to prove otherwise? Try to understand...I am not arguing that he's wrong about brain structure. I am arguing there is no evidence that conservative beliefs are motivated by fear. He literally just made that up. I am not required to prove or disprove things that are just made up.



All liberals have small penises. Now, disprove my assertion jimmac. I'll expect evidence from medical professionals. Yes, I know it's absurd...that's why I use this as an example. It's exactly what you're asking me to do.



You are confusing causation with correlation. And so is he.



Which part of the brain governs writing in complete sentences?

You are confusing causation with correlation. And so is he.

He literally just made that up

According to the latest Gallup tracking poll, more Americans approve of the job that President Obama is doing than disapprove for the first time since this summer.

The latest Gallup survey shows that 47 percent of Americans now say they approve of the way that President Obama is handling his job. This is a 5 percent improvement since the Dec. 16-18 Gallup survey and marks the first time the president's numbers have been in positive territory since July. The number of Americans who say they disapprove of Obama's job performance has fallen to 45 percent, down 5 points from Dec. 16-18.

The trend lines are good news for President Obama's team, with his Gallup numbers slowly climbing this month. It's too soon to draw sweeping conclusions, but it seems that the standoff with House Republicans over the payroll tax cut did no damage at all to the president — and a further climb in the polls could mean that the White House won a significant public relations victory during the payroll tax cut debate.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I've never claimed Gallup doesn't matter. All polls oscillate a bit and it is the holidays.



Explain how if they are born this way, then why do their votes change from election to election? Hell explain how the polls can even move if they are determined by genetics?

Can you explain any other genetic traits that wander around from week to week or month to month?

Originally Posted by jimmac

In your expert medical opinion? I see.

And your proof is where?
Let's see your credentials and proof SDW. The study itself has provided logical physiological reasons for the theory. I guess this is your blind spot. The study itself is about a part of the brain that governs emotional response vs a part that does more reasoning. But of course like many things you're refusing to see that.

"Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear," and might therefore be "more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system," Kanai and colleagues wrote. "

Iacoboni, a liberal, has been using brain imaging to study political preferences since 2004.

"I'm glad to see liberals have a large anterior cingulate cortex -- the more sophisticated part of the brain," he said.

The amygdala, on the other hand, is a "really old structure, and not as developed."

It's unlikely that political orientation is directly linked to brain structure, according to lead author Kanai.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Hahahahaha....anchor points man. It's easy to SURGE from the lowest poll numbers of any modern president.



So the "reasoning" stays the same but the votes somehow switch? That's quite interest. You really are a bitter person after the eggnog wears off.


Hey it isn't my fault. I'm born this way per you remember. In fact you being so mean aka lacking any empathy for my condition means you actually are a conservative as well. Don't worry though it isn't your fault, it's just your damaged brain.

Now on to the real question, since it is genetic, shouldn't you be taxed to resolve this matter. You still have money. You claim you have better genetic empathy. Cough it up mister and don't be so mean since it isn't at all my fault. It isn't a personal choice, I was just born this way. If you don't want to be understanding then go back to kicking some midgets or something like that you heartless cad!!!

Don't worry though it isn't your fault, it's just your damaged brain

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Correlation vs. Causation has nothing to do with expert medical opinion.




It's like talking to a wall. OK, here goes again...from your article:



This ASSUMES that conservative beliefs in general are generated by fear. This is an unproven assumption...no medical degree is needed to see that.

Next up we have an example of unadulterated bias:



It's so egregious that the first time I read it, I thought it was tongue-in-cheek.

Next, the author himself disagrees with YOUR conclusion:




So your example is a biased piece of shit, jimmac. And even if it wasn't, it's nothing more than an ad hominem argument. Rather than debate the ideas of your conservative opponents, you'd rather try to prove that their brains are inferior and primitive.

Correlation_does_not_imply_causation"]nothing to do with expert medical opinion.

"To me it makes a lot of sense," said Dr. Marco Iacoboni, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA and director of the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Lab at the Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center. "We have these tendencies to think our thoughts come out of nowhere, but they actually come from our biology."

