Americans like Bush's qualities, poll says
 

here is the link, if you'd rather not click it, here is the entire report too..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ues/index.html



Ive only got one thing to say about this....

How can you only survey 1003 people out of how many MILLION american people and expect the poll to be anywhere close to being accurate?

Re: Americans like Bush's qualities, poll says
 

but if it was a poll of 1003 saying Bush was a poopy head it would be the gospel, right? :RE:

Re: Re: Americans like Bush's qualities, poll says
 

no...i just think that more people should be polled if they are going todo a report on CNN about it no matter the result of the poll.

Re: Re: Re: Americans like Bush's qualities, poll says
 

i think you need to learn the definition of a poll : A survey of the public or of a sample of public opinion to acquire information.

since i doubt CNN could get the entire public to vote in this poll, a sample of the publics opinion is taken.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Americans like Bush's qualities, poll says
 

I know what a poll is, im just saying that this one isnt accurate. 1000 is such a small number of people to be reporting what "public opinion" is...go poll 500,000 people and see what the resuly of that poll is...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Americans like Bush's qualities, poll says
 

a poll would never be accurate unless it polled 100% of the population.

don't get mad at the way the poll was conducted just because it provided a view you disagree with, that's pretty childish.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Americans like Bush's qualities, poll says
 

im not mad about the view it provides...im mad about the accuracy of it...im sayin that a 500,000 person poll would be a hell of a lot more accurate than a 1000 person poll...and it would represent the publics opinion a lot better as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Americans like Bush's qualities, poll says
 

i just find it funny that of all the polls that present inaccurate data everyday you single this one out to show outrage over.

i'm still of the belief that if these poll numbers were reversed you'd be trumpeting this out as proof of Bush's imminent defeat and then post a pic of him looking like a monkey.

[funny]
Moral: If you're concerned about issues such as reality; the quality of life, and improving things, you're likely to lean toward the general democratic point of view, while if you live in a paranoid world in constant fear for your safety from the most unlikely sources and have a tendency to crouch in the darkness shooting at anything that moves, you're probably a republican. (Other symptoms may include excessively frequent hand washing and an inability to look people directly in the eye.)

[/funny]




[vitriolic mud]

Yeah he's addressed them alright, in fact he never stops telling us how terrified we ought to be, but it's unrealistic to assume he's done fuck-all about it. That would, after all, require cognizance and at least some primitive ability to reason.

[/vitriolic mud]


And on polls, even small samples can be good for defining statistical probabilities, but it's a mistake to equate statistical probabilities with actualities: while the odds of lightning striking the same spot twice may be astronomical, you'd be a fool to stay in the same tree that just got hit.

^^ yeah, stupid national security, who needs it? it's not like were at war or anything ^^

...but, but, but.... I thought the war was supposed to make us feel SAFER!

:J:

you're talking like the war is over but it isn't, it's not even close.

You're right there, and at 10B a month we're looking at around 500B at the end of 4 more years of Bonzo's crusade... er, I mean presidency.

And wait a minute, it's not even close to being over? My, isn't that a striking modification of the prewar cheer "It'll be a cheap, easy and quick war!"


Pfft

i was refering to the war on terror and thought you were too, i guess not, please continue your quasi-intellectual self masterbation.

Amnesty for illegal aliens makes me feel real safe, lets just open our borders eh?


In a poll of 1 person, 100% thinks George Bush is thought to be off of his meds. +/- 4%

A sample size of 1000 is fine to statistically extrapolate to a country the size of US. You just have to pick your sample properly. You can show anything with a poll by tweaking your qualification criteria. If people were picked randomly, polls would be even more worthless than they are now.

As for security issues.... what exactly are those 'fundamental security risks', and how exactly has the administration addressed them?

The illegal aliens... well, if you're not gonna get rid of them, might as well make them legal and collect some taxes off them. It's not like they're leaving on their own.

don't forget the terror attacks on sept. 11 were the ones that really screwed things up for the americans, including the people's quality of life in a number of different ways. talk about the democrats having a grasp on "reality". muhaha..

when bin ladin's thugs nearly sank the USS cole (let alone try to bring down the wtc 7 years earlier), wasn't that enough of an indication for the democrats that these islamic pigs mean business? and what did the "realistic" democrats do in retaliation for the USS cole? launch a couple of cruise missiles hundreds of miles from the sea to destroy al-kaida training camps that killed 20 al-kaida fighters at the most. the thing is as soon as those 20 were killed the next day 100 more recruits joined.

and what about all the warnings and information that the clinton administration had since the mid-90's from terrorists captured in the philippines about islamic fundamentalists planning to hijack american planes and crash them into strategic american targets in the united states. now, say we were before the sept. 11 terror acts today, what first comes to mind when one thinks about strategic american targets? let's see.. obviously there's the white house, capitol hill, the world trade towers (which were already bombed before), the statue of liberty, the pentagon, CIA headquarters, major airports, just to name a few of the possible targets.

instead of acting on these threats and making sure that these places are secured at all times from land, air, and sea, as well as improving the security of airlines as they do nowadays, the democrats did virtually nothing. and now, after the american people suffered such a tragedy, directly caused by the democrats' flawed foreign policy and liberal ideology that hindered the ability of the most powerful nation in the world to recognize threats to national security, they are blaming bush and the republicans for much of america's misfortunes.

All this liberal Democratic party bashing has gone on too long.

Somebody should pass a law.......

and raise taxes to hire perps (corrupt types) to enforce it.

Bush screwed up with the patriot act, but that is nothing compared to what libertys have been stolen by the 'liberals'.

It's obvious that human behavior can't be legislated.

Government authority In the US today is about the same as Germany put up with when Hitler ran the show. Don't ever forget, that shithead almost won.

BYE THE WAY
 

smuck.

All the world doesn't revolve around Israel's needs.

If it was up to me, I'd even the playing field and give 'dem Pals as much US money as Israel sucks off our economy.

I wonder how many hundreds of billions of $ the US has wasted on Israel. If it wasn't for that, I think America would be much more respected by other nations.


Let's not get into the atom bombs that Israel has and won't admit to ... 'specially since they stole the technology from the US.

No wonder America is hated.

:NS:

Nice dude Alltho i agree with you to some extend i would not go as far as comparing nazi germany to the U.S. :no:


@others .... if you think that all those so called security related laws are going to help you one bit keep on dreaming. All it does is give you peeps a false sense of security. hardly worth to give up your personal freedom for.


Now now floyd that almost sounds like xenofobia

how can 1000 people out of millions accurately represent what public opinion is?

Interesting...

with that formula the number of a 500,000 person poll comes out to

0.0014144271570014144271570014144272


with 1000 it is

0.032258064516129032258064516129032


make those into percentages and the 500,000 person poll has a less than 1 percentage point margin of error while the 1000 person poll has a little over 3 percentage points for the margin of error.

I say poll more people, get a more accurate poll. CNN definately has the resources to survey 500,000 people...easily.

Another question i have now that you have answered one...how do the poll'ees get picked?

You mean: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign


No Its just that giving legal status to people that knowingly broke the law is wrong. I dig mexican chicks but more so I get turned on by east indian chicks. They are soooooooo sexy looking. I even get turned on by Condeleeza Rice.

Anyway, when 9/11 happened the gumment closed our borders. Now Bush is literally opening them by saying if you make it here you will be given amnesty.

Hungry Hungry Hippocritcal I say.

Lol, you gotta be kidding me ;)

Quote:

Anyway, when 9/11 happened the gumment closed our borders. Now Bush is literally opening them by saying if you make it here you will be given amnesty. Hungry Hungry Hippocritcal I say.

:ND:

Its not the mexicans the gov't is worried bout

why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel ramona
 

WARNING this post contains a naked Lady in a G-String intended to emphasis a political point. - do not scroll down if easily offended.....or .... at least close your eyes untill the next post - gaz :D



My pleasure...

