patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Responses to disgusting images could predict, with 95 percent to 98 percent accuracy, how a person would answer questions on the political survey.

"such as dirty toilets or mutilated carcasses"

"Conservatives tend to have more magnified responses to disgusting images, but scientists don’t know exactly why,"

The only examples given, they're right about that, putting them in concert with most normal people. Maybe that's just another indication that liberalism is a mental illness.

The more disgusting the image, the more liberals wanted to fix it with a welfare check.

Over 90% of welfare would be completely unnecessary if capitalism wasn't such an abysmal failure. You pay for welfare because Walmart taxes its employees too much, over 70%! If Walmart and other corporations didn't exploit their employees, you wouldn't have to pay for welfare.

Americans are spending $153 billion a year to subsidize McDonald’s and Wal-Mart’s low wage workers

The low wages paid by businesses, including some of the largest and most profitable companies in the U.S. – like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart – are costing taxpayers nearly $153 billion a year.

After decades of wage cuts and health benefit rollbacks, more than half of all state and federal spending on public assistance programs goes to working families who need food stamps, Medicaid, or other support to meet basic needs. Let that sink in — American taxpayers are subsidizing people who work — most of them full-time (in some case more than full-time) because businesses do not pay a living wage.

The problem of low wages and the accompanying public cost extends far beyond the fast-food industry. Forty-eight percent of home care workers rely on public assistance. In child care, it’s 46 percent. Among part-time college faculty—some of the most highly educated workers in the country—it’s 25 percent.

Public assistance programs provide a vital support system for American families. But when Americans like Wise, Johnson and Hughes are working as hard as they can and are still paid too little to get by without public support, we need action to raise wages.

And if you believe in free markets, allow corporations to tax their workers so much that the government and us taxpayers have to pay a large portion of the salaries of their employees even when we don't buy their goods is clearly a misallocation of resources and a disruption of free market forces. Put simply, corporate owners should not get to decide how much their employees are paid. The productivity of the employee should decide that. Every employee should have an income at least equal to 80% of the wealth he or she produces. This, of course, means far less income for owners. But that's the only way to get rid of welfare and all the other costs like law enforcement that are generated by excessive taxation of employees by their employers.

How many Rep/Con/Teas are accepting welfare checks/subsidies/tax breaks?
Nothing is more horrible than this slime.

Dan8267 says

Over 90% of welfare would be completely unnecessary if capitalism wasn't such an abysmal failure.

You are so funny Dan.

Dan8267 says

You pay for welfare because Walmart taxes its employees too much, over 70%!

Dan8267 says

The productivity of the employee should decide that.

Unskilled and lazy workers are not productive. It's the corporations that get exploited by having to pay minimum wages to worthless bums.

Where are the images? I don't have my pocket MRI machine handy to do an actual test, but I'd like to see if I can guess my own political leaning.

justme says

Where are the images? I don't have my pocket MRI machine handy to do an actual test, but I'd like to see if I can guess my own political leaning.

Look at this image and tell me what you feel?

Strategist says

You are so funny Dan.

Why respond to evidence with counter-evidence when you can just ridicule the messenger? I suppose that works if you are only trying to convince idiots to accept your position.

Dan8267 says

Why respond to evidence with counter-evidence when you can just ridicule the messenger?

No evidence on your part. You are starting to remind me of Gary.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Why respond to evidence with counter-evidence when you can just ridicule the messenger?

No evidence on your part.

Dan8267 says

http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conservative-brain-responses-disgusting/

This isn't the White Wolf Universe. You can't change reality by firmly believing in something unreal. Reality is objective and verifiable.

Seeing something disgusting makes a conservative wince and back away, but makes liberals want to lick it up. Sort of like when dogs see vomit...

Quigley says

Seeing something disgusting makes a conservative wince and back away, but makes liberals want to lick it up.

No, it's just that liberals have functioning frontal lobes and don't have to go on Stone Age instinct like conservatives do.

Dan8267 says

at liberals have functioning frontal lobes and don't have to go on Stone Age instinct like conservatives do

Stone Age instinct served and continues to serve human beings well when it comes to health and survival. It's only been with the rise of the welfare nanny state in conjunction with the expansion of the wealthy elite class that we have so many people who would die in minutes if subjected to Stone Age conditions. These effete city dwellers might be great at texting LOL and cyber bullying "evolutionary throwbacks" who still believe in things like decency, woman and child protection, and working for a living, but we have numerous reality tv shows that detail their complete ineptitude at anything resembling survival. When confronted by real problems they can't solve with a trip to dad's wallet or the welfare office, they become sick (from eating disgusting things), get hurt (from not having any common sense), and starve (because nobody is providing them with food.). It's sad to see how quickly young healthy adults devolve into sickly weak helpless babies when exposed to the same Mother Nature that they claim to love. But celebrating Earth Day with ribbons and a long double toke of the green stuff is a lot different from wresting sustenance and safety from that cruel bitch.
That is the true difference between liberal and conservative. The liberals can only exist when enough conservatives build them a safe nest.

Quigley says

Stone Age instinct served and continues to serve human beings well when it comes to health and survival.

No, it doesn't. Killing your sexual competitor and raping his female was an effective way to ensure your gene's survival in the Stone Age. Today it only gets you thrown in prison, and because of birth controls and abortions you still have a zero percent chance of getting your genes into the next generation through rape.

Stone Age instinct is obsolete, self-destructive, and counter-productive in modern times. Politicians and voters acting on Stone Age instinct would cause the destruction of our species. Conservatives are completely incapable of running government for this exact reason.

Quigley says

and starve (because nobody is providing them with food.)

Theodore Dalrymple (pen name of Anthony Daniels, retired London prison psychiatrist) makes this point in one of his books that not only do young clients have to be given their food, meals have to be prepared for them in advance because they're not even capable of making a meal with the free food.

Strategist says

Unskilled and lazy workers are not productive. It's the corporations that get exploited by having to pay minimum wages to worthless bums

Even if there was no minimum wage, why would someone hire a "worthless bum" for $1 per hour as that "bum" would only destroy the business due to anger over low pay to go along with a questionable work ethic?

dublin hillz says

Strategist says

Unskilled and lazy workers are not productive. It's the corporations that get exploited by having to pay minimum wages to worthless bums

Even if there was no minimum wage, why would someone hire a "worthless bum" for $1 per hour as that "bum" would only destroy the business due to anger over low pay to go along with a questionable work ethic?

The word "unions" come to mind.