Oscar-winning actor Colin Firth, who discussed the notion of the "political brain" in a BBC Radio 4 interview in January, was also an author of the study.

The researchers used a survey to probe the political views of 90 University students who later underwent brain scans. People with self-reported liberal views tended to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex -- a brain area involved in processing conflicting information. And those with conservative views were more likely to have a larger amygdala -- a region important for recognizing threats.

"Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear," and might therefore be "more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system," Kanai and colleagues wrote. "On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political attitudes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty" -- which may allow people to "accept more liberal views."

This is not the first study to link political attitudes with biological differences. A 2005 twin study revealed a role for genetics, and a 2010 study showed that genetic variations can interact with environmental factors to influence political views.

Originally Posted by jimmac

And yet you're offering a medical opinion on a medical matter.

This isn't good logic SDW. It's simply you trying to wiggle out of something with nothing to wiggle with. If it's really so easy to dismiss show me someone who has debunked his theory.

That sort of challenge happens all the time in science. Is it possible you can't find one? Because you can't have a person on the street trying to claim they have the same experience as someone who's spent years at school and then later years in an internship. Do you even know what it takes to become an expert in the field of Cognitive Neuroscience? And here you are trying to comment on it as if you were an equal.

Here's someone who agrees with him ( you do know that many people worked on this don't you? Not just one man ).

Keep it up SDW! The more you talk about this the more silly you sound! Maybe you're one of those poor saps who won't take their kids to the doctor because God is the only doctor they need.

Originally Posted by trumptman

There's no talking to you when you try to cite a study, but cannot explain it or answer any questions put to you about it.

Also the study has an author, an actor. Are you claiming that an actor is an expert?

According to some studies, the amygdala is larger in males than in females. Did your study account for sex differences or not?

Reduced amygdala size is associated with psychopathy. So it just goes to show that liberals are indeed psychopaths, or at least more prone to be psychopaths.

Finally a study showed that boys with callous-unemotional conduct problems, thought to be antecedents to psychopathy, exhibited an increased amount of gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, aka the part of the brain your study says is larger for liberals.

Don't question any of these conclusions. You're not an expert and thus cannot even question it.



What is silly is to declare that tolerance to uncertainty a net positive when a brain study cannot prove such a thing. It is merely a trait. How you use it is what is important.


If you had any thought into what it takes to make food, then perhaps your political orientation might involve something about production rather than just caring about intentions.

Also the study has an author, an actor. Are you claiming that an actor is an expert?

What is silly is to declare that tolerance to uncertainty a net positive when a brain study cannot prove such a thing. It is merely a trait. How you use it is what is important

Reduced amygdala size is associated with psychopathy. So it just goes to show that liberals are indeed psychopaths, or at least more prone to be psychopaths.

Finally a study showed that boys with callous-unemotional conduct problems, thought to be antecedents to psychopathy, exhibited an increased amount of gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, aka the part of the brain your study says is larger for liberals.

Causes and pathophysiology

[edit] Evolutionary explanations

Researchers within evolutionary psychology have proposed several evolutionary explanations for psychopathy. One is that psychopathy represents a frequency-dependent, socially parasitic strategy. This may work as long as there are few other psychopaths in the community since more psychopaths means increasing the risk of encountering another psychopath as well as non-psychopaths likely adapting more countermeasures against cheaters.[72][73]

[edit] Genetics

Genetic factors may generally influence the development of psychopathy while environmental factors affect the specific traits that predominate.[62]

A 2005 twin study found that children with antisocial behavior can be classified into two groups: those who also had high "callous-unemotional traits" were "under extremely strong genetic influence and no influence of shared environment" while those who were ranked low of those traits were under both "moderate genetic and shared environmental influence."[74]

[edit] Neuroanatomy

"The amygdala is crucial for stimulus-reinforcement learning and responding to emotional expressions, particularly fearful expressions that, as reinforcers, are important initiators of stimulus-reinforcement learning. Moreover, the amygdala is involved in the formation of both stimulus-punishment and stimulus-reward associations. Individuals with psychopathy show impairment in stimulus-reinforcement learning (whether punishment- or reward-based) and responding to fearful and sad expressions. It is argued that this impairment drives much of the syndrome of psychopathy (Blair, 2008).[75]

People scoring ≥25 in the Psychopathy Checklist Revised, with an associated history of violent behavior, appear to have significantly reduced microstructural integrity in their uncinate fasciculus — white matter connecting the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex. The more extreme the psychopathy, the greater the abnormality.[76]

Recent studies have triggered theories on determining whether there is a biological relationship between the brain and psychopathy. One theory suggests that psychopathy is associated with both the amygdala, which is associated with emotional reactions and emotional learning, and the prefrontal cortex, associated with impulse control, decision-making, emotional learning and behavioral adaptation.[77] Some studies have shown there is less "gray matter" in these areas in psychopaths than in non-psychopaths.

There is DT-MRI evidence of breakdowns in the white matter connections between these two important areas in a small British study of nine criminal psychopaths. This evidence suggests that the degree of abnormality was significantly related to the degree of psychopathy and may explain the offending behaviors.[78][79]

A 2008 review found various abnormalities (based on group differences from average) reported in the literature, centered on a prefrontal-temporo-limbic circuit — regions that are involved in emotional and learning processes, as well as many other processes. However, the authors report that the people classed as "psychopathic" cannot in fact be seen as a homogeneous group (i.e. as all having the same characteristics), and that the associations between structural changes and psychopathic characteristics do not enable causal conclusions to be drawn. They conclude that psychopathic characteristics involve multifactorial processes including neurobiological, genetic, epidemiological, and sociobiographical (the person's life in society) factors.[11]

Psychopaths do have an elevated probability of being left-handed.[80]

[edit] Neurotransmitters and hormones

High levels of testosterone combined with low levels of cortisol have been theorized as contributing factors. Testosterone is "associated with approach-related behavior, reward sensitivity, and fear reduction". Cortisol increases "the state of fear, sensitivity to punishment, and withdrawal behavior". Injecting testosterone "shift[s] the balance from punishment to reward sensitivity", decreases fearfulness, and increases "responding to angry faces". Some studies have found that antisocial and aggressive behaviors are associated with high testosterone levels but it is unclear if psychopaths have high testosterone levels. A few studies have found psychopathy to be linked to low cortisol levels.[81]

High testosterone levels combined with low serotonin levels may increase violent aggression. Some research suggests that testosterone alone does not cause aggression but increases dominance-seeking behaviors. Low serotonin is associated with "impulsive and highly negative reactions" which, if combined with high testosterone, may cause aggression if an individual becomes frustrated.[81]

Psychopathy was also associated in two studies with an increased ratio of HVA (a dopamine metabolite) to 5-HIAA (a serotonin metabolite).[81]

Several animal studies note the role of serotonergic functioning in impulsive aggression and antisocial behavior.[82][83][84][85]

A 2010 British study found that a large 2D:4D digit ratio, an indication of high prenatal estrogen exposure, was a "positive correlate of psychopathy in females, and a positive correlate of callous affect (psychopathy sub-scale) in males".[86]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

No, I'm not. Point to where I've done that, please.



Which one?



It would be nice if you would read and comprehend what I'm saying. I'm not arguing the medical facts. I'm arguing that assumption that fear motivates conservative beliefs. That assumption has NOTHING TO DO with medicine.



That "someone" is the very person I demonstrated was unquestionably biased. <facepalm>



Colin Fucking Firth. COLIN FUCKING FIRTH? And you're telling me I'm silly. You actually just referenced an actor. Tell me...what are HIS qualifications?

ROTFLMAO

Originally Posted by trumptman

So the only thing that can refute a scientist is another scientist and all scientists are experts in all fields? A mathematician cannot check the data of a scientist because the mathematician isn't a scientist? An actor can be an author and not be questioned because, well who really knows why...perhaps you can explain why an actor is an author in this study. Try to use small words for all the non-actors out there.



That tolerance is a trait and not automatically a positive or a negative? My statement is the starting state, merely noting it exists. If you believe it a positive or a negative, you must prove it as such. Your own study here merely notes who has what. It in no form of fashion proves that one is a positive or a negative.



The news articles I looked up on it claimed it is one of only three studies to have attempted to address this topic.



I'm sorry but you are presuming peer review here. If the study hasn't been gone over by others, then it isn't "automatically" taken into account. The point of peer review is precisely to attempt to replicate and find flaw with prior work. The things I mentioned were from your wikipedia links and those entries cite other studies of course from other scientists that note those results. I'm doing nothing different than you. If I cannot cite a study due to not being a scientist, then you cannot either.



From your source itself, it reads as, this is proto-science, we need a lot more work here.

I can also offer this. You of course cannot respond to it since, well since you aren't a scientist.



Now on to the thread topic rather then dealing with what some non-scientist wants to read into a study.....

ABCNEWS.com



I think his answer is the perfect slogan for 2012 don't you?

Obama 2012- We're Still Working On It!

In another sad note, President Obama has begun gleefully eating small children!



Actually though it is sort of an interesting case study into how the media blows up everything, no matter how small for news.

I mean seriously, the couple needed to be questioned about their baby trying to honk the nose of Obama or stick his fingers into his mouth? People should remember how much space these guys feel they need to fill when they swear every little detail for a Republican gives them momentum or shows they aren't presidential or whatever other nonsense their babbling heads feel the need to spit out and fill the airwaves 24/7.

In the meantime though.....

Obama Eats Your CHILDREN!
Obama Eats Your CHILDREN!
Obama Eats Your CHILDREN!

Originally Posted by trumptman

Credentials or expert proof please. Anything else is just you running on a bit.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Correlation vs. Causation has nothing to do with expert medical opinion.




It's like talking to a wall. OK, here goes again...from your article:



This ASSUMES that conservative beliefs in general are generated by fear. This is an unproven assumption...no medical degree is needed to see that.

Next up we have an example of unadulterated bias:



It's so egregious that the first time I read it, I thought it was tongue-in-cheek.

Next, the author himself disagrees with YOUR conclusion:




So your example is a biased piece of shit, jimmac. And even if it wasn't, it's nothing more than an ad hominem argument. Rather than debate the ideas of your conservative opponents, you'd rather try to prove that their brains are inferior and primitive.

Next, the author himself disagrees with YOUR conclusion:

"Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear," and might therefore be "more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system," Kanai and colleagues wrote. "On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political attitudes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty" -- which may allow people to "accept more liberal views."

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Yes, they're only out for the rich, evil businessmen while the Democrats fight for the little guy. My lord, you're a caricature of yourself.




Figured you'd be bringing that one poll up. I saw it too. Two things: First, it's the only poll that has him anywhere near that high. Secondly, I have to hand to to him: He's really been able to use the purely political temporary tax cut against the GOP for some reason. He's managed to paint himself has a tax cutter facing GOP opposition. I mean, I thought Clinton was good, but wow. That's truly impressive. The reality is that the GOP wants a full year extension. Obama wants two months. And he opposes the Keystone Pipeline, which will create jobs.

Secondly, I have to hand to to him:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

A stopped clock is right twice a day. That's all you've got going for you. I support my predictions with data and historical precedent...you do not. It doesn't mean you're always wrong and that I'm always right. It simply means you're taking shots in the dark and hoping with all your might that the outcome you desire occurs. On the contrary, I look at historical and current data and go from there.

Now let's look at some of those "victories" you've had. With respect to WMD in Iraq: It was the judgement of the word's intelligence community Saddam had them. We know he had them in the past, because he used them. He then failed to verifiably disarm as required. We know what verifiable disarmament looks like...South Africa did so. Instead, Saddam played games with the inspectors and generally obfuscated at every turn. So my question is this: For what reason did you think he didn't have WMD?

Regarding the last presidential election: I don't recall using the term "meltdown" for that, unless perhaps it related to the primary. If you'd like to link to the specific posts, perhaps I can provide some context.




