It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Are Conservatives Easier to Manipulate?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Thank you for your opinion - off topic and not what the thread is about but thank you for your time

Uh .. no. It was totally on topic. The question was ... are conservatives easier to manipulate? I gave a very direct answer with examples .... both liberals and conservatives can be manipulated. So it's very much on topic.

Common sense ... most people can be (and are) manipulated.
Usually we don't notice that we have been until well afterwards.
Then we look back and hit our foreheads with our palms and say ..... doh!

Of course .. some don't notice they've been manipulated at all.
Human ego gets in the way of admitting that.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by FyreByrd

Let me see. Seems to me that the libs are the ones that were manipulated by this administration. Most of them still can't see the truth.

Conservatives saw right through the crap from the get go. We were called racist . Why? mostly because we didn't buy into the bull.

I'd say it has been the liberal, progressive ,socialist, democrats that have been manipulated!

I.M.O. ( Hope and change) Ring a bell?

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by FyreByrd
subtitled: "Studies have repeatedly shown that conservatives are more susceptible to spin and lies".

And the two ways of phrasing the question were:

1) "described as allowing doctors to ‘end the patient’s life by some painless means" or
2) "'described as doctors helping a patient ‘commit suicide"

The questions where asked of Democrats and Republicans and collated by party affiliation.A few quotes from the article to start the conversation:

Thanks again for a great thread. It took a few responses while I was gone to get my juices flowing. I would hope that some of those who took a quick glance and moved on would revisit this.

Re: #1.
I just lost one of my closest friends to cancer. They thought he had it whipped and by the time it was realized that the brain cancer hadn't disappeared, just gotten p*ssed off and slipped down his spinal cord to take up shop in several vital organs, he went from being amazed at how good he felt to death in less than three weeks. He was one of the fortunate ones that get to pass at home, but the doctors had made sure to admonish his wife that they keep the morphine ahead of the pain.

One of my former employers lost his mom to cancer, as well. It was inoperable and terminal, but she was lucid and high function until very shortly before the end. When her doctor was consulted about the ever increasing morphine levels, my old boss asked, "That sh*t is addictive isn't it?" To which her dr. deadpanned, "What's your point?"

Re: #2.
Finances were the final factor in preventing me from going for certification in the mental health field. Although my wife & I decided against the college classes, the reading list I'd been given was extensive and I've continued to read & try to keep up with what's going on in the mental health field.

As a result, I don't believe that suicide is always an irrational act.

My problem with the poll is that they break down the results by Democrat/Republican. I have to be registered in order to vote. Once in the booth, though, who I vote for is my business. That leaves me to wonder whether my answers would have had any value one way or another. It's very likely I would've just said, "No thanks" and not participated.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:31 AM
reply to post by FyreByrd

I think our present circumstances render that study irrelevant. Hope and change and all

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by CornShucker

Your Red/Blue mention is insightful. Things have changed so much over my lifetime. What the pundits are doing with such over-simplified tagging concerns me. I doubt most that are the most swayed are even aware it's happened.

I'm uncomfortable that the Red/Blue thing is doing real damage in that it only serves to polarize the country. It was gratifying to see that there are a few out there that have started referring to themselves as Purple. It may only be a matter of time before some politically correct pundit jumps on that as stepping on the toes of the gay community, but I think it does a good job of expressing, "I'm Neither... I'm an American and I am capable of making up my own mind, thank you very much..!"

Thanks again for the cordial reply. I'm glad you understood it wasn't knee-jerk or meant as hurtful. Sometimes my sense of humor gets me in trouble...

I too like you have been around the block a bit and have seen the world change. I do think the deep polarization of the red/blue troublesome because the "model is not the thing" however shorthand in the form of labels is neccessary for any discussion or analysis and always refers only to the MEAN.

By education is quite varied and quite liberal but I have several deep seated conservative traits as well.

I try to be very clear that this is not speaking about any individual person (or group of persons), only trends seen in a carefully designed poll. Did Gallup intend this result - probably - they are masters in this field. But it does give us interesting (and valid) data nontheless.

People (including myself) get very confused with terminology and methodology and scope. Personally I think scope is a hugely neglectied and difficult concept. (i.e. you can't compare an individual to a small group and make a valid comparison). The scope of this poll was very large and never was meant to be valid on an individual level. But the trend, at the scope, of hundreds and thousands, is valid (it's called sampling].

And that's only confusion about the actual study itself - not it's conclusions or intrepretations.

I'm rambling here a bit (lol).

I think this 'divide' red/blue is becoming greater and I seek to truly understand and find it difficult. Big reason I'm here. I understand living in fear, I understand knee-jerk reactions to events and words, I understand how difficult it is to accept change. But what I have trouble understanding is the unwillingness to even attempt to go beyond one's limited conceptions; this lack of desire to grow in understanding (and compassion) even to the point of being distainful of those who what to explore new ideas and ways of thinking and behavior.

Tradition is good. Progress is good. But the blind adherence to either is destructive (dare I say, evil). Wise balance between the two requires honest appraisal of costs/benefits of all possible answers. And that requires the use of all the tools at our command including polls of this sort.

edit on 9-6-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:58 AM
It may be such an old-fashioned concept that anyone under 20 has never even heard it, but the "count to 10" is good rule of thumb in a lot of ways. Just because somebody asks you to qualify a remark or expresses an idea that (at first glance) goes against the principles you personally accepted, doesn't mean you should feel threatened. Quite often, I find that there is more overlap than disagreement if there's just enough time taken to talk. Seems like everybody gets wound up way too fast these days.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in