Are Bush Lovers Certifiable?

S

slaphappynmd

New Member
“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.
 
ylexot

ylexot

Super Genius
Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election.
Click to expand...
Wow! What a conclusive study :rolleyes:
 
edinsomd

edinsomd

New Member
It gets better:

"Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush."

Backed by an unknown Psyc Prof from Podunk-U and a Statician, no less! I'm no Bush fan, but pul-eeeze! :lmao: You read it on the interweb, it MUST be true! :whistle:
Ed
 
ylexot

ylexot

Super Genius
Are Bush Lovers Certifi... 12-02-2006 07:57 PM bet you voted for him, no room to talk, go see a psychiatrist

slaphappynmd, you seem to be upset by the fact that I'm not upset about your posts...
 
Mikeinsmd

Mikeinsmd

New Member
It gets better: "Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush." Backed by an unknown Psyc Prof from Podunk-U and a Statician, no less! I'm no Bush fan, but pul-eeeze! :lmao: You read it on the interweb, it MUST be true! :whistle:
Click to expand...
Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election.
Click to expand...
And you're busted again by your own ridiculous links.... :killingme

Please never leave us. I love comedy!!
 
Kerad

Kerad

New Member
Hey Slap..

As much as I am not so much a fan of Dubya...

It's almost like kicking a guy while he is down...at this point. We all kinda know..and even some of his hardcore followers have sussed it out. Dubya is dead in the water...unless he accepts common sense and starts leading for the country...instead of for his party. It's possible that this could happen..so let's wait and see.

Dubya's got a couple of years left. He actually surprised me by firing...I mean.."accepting the resignation of.." Donald Rumsfeld.

With his cover blown to bits...he may surprise everyone.

If not..then he will meet the lame-duck fate that is looming.
 
edinsomd

edinsomd

New Member
I’m thinkin’ Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola were my hard sell interrogators at SERE! :jameo:
“Zo, you haf signed ze papers? Nyet??!! Statistician Ginacola will deal with you now, War Criminal! Water board zis one!”
Ed
 
T

Tom Sawyer

Member
It seems strange to me that anyone who voted for John Kerry could claim to know anything. Certainly if one studied Kerry's record its surprising he got any votes from Americans. I dont doubt Kerry got some votes from Viet Nam Veterans,although it seems improbable after he accused them of being war criminals. No i dont believe sanity had anything to do with voting for John Kerry,I do believe the "Yellow Dog syndrome carried him as far as it did.

Now although I am not a Bush Lover I will admit voting for him, and although I dont like many things he has done, When I look at the horsefaced ,Commie loving, gigolo,hate the military,flip-flopping, cow flopping, Ted Kennedy butt-kissing, arrogant,rich-boy,moron he ran against I am still glad I did.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
slaphappynmd said:
link!
Click to expand...
You know, this is one of those articles that make you wonder why it even makes the paper. This is not a peer-reviewed bit of research - it's a paper done by someone at South Conn trying for their Master's - and it's not even their thesis. So basically, some schmuck wrote a paper for their class by interviewing a handful of psychotic people. 69 in fact, all from the same basic geography.

That's not what makes it laughable.

It's the leap of logic from the correlation. I don't care that the statistical methodology is never revealed. I don't care that they show no control group or scientific manner in which the sample was drawn. And it doesn't matter that it was supported - as though this was an expensive undertaking - by two persons, one of which is simply named as a "statistician" which means they could be an undergrad for all we know. And actually, it doesn't matter that they point to an old study suggesting a correlation between psychosis and voting for Nixon in '72 (Newsflash : the election of the Nixon in '72 was the second biggest landslide in US history. It'd be hard to select ANY SAMPLE that didn't show a correlation towards voting for Nixon).

No, what's weird is the bad syllogistic argument, which actually, the person involved doesn't make, but that the writer of the piece does. No one ever claimed brilliant logic from a journalist.

If true, someone has detected a correlation between deep psychosis and voting for Bush. In a sample as small as 69 - and done in Connecticut, not a state heavily carried by Bush in 2004 - unless they specifically selected only Bush voters to survey (which would invalidate the survey) - it's unlikely they could have had more than several dozen persons to examine, and unlikely they could compare levels of pychosis with more than a couple dozen, tops - and these of course, were outpatients.

If true someone was able to conclude a correlation between pychosis and voting for Bush. So the writer has decided to conclude that Bush voters who comprise more than half the voting population of the United States are more likely to be pychotic.

And this of course is stupid. You could just as well conclude that, by interviewing left-handed people at a left-handers convention that if most of them voted for Bush, that most voters for Bush are left handed. It's an invalid use of logic. Being from South Conn, what are the chances they're Yankee fans? Could we deduce from the study that Yankee fans are also psychotic?

You can't conclude that if a majority of Native Americans voted for Bush, that Bush voters are all Native Americans.

That's what makes me laugh.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Let me get this straight... If you support a president that went to war against a threat that the previous president ignored, removed a brutal dictator from power, was central in opening the door for democracy in the middle east and maintains an honest core family value, thus returning such honor to the WH, you are psychotic. But if you support and apologize for a president that commits adultery, is a womanizer, receives oral objectives in the oval office as a result of abuse power, THEN lies about it under oath AND while in the act of making national security decisions you are perfectly normal.

I really do see the validity of this study……. :bigwhoop:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top