Calling the candidates "garbage" is just totally inaccurate. Please read an comprehend my previous post:

Mitt Romney: Son of former Michigan Governor George Romney. JD/MBA in Business Administration from Harvard Law and Harvard Business. CEO of Bain & Company, then Bain Capital. Brought the company out of crisis. Nearly unseated Ted Kennedy for Senate in 1994. Turned around essentially saved the 2002 Winter Olympics. Served as Governor of Mass. Eliminated a $3 billion deficit. Signed healthcare legislation that ensured nearly all residents had coverage. Did this as a Republican in the bluest of all states.

Newt Gingrich: B.A. and Ph.d in History. Elected to House is 1978 after nearly defeating the incumbent in 74 and 76. Inspired Reagan's "are you better off than you were 4 years ago" comment via a memo written in 1980. Endorsed bill to make MLK's b-day a national holiday. Author of the Contract with America. Speaker of the House. Led the effort to balance the budget and pass welfare reform. Credited with leading the charge on capital gains tax cuts in 1997. Author of over 20 books. Widely seen as one of the most intelligent men in the public sphere today.

How does one conclude they are "garbage?" As for Obama, all the data flies in the face of your prediction.

CBS News Poll. Dec. 5-7, 2011. N=856 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you think Barack Obama has performed his job as president well enough to deserve reelection, or don't you think so?"

Deserves: 41%
Does Not Deserve 54%

_______________________________

Gallup Poll. Rolling average. N=approx. 1,500 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 51%

_______________________________

CNN/ORC Job Approval

44--Approve
51---Disapprove

----------------------------

CBS News Poll. Dec. 5-7, 2011. N=856 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?"

Right Track: 21%
Wrong Track 75%

---------------------------


Tell me that bodes well for Obama, jimmac. And what happened to "it's the economy, stupid?" Unemployment is still well over 8%, and only came down due to people leaving the workforce. GDP growth is nearly stagnant. Jobless claims concisely are over the important 400,000 mark. Debt and deficits are massive.

And:

53% of Americans now favor repealing Obamacare, only 37% oppose.





How did things go once the Dems took over? Fantastic! Since then, we've had an economic meltdown and the country has gone bankrupt. But somehow that's Bush's fault, right?

Newt Gingrich: B.A. and Ph.d in History

Originally Posted by SDW2001

NBC News engages in deliberate and indisputable bias. They've made a conscious decision to be "the alternative to Fox News." So, the poll is nonsense. But I offered to put that aside.



That's not atypical. Same goes for the Democrats. Of course, if I showed you that Obama has lost support among Democrats, you'd probably dismiss it.



That was quite a weaselly way to state that. They are dissatisfied with Congress in general, not "the Republican Congress."



Some do, some don't. Romney--who as of now is all but certain to win the nomination--hasn't gone after people. Neither has Newt Gingrich.



Apparently crazy is now defined as "won the most electoral votes despite Al Gore trying to steal the election."



Larry Sabato's site shows absolutely nothing conclusive at present. There are 111 toss up votes. Obama's map should look far better at this point.

Your other link shows Mitt Romney beating Obama 51 to 47. Good job proving my point.



I know we fight about this every cycle and that we've had our battles, but I really don't see how you come to that conclusion. The numbers for Obama are really, really bad.

• No President except for Reagan has been been re-elected with 7+% unemployment. And Reagan was the beneficiary of a rapidly improving economy at the time.
• Obama's approval rating is around 40% in most polls. It even dips to 39% at times. Presidents don't win re-election unless they are close to 50%.
• Obama's support amongst core voting blocks has dipped, including blacks, hispanics, younger voters and indepenents.
• Most polls show Obama even with or losing to a generic Republic candidate.
  

Add to this the following factors:

• There is a huge enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats
• The overall economy is still very bad and is unlikely to improve significantly by election day.
• Issue polling wrt Obama is bad, particularly on the economy and healthcare.

Obama's support amongst core voting blocks has dipped, including blacks, hispanics, younger voters and indepenents.

indepenents

Originally Posted by trumptman

That is an awful lot of mays and mights. It is interesting to note that I posted a direct quote from the man whereas your quote is cited as being with him and his colleagues who are actors.



