Bush hits a new low

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by theotherguy

Let me be clear. I do think that numbers are very important. But, without specific, qualifying statements as to how the numbers are determined, they are meaningless.

How many people were actually polled?
In what region? (results from NYC will typically be quite different from those in Birmingham, AL on political issues)
What were the questions asked?
Were they open-ended or were there answers from which the respondent was required to use?
The list could go on.

We have become such suckers for graphs, charts, and numbers that the majority will soak them up without question.

Exactly...

[tw]

Originally Posted by theotherguy

Let me be clear. I do think that numbers are very important. But, without specific, qualifying statements as to how the numbers are determined, they are meaningless.

Quite right is the 'quality' of those numbers. Or why underlying facts (ie how questions are worded) is important. UT demonstrated this in a discussion of polls maybe a year ago.

However to dispute those numbers, then you should have other numbers. To 'know' those numbers means you have more credible numbers. And that is the point. Numbers are necessary to make judgements. The most dangerous 'judgements' are those made without and that disparage numbers.

How do extremists promote their propaganda? Notice that Rush does not provide numbers. He preaches to those whose eyes routinely glaze over when numbers must be analyzed. That is the point. Our resident extremists demonstrate the technique often. They use disparaging comments to prove righteousness - rather than post numbers. They avoid hard numbers since, in one case, numbers make it harder to then rewrite history.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Quite right is the 'quality' of those numbers. Or why underlying facts (ie how questions are worded) is important. UT demonstrated this in a discussion of polls maybe a year ago.

However to dispute those numbers, then you should have other numbers. To 'know' those numbers means you have more credible numbers. And that is the point. Numbers are necessary to make judgements. The most dangerous 'judgements' are those made without and that disparage numbers.

You missed the point, polls are weak forms of statistical measure and not worth the 1's and 0's used to pass them around on the web to bolster your repeated masinations.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by theotherguy

The first day of my collegiate statistics class, the Prof said, "Welcome to Statistics 101. Also known as lying with numbers."

I am not saying whether the particular numbers in this thread are right or wrong, but I start to lose interest when sources are quoted stating that, "50% of Americans believe..." or "9 out of 10 doctors..." Don't like the first data set compiled by our research? No problem. We can start over again and again until we get the desired result.

I only really take one set of these things seriously, "30 Helens agree..."

This is exactly what happens. I did this for a living and no I'm not proud.....and I myself, am also more inclined to believe the statistics from 'kids in the hall'. You don't even have to start over again by the way- you can lengthen or shorten the research period. Even down to the millisecond. Only 'targets' get to answer the questions that have predetermined answers. The respondent doesn't even know in most cases that they are being "qualified" in the first answer set. If you are not qualified your answers go unused and are not even submitted. They will tell you that that is the end of the poll and thank you for your time and go try to find a more "qualified" person. Did you know that in most cases, your answers do not exist if you don't make $100,000 or over a year? (qualifiers, questions, and answers are entirely dependent on the client company) Well I'll just say that there are many ways to manipulate these polls and it's a very detailed process, each poll is designed by the client company. The client company tells you what they need and you produce the results. Period.
The only halfway honest polling I have seen come from this is the company that wants to know your impression of them, and wants to see if the majority have caught onto their illegal activities and law-suits and in conjunction, what effect that has had on their image. Is our new environmentally friendly ad campaign working? Even then they still shoot for brand recognition. Example: "So- what is you impression of Coca Cola?" Coca Cola, Coca Cola. etc. etc.
Aaah- people can believe what they want. I give. One of my friends still does it. He has nicknamed himself "the wizard" for a reason.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cicero

This is exactly what happens. I did this for a living and no I'm not proud.....and I myself, am also more inclined to believe the statistics from 'kids in the hall'. You don't even have to start over again by the way- you can lengthen or shorten the research period. Even down to the millisecond. Only 'targets' get to answer the questions that have predetermined answers. The respondent doesn't even know in most cases that they are being "qualified" in the first answer set. If you are not qualified your answers go unused and are not even submitted. They will tell you that that is the end of the poll and thank you for your time and go try to find a more "qualified" person. Did you know that in most cases, your answers do not exist if you don't make $100,000 or over a year? (qualifiers, questions, and answers are entirely dependent on the client company) Well I'll just say that there are many ways to manipulate these polls and it's a very detailed process, each poll is designed by the client company. The client company tells you what they need and you produce the results. Period.
The only halfway honest polling I have seen come from this is the company that wants to know your impression of them, and wants to see if the majority have caught onto their illegal activities and law-suits and in conjunction, what effect that has had on their image. Is our new environmentally friendly ad campaign working? Even then they still shoot for brand recognition. Example: "So- what is you impression of Coca Cola?" Coca Cola, Coca Cola. etc. etc.
Aaah- people can believe what they want. I give. One of my friends still does it. He has nicknamed himself "the wizard" for a reason.

Thank you for your honest insight. I have been saying this for years. The agenda driven people don't want to believe this.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Thank you for your honest insight. I have been saying this for years. The agenda driven people don't want to believe this.

I'm usually a horses a@#. But in this case, people are just going to have to take it from my horses mouth.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I dunno: most of the President's critics are visibly basing their criticism on the President being a Republican, while the critics are not. This taints the critics -- I think irredeemably.

Could such critics redeem themselves? Only by winning the war better than this Republican Administration can. The Administration's critics are solely interested in losing the War on Terror, perhaps in hopes of winning the Oval Office.

In other words, redemption is improbable to the most extreme degree. Hah!

Winning the Oval Office and then losing the War will mean the Democrats will go extinct in the American population's backlash against them and their foolishness.

