Enjoy the planet while you still can, I doubt the robots are going to put up with conservative bullshit.
The Conservative Principle
- Thread starter Buy1Sell2
- Start date
The Fourth Circus?
Looking ahead to the rest of 2018, we may have 1 or 2 Supreme Court vacancies and I am delighted that Trump will be the one to fill these. We need to get a greater share of Strict Constitutionalism on the Supreme Court the way Mr Trump is doing at the lower level. When it comes right down to it, the direction of the country can be shaped by rogue activist judges and this needs to be stopped posthaste. We have long suffered BS decisions by cherry picked district judges who overstep their authority as if they were president or Congreff themselves. For goodness' sake, why would a Fed judge in Hawaii think he could put a stop to anything nationwide??? The return of the judiciary to the people is actually more important than the midterm elections.
Liberals and Progressives are not on the correct side of issues and history. Therefore, they only have one line of defense (outside of mainstream media bias) and that is to file suits in cherry-picked federal districts where the outcome will most certainly be of an activist left lean. The Judiciary needs to be rid of these legislating judges and replaced with Originalists. It may take a bit but is absolutely critical to getting the country back.
Last edited:
Amen.
This is a slippery slope. Most of Obama's policies were designed to benefit nonwhites at the expense of whites, but in liberal world, that is not a problem.
more fake science from the left. a larger amydala actually allows people to determine what is bullshit and what is real...
also... papers have come out showing... that the study these stories were based on was coded incorrectly... the results was actually the exact opposite...
which of course anyone with life experience knew.
https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/
turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong.
The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism.
“The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction.
“The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”
In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism.
The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones.
The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.
Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame.
“I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.”
The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.”
But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.”
“The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.
also... papers have come out showing... that the study these stories were based on was coded incorrectly... the results was actually the exact opposite...
which of course anyone with life experience knew.
https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/
turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong.
The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism.
“The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction.
“The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”
In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism.
The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones.
The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.
Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame.
“I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.”
The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.”
But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.”
“The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.
"more fake science from the left. a larger amydala actually allows people to determine what is bullshit and what is real...
also... papers have come out showing... that the study these stories were based on was coded incorrectly... the results was actually the exact opposite...
which of course anyone with life experience knew."
Jesus you are a hopeless Dunning Kruger case. "That study these stories"? They are very different studies using different methods. This is why you are a fool with climate change, you conflate things and.. you are not smart enough to understand. You are a dreadfully hopeless case.
BTW, people's names start with a capital letter as do countries and places, you know Trump not "trump".
Again, someone with no education (or possible selective brain damage) like yourself should not try and yip yip at those who have. You do not really know anything coherent about climate change, shut up about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_in_English
Start here, only when you can write like an adult man should you address adult men.
When to capitalize
Capital letters are used:
- at the beginning of a sentence. This in printing is known as sentence case, where the first letter of the sentence is capitalized, and all others are lower case with the exception of proper nouns. In printing normal sentence case may be substituted by UPPER CASE (all letters are capitalized), and Title Case (where the first letter of each word is capitalized). Capitals are usually not used after a colon.[1]
- with some nouns and adjectives, usually if a noun indicates a proper noun.[2][3]
- pronoun "I".
- personal and place names: "John", "Mr. Smith", "Amsterdam", "Europe", "Mount Everest", "the Ganges".
- compass directions when referring to geographical regions: "Western Canada", "I was raised in the South", but not for points on a compass: "London is west of Berlin"[4]
- national and regional adjectives: "an American" (noun), "an American man" (adjective).
- religions: "a Catholic church" (adjective).
- deities and personifications: "God", "Fame".[5]
- days, months: "Monday", "January", but not seasons such as "autumn"
- brand names: "Toyota", "Nike", "Coca-Cola", unless the brand itself is purposely not capitalized: "iPhone", eBay".
- royal titles: "King George III" but "kings and queens of England",[6][7] but only sometimes 'sir' or 'madam'[8]
- planets and other celestial bodies: "Jupiter", "the Crab Nebula", but not "the earth", "the sun", or "the moon"[9]
- Words which change their meaning between capitalized and uncapitalized usage, such as "liberal" and "Liberal", are called capitonyms: compare "A man of liberal tastes" and "The leader of the Liberal Party".
- In legal documents, where the full name of an individual or body is later referred to in short form, in order to avoid ambiguity: "John C. Smith (Plaintiff)", "Exxon-Mobil Corporation (the Company)".
English usage is not consistent, but generally prepositions and articles are not capitalized: "the Forest of Dean", "Gone with the Wind", "University of Southampton". With some publications "The" forms part of the title: "reading The Times".[10] For a more detailed explanation see Capitalization § Titles.
Capitalization of acronyms and initialisms
See also: Acronym § Case
Generally acronyms and initialisms are capitalized, e.g., "NASA" or "SOS." In British English, only the initial letter of an acronym is capitalized if the acronym is read as a word, e.g., "Unesco."[11]
Last edited:
I have never met a person more shockingly opposed to learning something than you.
You are so tied up in your leftist worldview you lecture people about pedantic obvious crap rather than admitting your understanding about amygdalas was recently debunked.
I advise you to cease trading while you still have money.
You would be much better served to spread your money out among pros with track records.
Then when one of your pros does well take the money out and give it to one who is just starting to have his or her P&L rise.
You are so tied up in your leftist worldview you lecture people about pedantic obvious crap rather than admitting your understanding about amygdalas was recently debunked.
I advise you to cease trading while you still have money.
You would be much better served to spread your money out among pros with track records.
Then when one of your pros does well take the money out and give it to one who is just starting to have his or her P&L rise.