Kanai warns against reading too much into the findings. “It’s very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions,” he said. “More work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude.”

That is from your author. I told you already that the points about the same brain region (ACC) having larger size be associated with psychopathy was from your own wikipedia link.

It's an appealing story and a topic worth investigating, says cognitive neuroscientist Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania. But there's plenty of reason to be cautious, she says. For one, it's not clear what a bigger amygdala—or a bigger anything in the brain—actually means in terms of brain function and behavior. The research, she says, is unclear and often contradictory on this point.

Another problem is that most brain regions have multiple functions, Farah says: "Who says fear is the only function of the amygdala?" She notes that this brain region also responds to sexually arousing images and pictures of happy faces, and one recent study found a correlation between amygdala volume and the size of people's social networks. Likewise, the anterior cingulate cortex has been implicated in a long list of cognitive functions. By picking and choosing from the previous studies, "they're indulging in a bit of just-so storytelling," Farah says.

Your liberal neuroscientist and a bunch of actors are engaged in a bit of story telling per my cited neuroscientist.

Per your own criteria, you aren't even allowed to question her conclusions. They are facts. The additional fact that I have a direct QUOTE from your own neuroscientist saying that his finding should not be used in that manner means the liberal media and a few actors are having some fun. The real science cannot pin down political orientation, associate it exclusively in one part of the brain, show that the size of that part of the brain is a net positive or negative or that the traits themselves are a net positive or negative in isolation. Those are all facts.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I've got smilies across a half dozen threads. Perhaps the reduced size of your amygdala leaves you unable to properly recognize facial patterns.

I mean seriously Jimmac, are you just desperately fishing now? I'm cracking jokes about the president eating children and you are saying I'm upset. Even when reading my replies people can tell the tongue is planted firmly in cheek. How could it not be for you and your patently unserious claims? Your ilk is just throwing stuff out and hoping it sticks. CNN dumps Gallup and the reports the numbers from a different poll as a "bounce." NBA is shown reporting the best number in five months and intentionally ignoring the 2 point drop a day later. Obama's good news is like a bad comb over. It isn't fooling anyone and the results are just sad. This is doubly so when you see the "hosts" shuffling from station to station with their terrible and falling ratings scratching their heads and wondering why their "analysis" doesn't ever raise the ratings. Katie has left CBS. Christine has left ABC. The deck chairs have been reshuffled.

While it is sad for them, I'm laughing out loud. I'm laughing to the bank. I'm thrilled.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I thought I already did but if you aren't happy with it, just stick the quote into google. That shouldn't be too hard for you. Unless you are really pissed off, touchy and now want to just try to make something up in an attempt to distract from your entire point being badly crushed.

Likewise, the anterior cingulate cortex has been implicated in a long list of cognitive functions. By picking and choosing from the previous studies, "they're indulging in a bit of just-so storytelling," Farah says.

After all this criticism, I have to point out an impressive aspect of the paper, and that is the replication of results in an independent group of 28 participants. In the end, I don't doubt that there are differences between the brains of liberal and conservative people. But how they got that way, and what it means, are questions for further investigation.

Why are Colin Firth and Tom Feilden, both listed with BBC Radio 4 affiliations, authors on this paper? Let's go back to Tuesday, 28 December 2010 and two pieces that appeared on the BBC website.
Politics: Brain or background?


Science correspondent Tom Feilden: "What started out as a bit of fun has turned into quite a significant piece of science."

Scientific research commissioned by this programme on behalf of our guest editor, Colin Firth, has shown a strong correlation between the structure of a person's brain and their political views.

Originally Posted by trumptman

This is rude and a sign of desperation on your part. You assign all manner of intent to what after the edit you easily saw was 2 seconds worth of work. Really what sort of deranged person takes a google search and reads such strange intent into it? It's like stabbing someone for leaving their socks on the floor. The reaction is totally out of proportion and shows how you would rather lash out than think when your "home team" is attacked. I'm smiles and giggles, you are the one seeing shadows and dark desires.



Scary, scary, it's got to be scary. Those darn conservatives have got to have some hidden agenda, some made up nonsense, something that isn't being revealed. Until of course you just throw the quote into Google like I mentioned and .004 sec later have several articles that quote it.




Holy crap. You mean you did exactly what I said and instead of me eating kittens and killing baby seals you found unicorns, sunshine and ponies? How is that possible?

It lists several more places that have the quote like this one.

However you and your paranoid delusions that were assuaged with a nice Google search can see there were a half dozen more concerns with the study. Perhaps you are satisfied but then you are the guy who lashes out and alleges half a dozen ill-tempered actions occur until you typed a few words into Google made yourself feel better.

Now back to the thread topic, here's a nice list of store closing just from 2011 through October. I'm sure the president has a few more rounds of golf to play, and some loans to make to foreign governments so they can drill for oil while our own president ignores pipelines and jobs here.

405 Blockbuster
633 Borders
200 GameStop
189 Gap
160 f.y.e.
117 Anchor Blue
117 Foot Locker
100 Talbot's
71 A.J. Wright
69 Metropark
63 Friendly's
60 Rite Aid
52 Destination Maternity
50 Abercrombie & Fitch
50 Hot Topic
45 Big Lots
45 Family Dollar
43 Select Comfort
43 Sonic Drive-In
35 Denny's
32 Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (SuperFresh, Pathmark Super Market)
30 Ultimate Electronics
28 Dominos
25 Superfresh (Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company)
20 Lowe's

None of these people need jobs because the caring President Obama will make sure they have years of unemployment benefits (and of course their votes given to him) while we all sit on our hands and wait for utopia to arrive via debt financing.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Here's a little somthing for the two of you to chew on.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ck-108712.html







But that's that nasty Gallup poll that doesn't matter right? It's probably biased right?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Oh really? Well then why did he also write this:



Perhaps we should see the entire paragraph for context. And from which link was that ? I posted several. Like I've said thoughout it's food for thought. But it really seemed to bother you.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Oh SDW! What's wrong with this sentence since just spell check won't take care of this sort of thing I guess you'll have to watch closer.

What are you doing here? Handing him his tutu? Or is that just a stutter? We wouldn't want you to portray your lack of intellect here. I guess you don't have to proof read when you've got spell check.

Originally Posted by marvfox

It is not biased perhaps you are by not recognizing Obama numbers are increasing a little.Give the man some credit!

Originally Posted by trumptman

The point isn't that Libertarian and Republicans would throw money at any of those companies. Geesh talk about a one track mind with regard to solutions. There might be fewer closings or even no closings if the economy were doing better and if there were less governmental financial and regulatory burdens so that it becomes easier to close it down and board it up then to press on.

I was just reading the end of Steve Jobs again last night and he commented personally to President Obama about the burdens businesses face.



Remember that picture? At that meeting Jobs was telling Obama about how there aren't enough engineers in the U.S. and it was a meeting of Silicon Valley business interests all trying to get Obama to listen.

The neuroscientist I quoted said straight out correlation is not causation, exactly what you, the evil non-scientist noted far earlier in the thread.

Don't blame him. Clearly it is the egg nog talking.

Won't it be fun though when tonton notes that your typos have an agenda!

I always think he isn't a real poster. He always sounds like he is drunk. I figured for sure it had to be a duplicate account of someone just trying to stir up trouble. I'd ignore him.

Rasmussen



This is going to get very ugly for Obama very fast. A few polls taken when everyone is gone for Christmas or on a Winter Break of some sort might have improved his numbers a few points but they are clearly in the danger zone where incumbents don't get reelected. The media, DNC and his campaign are clearly trying to build some sort of narrative where the man has been the president for four years but shoulders no blame for the continuing problems. Guys like Ben Nelson are retiring because they really know what is going on and they know even the national media won't be able to spin it. The Democrats are going to be slammed hard this election.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I referenced the same thing, you dolt. The problem is not his contention that fear comes from the amygdala. The problem is that he's assuming fear motivates one to adopt conservative beliefs. It's UNPROVEN. It's an ASSUMPTION.