Speaking of foolishness, suppose they succeed in impeaching and convicting George W. Bush? Who do they get for a replacement then, per the Constitution? -- Vice President Cheney. Not quite, I shouldn't think, what they're after. Hah, again. What possible motivation could anyone have for voting for such an assortment of idiots?

Tw is unaware, I see, that the current number of Guantanamo inmates is down to about 375.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw is unaware, I see, that the current number of Guantanamo inmates is down to about 375.

Which means something less than 450 who were held for years, lost even to their own families and the Red Cross, tortured, no judicial review ... and now are free because they were guilty of *nothing*? Urbane Guerrilla and the Nazi party would both call that acceptable? American gulags - and UG approved.

But again, UG demonstrates how dangerous the world is when extremists have power. Even lie about being Libertarians.

Oh. They also fear to answer a simple question - "when will we go after bin Laden?" Why bother. Leaving bin Laden free only justifies fascist fears.

A larger worry. Nothing in this post is an exaggeration. UG type extremists are so dangerous as to believe their own myths. Scary is that these are George Jr's strongest supporters.

[piercehawkeye45]

The Democrats say the war is already lost so I don't think it will hurt them that much.

[yesman065]

Pierce - Great point - I agree! Its like a self fulfilling prophecy! The worse the war goes, the better the democrats look and the more elections they win. The only way they can win is if the republicans lose. Think of the situation where there is a "successful" outcome in Irag. That would be devastating to the democratic party. They want to lose this war so bad so that THEY can use it against their opponents during the elections, get elected into power and reap the benefits of that power. The mainstream media highlights EVERY negative and glosses over any positive outcome. The media's bias is clearly evident.

Polls and statistics are made for people who need to be told what to think - those who have no ability to think on their own. All they do is spout #'s and statistics and tell you what you should think because of them. They lack the ability to expand their own minds and think for themselves.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Given the behavior of the Democratic Party for the last fifteen straight years, I want them to lose and lose a lot.

They haven't got an FDR or a JFK any more.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Given the behavior of the Democratic Party for the last fifteen straight years, I want them to lose and lose a lot.

Rather amazing how extremists will routinely rewrite history they cannot defend. Let's see. Who tried to subvert the US government? Who attacked other sovereign nations unilaterally and lied about it? Who censored mail TO the troops? Whose adminstration covered up massacres? Whose administration performed illegal wiretapping? Which party attempted to subvert the other by intentionally violating the law? Who used government agencies to undermine and spy on honest American civilians? Who atttempted to subvert the national government of another sovereign nation (Australia)?

That was Nixon. Then we add international kidnapping, imprisonment without judicial review, unrestricted wire tapping, lies about enemies that did not exist, the protection of bin Laden, secret prisons, perverting science for self serving political gains, protecting the 40% high profits on prescription drugs, destruction of the Oslo Accords, destruction of American popularity all over the world, unilateral destruction of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, undermining of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, outright perversion of basic science even concerning global warming (lawyers rewrite the science), protection of top corporate management from prosecution (Enron, Global Crossing, Qwest, Tyco) until all but embarrassed when the states started prosecuting, replacing the Statue of Liberty as a symbol with pictures of Guantanamo, advocating the destructive of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, instability everywhere in the Middle East like never before seen in history, making even Castro popular again, suspension of Habeas Corpus, contempt for the American soldier, protection of the Steel manufacturers with illegal tariffs so that other and productive American industries would have to fire workers, torture in complete violation of Geneva conventions, first failure ever of international trade (Doha round of GATT), stifling at least four separate FBI investigations into what would be called September 11 by openly denying the threat even existed, making it legal to kidnap and hide from their nation anyone who is not American, killing half as many Iraqis in less than two years compared to what Saddam did in ten, threatening to restart the cold war, doing absolutely nothing to protect America all day on 11 September (not just the President but everyone every senior staff menber of George Jr's administration), President does not even read his own memos, undermining American relationships even with Canada and Mexico, silly Man to Mars program, never once asking GM what happened to all that money what was supposed to create a hybrid and new American jobs, .....

Just a small sample of what Urbane Guerrilla calls good. Urbane Guerrilla even approved of Nixon. Pres Cheney can be worse - and Urbane Guerrilla approves of that also. Urbane Guerrilla even calls himself a libertarian - but preaches fascism.

Is this a criticism of UG. No. Demonstrated is how extremists say one thing but really mean something completely different. No wonder Urbane Guerrilla even rewrites history to prove the Domino Theory. Notice the genocide that occurred in Vietnam in 1975 - according to UG.

[DanaC]

Yep. Those democrats and their behaviour. They should take a close look at how the Republican party have been acting these past few years and take some lessons on decorum.

[yesman065]

Dana - I tried to be very careful and not promote the extreme right either - I am for getting whatever need be done over there done so we can get the hell out. We cannot just walk away, that is obvious to all - I hope. Its just the motivation behind the democratic party seems to be simply to gain power at too great an expense to our country. Does anyoneone have any ideas other than simply "stay the course" or "leave tomorrow?"

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Dana - I tried to be very careful and not promote the extreme right either - I am for getting whatever need be done over there done so we can get the hell out. We cannot just walk away, that is obvious to all - I hope. Its just the motivation behind the democratic party seems to be simply to gain power at too great an expense to our country. Does anyoneone have any ideas other than simply "stay the course" or "leave tomorrow?"

The Democrats do--it's called the timetable for troop withdrawal. I believe the latest date they want to set now is Fall 2008, which is not exactly "leave tomorrow."