Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Correlation between mental illness and GW Bush voters
ctnow.com — Lohse, a social work master ’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.
solarpower- 993 diggs
- digg it
- coremaster33, on 10/12/2007, -69/+50YES! so perfect! if i could digg it twice i would!
- Suits, on 10/12/2007, -52/+23Man, theirs a lot of psychotics, er... I mean red states out there. I guess in the long run they mean no harm, the poor conservatives. They just want attention and love. How can I dislike the mentally challenged, we forgive you! Just don't let it happen again, Okay? Now then, run along and play. God bless em.'
- portis, on 10/12/2007, -21/+57Next, we need to confirm the correlation between donkey ass sniffing and scientologists.
- 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -27/+14This is funny coming from a bunch of retards that post this crap under "Political News". Fliknut, is that you?
- dgendreau, on 10/12/2007, -13/+46I hate Bush and all, but Correlation is not Causation. This is just retarded. If anything, its probably Republicans promoting this news story hoping lefties will take the bait.
- djlosch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”
your headline and description totally neglect to mention this. stop foxing. - SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"Lohse says the trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election."
Looks like they prefer the incumbent more than anything. - Gethsemane, on 10/12/2007, -16/+22I think the person that submitted this as being news worthy has some sort of mental illness -- Buried!
- ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21dgendreau:
"I hate Bush and all, but Correlation is not Causation."
What you're stating is a logical fallacy only in cases where you're trying to prove causation. This study did no such thing. It was specifically showing correlation, which is a perfectly valid analysis of data.
"Group A is more likely than Group B to agree with Proposition X."
If I'm analyzing this wrong, please call me out on it and tell me what a doofus I am. :) - stooge88, on 10/12/2007, -22/+17You know, I remember a time when digg was a cool place to get technology news (on the front page). Unfortunately, it's turning into a bunch of people spewing political idiocy. I need to find a new homepage. Digg has been infiltrated by non-geeks. :-(
- CTRaider, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7"The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains."
Guess they originally thought all of them would vote democratic. Now they are on to register the felon vote. Too bad for them it's STILL illegal. - ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21stooge88, do me a favor. Look up at the summary of this submission and then look at the line right under it. See what it says there?
Topic: Political News
Let me tell you something, don't even waste your time spewing your holier-than-thou ***** when you don't have the common sense to go into your profile page and UNCHECK any category you don't want to see on the front page -- like, you know, Political News or Political Opinion, or any of the countless other categories that exist specifically for this purpose.
You say Digg has been infiltrated by non-geeks? Well, guess what, you're one of them. Any geek would be smart enough to understand how to use this damn website. - stooge88, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Heh...I love it when people that I'm lamenting about prove my point for me.
- Brewdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ stooge88
*COUGH* Tool. - pirashkee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1This shows that the majority Americans are psycho? We already knew that but what about other countries ruled by dictators backed by the US? It's OK if Kingass of Jordan or Saudi or Egypt ignores basic rights of citizens.
- idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@dgendreau
"I hate Bush and all, but Correlation is not Causation. This is just retarded."
Good thing that the headline doesn't say anything about "Causation". In fact, it "Correlation" is the first word! - dgendreau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My concern wasnt with the word "correlation". It was the phrase "direct link" which a correlation is most certainly not.
- CanoeBuilder, on 10/12/2007, -38/+15I was just about to submit this, Congratulations, it's going to be Dugg'd like a *****!
- rushpage, on 10/12/2007, -53/+17He's a lib student. What did you expect him to "find?"
- KingPhallus, on 10/12/2007, -19/+26self described "Reagan revolution fanatic" qualifies as a lib these days? You bush supporters really are ***** crazy.
- exoendo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5oh that's what he said huh? I guess we'll take his word on it.
- CanoeBuilder, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported [someone else].”
So what is the best way to inform/cure these folks that when they beguile themselves into thinking they are making a point they are just quoting soundbite propaganda from MSM and such.