Well, I suppose we could talk about the war on terror if there was one to be discerned, or if one were even possible. It's somewhat hard to keep straight what the war on Iraq is supposed to be anymore with it masquerading around in whatever gay moral festooning the administration, their embedded corporate interests and any rabid republibot neocon on the street seems to fancy at that given moment...

...But I thought we had all graduated en masse from the charade that the war on Iraq was a war to end the terrorism perpetrated on Americans and had pretty much accepted that it was largely arbitrary toward that end. I guess some of us just move on more slowly than others.


...or wait, was the "war on terror" that massive duct tape sellout a while back?


If so, I missed it entirely. I think I may have watched Seinfeld instead.


P.S. I thought for sure you'd know how to spell masturbation.


Since there's that one scrap of logic there, let's run with it.

First of all we need to arrive at a sum to represent the "islamic pig" body count of the war with Iraq. How many Al-Quieda fighters have been nobly vanquished with this war? (forgetting for the moment of course that Al-Quieda has no love or even a particular connection to either Iraq, the country we're fighting in, or Saddam Hussein, that guy we needed so badly to get, except that there are some reportedly fighting there just because it's a good place to get an opportunity to kill some Americans.) But let's just say for the sake of argument that the war with Iraq has killed, say, oh I don't know, say 5000 Al-Quieda, why not. Following your pristine geometric logic, we'd just have to multiply that times five to arrive at the figure of new recruits this war is producing...

Or is it a case of when you get killed by a Downhome Texas Republican, by god, they kill you so good that everyone who's ever even thought about your cause automatically has a stroke?

Terrorist cells and individuals, like all psychotics, are held together with the glue of ideology, extreme ideology. They are not strictly held to any place nor do they necessarily have any other relationship to one another save this ideology. By definition, as with all killers, you will not catch them until they've already proven themselves deadly to someone, whether their style is climbing water towers with assault weapons, saving their serial victims genitals in the refrigerator or hijacking airplanes on a sucide mission. National security against the looming specter of mass-homicidal acts from within is simply not possible.

Bush is a lying puppet with a twitchy little dance (but then, aren't they all?) and his policies have intentionally exacerbated the very problems against which his sub-sham virtues claim to be in conquest, while I see ZERO improvement in terms of national security--unless you consider continuous yellow and orange flashing TERROR ALERTS to be a form of national secureness.

Meanwhile, he's certainly to be credited with creating a good deal of international insecurity through his sophmoric posturing. I can't decide whether this administration is dead stupid, perhaps slightly retarded, voodoo zombie slaves of some type, or inherently and intentionally rotten to the core with the pure evil of fearmongering, but I tire of them utterly and my dogs are numb from their incessant waggings.

No, America is not going to be a terror-free zone of impenetrable security in any of our lifetimes (which is really neither here nor there anyway, since you're statistically less safe in America due to the continuous threat of other Americans than anywhere else in the world.)

The more we remain blind as a popular body to the fact that we simply do not have the wherewithal to forcibly imbue the entire planet with our ad hoc concepts of modernity (which barely even work for us), the longer we are filled with enthusiasm for trying to fix other people before we have it for fixing ourselves while fundamental aspects of our economy go on hinging on subtle or overt foreign exploitations, the less friends we're going to make, and the less safe we're going to feel.

The first true act on the "war on terror" I personally have at my disposal to exercise will be the right I have to vote against our current commander-in-creep in the next election.

No, it's the Mexican-American vote they're worried about.Warning!

Ramona_A_Stone

Good post :AP:

But... loose the lips:BL:

I would say that picking the sample affects the real-world error much more than the sample size. It must be very easy to skew the results whichever way, even if you don't want to.

Oh yes, please do loosen the lips :J:

Hay hey
 

Romona...

you's talkin' about the wrong bush



I think

:rofl2:

:RUD: