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: