<p>Just having some fun here…</p>
<p>[Republicans</a> Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others](<a href=“Republicans Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others”>Republicans Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am disappointed with Gallup for their wording/interpretation here. I don’t see any evidence here that party affiliation is even correlated with mental heath. I see a pretty solid correlation (not causation) between party affiliation and SELF-REPORTED mental health. Maybe Democrats are more paranoid/hypochondriac about mental illness, or Republicans are more in denial (or both). Maybe something about political belief leads to people defining mental illness differently.</p>
<p>In most of the report, they are careful to use the qualifier “self-reported”, but they slipped up in that sentence.</p>
<p>Agreed, Jessie. That line jumped out at me, too.</p>
<p>the irony is that there’s a republican kook who’s going after the clintons as we speak</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve not heard anything so far confirming that the hostage-taker was a Republican, and in any case, there’s no need to make implications about Republicans. There are crazies on all sides…no political party or affiliation has the monopoly.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Republicans Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others>>></p>
<p>Fine, sjmom, whatever makes you happy…</p>
<p>I thought it was funny…</p>
<p>Apparently, Republicans also have a better sense of humor. :)</p>
<p>Apparently some Republicans also jump to conclusions. Has anyone shared their political affiliations on this thread?</p>
<p>Careless and inaccurate reporting, particularly when it regards statistics and polling, is a pet peeve of mine and definitely deserves to be pointed out.</p>
<p>corranged, most people can figure out political affiliations based on past posts. Is that really so hard to figure out? Especially when some of us have interacted on other threads.</p>
<p>Maybe Republicans have better memories, too?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In an article full of careful disclaimers and qualifications you picked out the one sentence without one, and then it becomes “careless and inaccurate”? You have pretty tough standards for people writing press releases.</p>
<p>I just skimmed the press release and noticed that the first two bolded sentences in the OP’s post both jumped to a conclusion that may not be complete or completely accurate. Yes, WashDad, these things bother me–no matter the topic. I’ve pointed out similar things in countless other threads on a variety of subjects.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s always easy to know a poster’s political affiliation based on past posts. Sometimes it’s definitely easy, but not everyone fits the stereotypical mold.</p>
<p>It’s true that some posters lean more liberal or more conservative, depending on the topic. But after a number of encounters, I feel safe in making certain assumptions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are going to criticize something you might want to take a minute or two and familiarize yourself with it first. I’ve been cynically reading news stories for <em>cough</em> decades since finishing a degree in political science. This article was worded pretty carefully for something in the popular press. Personally, I think the addition of another half-dozen “reportedlys” would hurt the readability without actually increasing the already-high disclaimer content:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see if the drunk who strapped a flare to himself and entered the Clinton campaign headquarters in Rochester, NH was a republican or democrat. He supposedly has a history of mental illness.</p>
<p>He was smart enough to get his 15 seconds of fame. And probably land a job with the Clinton Campaign. In fact, he could be a contender for her NH campaign manager.</p>
<p>“He was smart enough to get his 15 seconds of fame. And probably land a job with the Clinton Campaign. In fact, he could be a contender for her NH campaign manager”
Jeeze sokkerman- this NUT took HOSTAGES and SCARED A LOT OF PEOPLE *****LESS. Would you be so unbelievably cynical if he had taken hostages at a SCHOOL instead?</p>
<p>He didn’t take hostages at a school. The hostages were not hurt. They were campaign workers. People were scared because of the media circus. The guy was a known drunk. His stepson knew he was harmless. He had a flare taped to himself with no other weapons. He really wasn’t much of a threat. </p>
<p>If I’m cynical so be it. I have witnessed first hand some of the political tactics that are being used in NH by some of the campaigns recently. It is ridiculous.</p>
<p>“People were scared because of the media circus”
oh REALLY? This guy brought reporters with him, huh?</p>
<p>Actually the guy was in contact with CNN in Washington and Atlanta throughout the day according to CNN reports. So yes, he did bring the reporters with him.</p>
<p>In addition, the local NH News (WMUR) confirmed that, “CNN later released a statement confirming that the man was Eisenberg and that he had been in contact with the network throughout the day. CNN immediately contacted law enforcement after the first call and then did not report the calls to avoid compromising the safety of the hostages.”</p>
<p>[Hostage</a> Situation In Rochester Ends With Man’s Arrest - New Hampshire News Story - WMUR Manchester](<a href=“http://www.wmur.com/news/14737868/detail.html]Hostage”>Manchester, New Hampshire News and Weather - WMUR Channel 9)</p>
<p>From CNN:[Hostage</a> situation at Clinton campaign office ends - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/30/clinton.office/index.html]Hostage”>Clinton meets with staffers after hostage ordeal - CNN.com)</p>
<p>"On Friday afternoon, one of the hostages contacted the CNN Washington bureau and then put Eisenberg on the phone.</p>
<p>The hostage and Eisenberg called CNN multiple times throughout the afternoon and talked to CNN staffers."</p>
<p>It just so happens that the hostage that contacted CNN was a Clinton campaign worker.</p>
<p>On reading the original post only one thing came to my mind:
“Where ignorance is bliss, / ‘Tis folly to be wise."</p>