How 'bout the oft-repeated "freedom isn't free," really?
Is butter not buttery? - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -21/+17“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”
When someone's life is total chaos they will seek out order. That is not new, psychiatrists have known it for years. This is every bit as shameful as Republicans trying to make an issue out of Terri Schiavo's tragedy.- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -19/+20How is it shameful to study this? As you yourself pointed out, the study isn't reporting that "Bush supporters tend to be psychotic" but that "psychotic patients prefer Bush's authoritarian leadership". This isn't exploiting anyone, as the Republicans did to Schiavo. Nor is it illegal, as the Republican actions during the Schiavo debacle were. Nor does this undermining the checks and balances in the government, as Republicans tried to do when the courts ruled according to the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench.
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -18/+32They didn't uncover anything new, used a ridiculously small sample group, and are presenting it in a misleading way by hyping the Bush angle upfront before casually getting down to the real findings of the study. You could say the same for any authoritarian figure, but they decided to turn science into politics.
- dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -24/+14"but they decided to turn science into politics."
Did you actually read the article? Oh, wait, you're a Bush supporter, I forgot you already have the answers.
Had you read it you'd have noticed that it wasn't the intent of the study but that doesn't invalidate the conclusion. The statistics are valid. You may not LIKE where the data points but that doesn't change the result.
But why worry about facts when you already have the answers? Facts are for people lacking conviction. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19No no no, DV, read it again, it starts out saying:
"A collective “I told you so” will ripple through the world of Bush-bashers once news of Christopher Lohse’s study gets out.
Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush."
That is the authors little piece of ***** contribution to this article, he is trying to make it sound like only the mentally ill voted for Bush.
The article goes on to say that the study really says that people suffering from psychosis vote for authoriatarians. A completely different reality that what the author was trying to spread. It's unecessary crap and poor writing. - argusbargus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11Um guys? IF you RTFA, you would have seen this: "The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on." Please read on in the article that the researchers had expected this result based on previous studies.
The study was designed to get more votes for the Republicans. Amazing with all the claims of Bush bashing, no one noticed that it was not the Democrats slagging the Republicans. As a great speaker once said: "Reality has a liberal-bias". - ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8It's not so much that Bush supporters tend to be psychotic as psychotics tend to be Bush supporters.
That's a key difference there. - tablatronix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"When someone's life is total chaos they will seek out order. That is not new, psychiatrists have known it for years."
Leaders have known it for a few thousand years. They have also known that to control your people you have to sometimes create the chaos.
I still prefer public works as a means of focusing the masses.
- szolDat, on 10/12/2007, -35/+22Bush is an idiot, killing americans in iraq for nothing. Americans who voted for him are idiots also, for they voted for war. Everybody knows that.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -20/+13Everyone *does* know that. But say what everyone knows, and you'll be deafened by the howls of the authoritarians.
It's funny; it's as if being uninformed or immoral is OK, but reporting on those who think that being uninformed or immoral is OK is a horrible crime. It's related to a similar reaction to stories on Bush--his illegal or unjustified actions are apparently fine, but the moment the NYTimes runs a story, *they're* somehow the ones who are evil! - CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5Thanks for proving my point, guys!
- insomniasystems, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8No not idiots,
their "Mentally ill"... political correctness people... - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Thanks for sharing you generalisations and stereotypes guys, it happens that a lot of us voted for Bush because Kerry was an incompetent lying knob. But you know delude yourselves if you must.
The man lies and confesses in the same sentence. Bush is a harmless jabbering moron, it's the administration that a lot of us wanted gone. I personally liek the current balance, no one side should hold a majority at every level of government. - ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@CopperFalcon
You mean being uninformed like inner city voters who are anti-intellectual sheep just as much as the religious right? - SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Why do I get the feeling you're not even old enough to vote?
- BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@SpacemanSpiff
Because he argues like a 12 year old.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -20/+13Everyone *does* know that. But say what everyone knows, and you'll be deafened by the howls of the authoritarians.
- isemism, on 10/12/2007, -20/+37FTA: “Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.
Thanks Fox News!- daedalus1982, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3perhaps that was because they are mentally ill and don't get out much. Erm hey its just a shot in the dark but how can something about several HUNDREDS of millions of people be derived from a test done on only 69 people(thats right isn't it?) so one insane asylums gets polled (hypothetically i'm not saying this is what happened) and we get a result that most are republican in their views, we then pass this judgment on the nation at large? don't flame, just correct me if i'm wrong but this seems SO skewed to make it laughable
- mjl5629, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20Good idea... but the survey only draws on 69 participants.
- LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Damn, I guess the "unbiased study base" was a little hard to find, i wonder what state he was in, that MIGHT throw it off a LITTLE bit [/sarcasm]
- camix, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26This is a ridiculous study and should be buried as inaccurate or just straight up lame. In a country of over 300 million people (122,293,332 who voted and 62,040,610 that voted for Bush in 2004) 69 outpatients from Connecticut represent all Bush supporters? I like to consider myself a moderate and neither a Dem or Rep but come on people you can't possibly be taking this article serious??? I'd bet more than half the people that are digging this aren't even reading it. I'd like to think that people are digging this up because they read the article and believed what it says rather than digging it up because they just hate Bush. I would also like to believe that any semi intelligent person would've seen that sample size and immediately labeled this post as inaccurate. I mean come on people you don't have to be a Statistics major to see that.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4@camix
"I'd bet more than half the people that are digging this aren't even reading it."
And I'd bet that virtually all the people whining about this didn't even read it. You certainly didn't. The study shows that psychotics tend to prefer Bush's authoritarian policies, not the converse. The 69 outpatients were a sample of outpatients, not a sample of Bush supporters. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Copper quit trolling, you know damn well that the description, title and first half of this article are all meant to mislead the readers. Anyone who read the entire thing would understand what the findings actually were and have every right to complain about all the retards who are digging this crap.
- daedalus1982, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1noahhoward for president. and i mean it
my anti-troll and my hero - whereisian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is the headline not there to draw the reader to the article? It appears the headline was very successful. That is if you RTFA. Agree or not with the article, most people are not reading it.
- 1111, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18First, the sample size is too small. Secondly, even if they did show correlation that does not equal causation, as there could be a spurious relationship between the two. And all of this I learned in a lower division poli sci course. The only response this merits is that "I want to believe" UFO picture.
- Hoogie7Dowser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The article AND the Digg headline themselves say it's only a "correlation". Nowhere in the article does it say it's a causation.
Thus, you're arguing with no one but yourself. Seems to me like psychotic behavior.
- Hoogie7Dowser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The article AND the Digg headline themselves say it's only a "correlation". Nowhere in the article does it say it's a causation.
- wingertank, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11And dem voters in FL are to dumb to figure out voting machines that the rest of the country has no problems with. whatever...
bury'd as inaccurate. - Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5I have been thinking the same thing for ages glad to see someone put in in perspective :)
- dampeal, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22Oh look, another Bush Bash fest on Digg... Dugg Down... as innacurate and just lame, yes I'm a repbulican but the story is just a lame attempt to twist things. what they want you to believe or infer from this is that those mental patients went out and voted for Bush. It's a minuscule sampling, I'm sure I could got out and find 69 mentally ill people that prefer Kerry...
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -17/+9Translation: this story is reporting facts I find deeply uncomfortable. Therefore I will whine about bias and inaccuracy even though I can find neither in the story. I will also reveal a critical ignorance of statistics.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@CopperFalcon: I'm certainly not Republican or conservative, but I find this article to be completely lame.
69 mentally ill outpatients support Bush != Bush supporters are more likely to be mentally ill
...no matter how much you want it to be. - saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Copperfalcon,
69 people are not FACTS.
Get your Democrat head out of your Democrat ass and realize that this "Scientific" study is flawed from the start and that this was just another lame attempt to bash Bush. Any scientist knows that a 0.000000023% sampling hardly makes for any sort of proof. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7While it's clear that Copper is a troll. There is nothing wrong with the survey itself, this is some kids Masters study, not a full blown scientific study of the entire country. The results really don't even require publishing. The anti-bush spin comes in solely through the author.
- LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Buried as lame, if this was directed at any other group of people (minorities, liberals, etc) then it would be flamed to hell as derogatory.
- pcx99, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15But it's OK when democrats do it.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5The difference is that this particular assertion is supported by facts. I know it's hard for those in the faith-based community to understand, but all claims are *not* equally valid. Furthermore, facts which you don't like don't become any less true just because you don't like them.
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5why don't you try to disprove the claim instead of shutting your ears and going "lalalalala".
- bigjimslade, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7
Agreed. "Hard for those in the faith-based community to undestand.." There's a nice stereotype. If I voted for Bush, I must be in the "faith-based community?" What other stereotypes do you believe in? - saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Alphabet,
Done.
I asked 3 other people here at work what their last rated IQ test was and who they voted for in 2004. Turns out that that those 3 people average 112 and all voted for Bush. Having used a sampling sized that is insignificantly different in percentage than the one in the article. This "proved" that Bush supporters are extremely smart to genius in level. Hrm.. I guess it also "proved" that no one voted for anyone besides Bush in 2004 as well.
Learn how to read a poll first, kthxbye. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2@saigumi
damn, your statistics skills sucks ass. Don't you people take statistics class in college? Do you even go to college? *****, my statistics memory is rusty, but I still know that 69 people is a good number. Usually, for my statistics class, we took sample sizes ranging from 50 to 100, which was enough to generate an accurate reading.
COME ON, he has the backing of the freaking a professor and statistician. And unlike your ***** non-scientific approach, they actually took the time to do research and collect data. And you? You probably never went to college. I hate argueing with conservatives. People have to spend half the time just explaining to you how science and math works. And even then, your brains probably still can't understand it. - daedalus1982, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ alphabet
ah yes i'm sure in your highschool stat/calc class that a test group of 69 people would have been fine to test coke product preference you little troll. but don't you see how selective the test group was? outpatients from one area of one small state. but then again you know all about statistics and how the target group should represent the whole and all.
- pcx99, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15But it's OK when democrats do it.
- Crin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Mental Illness? So now were lumping psychotics with people who struggle with anxiety and eating disorders and other such things are we? Real nice... I suffer from Generalised Anxiety Disorder, which by this classification makes me "mentally ill".
Maybe we should start using sweeping generalisations with "physical illnesses" too? So perhaps if you sprain your ankle we put you straight on chemotherapy? You know? Sprains... cancer... there pretty much the same thing aren't they.- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I dunno, after that rant you just made, it really does make you look "mentally ill". And also, lay off the slippery slope argument, it's a weak argument to make. And finally, he never lumped psychotics with anxiety and eating disorders. Maybe you really are crazy. You seem to have misinterpreted his research AND somehow pulled false information from nowhere.
/education is your friend - daedalus1982, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ alphabet
speaking of weak arguments here we find you again
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I dunno, after that rant you just made, it really does make you look "mentally ill". And also, lay off the slippery slope argument, it's a weak argument to make. And finally, he never lumped psychotics with anxiety and eating disorders. Maybe you really are crazy. You seem to have misinterpreted his research AND somehow pulled false information from nowhere.
- Bryan6Aero, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10This reminds me of the highly acclaimed study that found that people who try to use the social sciences to validate their political ideology tend to be assholes.
- Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Meh. What a sad ***** inflammatory piece of ***** this article is. And I say that as a moderate libertarian who ***** despises Bush and his theocons, not a "Bush voter" or GOP voter.
- theXenon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2It must be true though if you think about it... I mean, religion is a mental disease after all.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This article does not say people who vote for Bush are psychotic, this article says that psychotic people in Connecticut vote for authoritative leaders. It implies that all psychotic people may vote for authoritative leaders.
This is just lame. - mickisdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5People with mental illness supporting Bush != People supporting Bush being mentally ill
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3How the hell did this get here??? Digg down please
- dr-steve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Over last summer, I ran a correlation between the percentage of toothless people in each state and the percentage of people voding (in the state) for GW Bush in the last election. The correlation was very high. (I don't have the chart/data with me right now; I'll try to post a reference tonight if I can find it.)
Just thought you'd like to know...
-Steve - Zique, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just out of curiosity it'd be interesting to know what people with OCD or Asperger's voted, since they tend to have a higher IQ in addition to the mental illness.
- mickisdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1People with Aspergers are not mentally ill.
- sylentmode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"People with mental illness supporting Bush != People supporting Bush being mentally ill"
exactly, this shows how knowledgeable some of the people are who are reading this.
What if an article said that 93% of African Americans from a specific small urban area vote democratic?
Does that mean that if you are democratic, you must be black?
This is a dumb article, and people are definitely twisting the results - digdug135, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Buried as inaccurate. It does not show "GWB voters" are more likely to have mental illness. It purports to show that those with certain disorders are more likely to support a particular type of leader. And, for the record, we should probably never rely on someone who is a "social work master’s student".
- kotatsu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1There is also a correlation between lack of intelligence and propensity to believe in religion/supernatural myths.
It's all from the 'stating the bleeding obvious' school of thought, and shouldn't really need a study for anyone to believe.- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh, of course, we don't need a study for that. It's so obvious.
Well, I see that you don't need proof to back up your ridiculous claims, and so I admit defeat. You're opinion is as fact, oh mighty one.
*sigh*
- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh, of course, we don't need a study for that. It's so obvious.
- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3First of all, didn't we have a similar discussion yesterday about the mental status of conservatives? This one just happens to be more bluntly spun by the author.
In any case, I prefer my leaders to have some authority, and to make the tough decisions that ordinary folks don't have to think about. Perhaps sometimes they make the wrong decisions, like Bush has, but that does not mean an authoritive president is a bad thing. It just happens to be what leaders do for a living... they lead. - The_Wallbanger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Interesting read, more for the science of the mentally ill rather than the politics. Just remember, a disproportionate number of mentally ill patients may support the President, but Bush supporters themselves don't have a disproportionate amount of mentally ill people in their demographic.
- SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8yesterday conservatives were labeled evil, today bush supporters are insane.
what are dems then? pinko commie naive hippies? - jonathan70, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Setting aside all issues of validity of the study:
Note that the Bush-supporting "psychotics" were mental PATIENTS. In other words, they were getting help for their mental illness.
The insane who are so insane that they don't even know that they are insane support Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Alcee Hastings, and read Daily Kos. There is a name for them: moonbats. - tisfl37, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Buried as inaccurate. If you're not mentally ill, you'll do the same thing!!
- shm1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+369 is too few. 666 samples would have been more appropriate.
- dontspamjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Inaccurate
- MoonDogAFO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7UGH - buried as INACCURATE.
Look at the title of this Digg, "Correlation between mental illness and GW Bush voters". And now, what does the article actually spell out? As people have demonstrated, it states that people with mental illness tend to prefer an authoritative leader. This is a clear attempt by the poster to stir the pot.
What's worse is that the publication's editor and (possibly) the author of the article use the titles and the first 2 paragraphs to establish EXACTLY that tone, instead of just reporting the facts.
******************
Bush Nuts
Are George W. Bush lovers certifiable?
A collective “I told you so” will ripple through the world of Bush-bashers once news of Christopher Lohse’s study gets out.
Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.
*******************
Look at the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph: where in the rest of the article does the study's originator state that he has a direct link between mental illness and support for Bush? Nowhere!
Here is the last sentence of paragraph #3: "The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush." Is this statement inaccurate in itself? No, but the proper way to phrase it was to say, "The more psychotic the patient, the more likely they were to vote for an authoritative candidate - in this case, Bush."