That was an awesome sentence, you illiterate ignoramus.



You're welcome to point out my typos if it makes you feel better. Of course, that's all they are...typos. You, on the other hand, have a proven inability to use the English language properly. See your above quote for an example. Or, continue acting like a 5 year old. Your choice.



Can you just go away? You're like the retarded version of jimmac.

Originally Posted by trumptman

This is rude and a sign of desperation on your part. You assign all manner of intent to what after the edit you easily saw was 2 seconds worth of work. Really what sort of deranged person takes a google search and reads such strange intent into it? It's like stabbing someone for leaving their socks on the floor. The reaction is totally out of proportion and shows how you would rather lash out than think when your "home team" is attacked. I'm smiles and giggles, you are the one seeing shadows and dark desires.



Scary, scary, it's got to be scary. Those darn conservatives have got to have some hidden agenda, some made up nonsense, something that isn't being revealed. Until of course you just throw the quote into Google like I mentioned and .004 sec later have several articles that quote it.




Holy crap. You mean you did exactly what I said and instead of me eating kittens and killing baby seals you found unicorns, sunshine and ponies? How is that possible?

It lists several more places that have the quote like this one.

However you and your paranoid delusions that were assuaged with a nice Google search can see there were a half dozen more concerns with the study. Perhaps you are satisfied but then you are the guy who lashes out and alleges half a dozen ill-tempered actions occur until you typed a few words into Google made yourself feel better.

Now back to the thread topic, here's a nice list of store closing just from 2011 through October. I'm sure the president has a few more rounds of golf to play, and some loans to make to foreign governments so they can drill for oil while our own president ignores pipelines and jobs here.

405 Blockbuster
633 Borders
200 GameStop
189 Gap
160 f.y.e.
117 Anchor Blue
117 Foot Locker
100 Talbot's
71 A.J. Wright
69 Metropark
63 Friendly's
60 Rite Aid
52 Destination Maternity
50 Abercrombie & Fitch
50 Hot Topic
45 Big Lots
45 Family Dollar
43 Select Comfort
43 Sonic Drive-In
35 Denny's
32 Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (SuperFresh, Pathmark Super Market)
30 Ultimate Electronics
28 Dominos
25 Superfresh (Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company)
20 Lowe's

None of these people need jobs because the caring President Obama will make sure they have years of unemployment benefits (and of course their votes given to him) while we all sit on our hands and wait for utopia to arrive via debt financing.

This is rude and a sign of desperation on your part. You assign all manner of intent to what after the edit you easily saw was 2 seconds worth of work.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I referenced the same thing. The problem is not his contention that fear comes from the amygdala. The problem is that he's assuming fear motivates one to adopt conservative beliefs. It's UNPROVEN. It's an ASSUMPTION.





You're welcome to point out my typos if it makes you feel better. Of course, that's all they are...typos. You, on the other hand, have a proven inability to use the English language properly. See your above quote for an example. Or, continue acting like a 5 year old. Your choice.



Can you just go away?

Can you just go away

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Doesn't seem like it worked. The problem is the President intellectually knows that private business creates jobs, but emotionally believes businesses are evil. He intellectually knows that tax cuts work, but he emotionally believes that the rich are screwing the little guy. It results in this cognitive dissonance that manifests itself as partisan attacks, contradictory statements and ineffective police stat not even he nor his party can defend.



He doesn't care. Or, he't not smart enough to notice. I even posted the full paragraph and pointed out what the non-medical assumption was. He came right back to screaming I wasn't a doctor or a scientist.



But he posts like this in July, too!



At lead tonton can tell the difference between typos and minor grammatical mistakes and a complete inability to write.



I have to wonder about him. He's all over the place.



I saw that story...it's pretty telling, I think. There are somethings that could happen to help Obama dramatically. First, if we end up getting involved militarily in Iran, that may sway opinion. Secondly, there is talk he'll dump Biden and go with Clinton. That's going to drum up enthusiasm for the ticket. Still, he's left with defending a record that's indefensible. As long as the election is about him and not the GOP nominee, he'll lose.

he't not smart enough to notice