I'm also concerned about the statement regarding the 1977 study showing that similar patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election? Why go back that far, when they were so close to the Ford/Carter election of 1976? Is it because neither of those cadidates was really "authoritative" enough?
I have no problem with a Master's thesis using the sample that they did, nor do I have a problem with the conclusion. Hell, I came to the same conclusion before I had even gotten past Paragraph #2. Isn't it funny that the professor overseeing the project states that “You can ask new questions of the data. I haven’t looked at” Lohse’s conclusions regarding Bush. Not exactly a ringing endorsement there about these conclusions. This guy should have stuck to his original thesis and left the politicizing alone. - blowerfish, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This is a new low for Moonbats. Please continue to spread this "news" and further indict yourselves.
- ckrimmel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4HAHA - Southern Connecticut State University - wow that's good.
“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,”
This fool must be kidding. That is the absolute worst conclusion I have ever heard in my life. He goes on to say: “Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,”
all his conclusions are drawn from the massive number of people he conducted this study on - all 69 of them. WOW.- corporate70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Don't democrats support a bigger government? (Socialized meds, gov monopoly on education, etc.)
Wouldn't that suggest that Democrats like authorative figures? Don't get me wrong I think the article is bogus.... I'm just showing a flaw in the logic.
- corporate70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Don't democrats support a bigger government? (Socialized meds, gov monopoly on education, etc.)
- serpicolugnut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10OK, Here's my "scientific" study.
Left leaning people are more prone to mental illness than those who lean right.
My study is supported by the actions of the following leftists:
Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, Cameron Diaz, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy, Natalie Maines, Michael Richards, Patty Murray, John Kerry, George Michael and Elton John.
The above is just a partial list. To make the list, the leftist must have made a crazy statement or perform a crazy act in the last 5 years.
Where's my Nobel prize?- yoshitx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is this a list of people who don't actually work day to day for a living?
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Hilarious!!
I knew there was link!
Give that man a prize. - SunThe1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Maybe crazy, but not stupid. What a lame-o article.
- mrnukem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I hate to break it to everyone but there is not that much difference between the 2 parties and any candidate they produce. Everyone who runs for office now trys so hard to move to the "center" and please everyone.
A lot of what is being said now about GW and Iraq was said about LBJ and Vietnam. Its just a cluster fu_K that never ends. - erickf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This article is ridiculous.
- corporate70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Hmm, so instead of engaging Bush supporters on a intellectual and rational level, just call them retarted.
Sounds like a cop out to me. - elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6But what about the correlation between Liberals and Buttplug usage?
- CosmoP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Too late, there is already a book out called "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder".
- Firethorne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Stories like this really help to highlight how pathetic Digg has become.
- MrMcGuire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is ridiculous. I love digg, but some of these stories should have been buried from the get-go. digg responsibly.
- pirotess, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So based on the response 70 people we now have good evidence that anyone who is religiously inclined or isn't a "free thinker" must me mentally retarded. I'll guess buy that.. or anything else that supports my prejudices.
- Larofeticus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The conclusion is crazy people are more likely to vote for bush.
The conclusion is not that people who vote for bush are more likely to be crazy.
I tremble in fear at the likes of the all powerful mental patient voting bloc. - rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is old, I mean it's self evident right?
In other news ... the sun came up this morning. - Voltagensis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Fear propaganda has a profound affect on those already paranoid and scared.
In my opinion, you'd have to be mentally ill to vote for any of these scum sucking fascist politicians, republican or democrat. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Just in case people are drawing the wrong conclusions from the article.
a -> b does not mean b -> a
If more people who are mentally ill support Bush,
that does not imply that those who support Bush are mentally ill.- Sanguine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It is pretty clear that it was the intent of the article's author, solarpower, and many others here to push those wrong conclusions. Its par for the course here on digg.
- Zoglog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1correlation......................
morons -
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by