Americans support life

[Avatar4321]

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11131

I figured since this has new information. it would be wise to post this. Americans favor life. I guess 80% of Americans are religious zealots because they wouldn't have supported starving Terri.

 

[Annie]

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11131

I figured since this has new information. it would be wise to post this. Americans favor life. I guess 80% of Americans are religious zealots because they wouldn't have supported starving Terri.

posted results here, #247. There's more info that follows in a couple of posts, regarding polls and how to read them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19401&page=17&pp=15

 

[musicman]

posted results here, #247. There's more info that follows in a couple of posts, regarding polls and how to read them.

And, kudos for those finds, Kathianne! If Mark Twain were alive today, he'd probably say, "There are lies, damned lies, and POLLS!"

 

[musicman]

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11131

I figured since this has new information. it would be wise to post this. Americans favor life. I guess 80% of Americans are religious zealots because they wouldn't have supported starving Terri.

I want to speak carefully here. It would be easy to fall into the trap of believing that, because polling can be done badly and dishonestly, it naturally follows that all polls are bad and dishonest. It would be equally easy to cherry-pick polls, and say that, since this or that poll bears out my personal opinion, it must, then, be a good poll. I am honestly trying to avoid either pitfall here.

In 1995, the newly-elected Republican Congress spoke of cutting funding for PBS. In response, PBS conducted its own poll (which should have raised a red flag right off the bat). The question put to respondents was, "If funding for PBS were cut, who would suffer more - children or adults?" Do you see the self-serving, loaded nature of that question - how it attempts to establish as a given that suffering will take place - why I use this as an example of a "bad polll"?

Now, I invite you to look over the Zogby poll posted in Avatar's link. I wonder if you'd agree with me that this is a genuine attempt to learn the views of the respondent, regarding a good-faith question, put in all honestly, with no shady manipulation of the facts. My personal feelings on the issue are irrelevant; this is what I would consider a "good poll".

We must become more careful consumers of information - for our own sakes. When we see a poll, we should ask, "Who's conducting this thing? What results would THEY like to see from it? What might they have done to 'help' me see it their way?" One of the most chilling comments I've ever read appeared in one of Kathianne's links here. A pollster said, "You tell me how you want the poll to come out, and I'll write the questions". Polls aren't bad by definition, but we should always deduce their meanings carefully.

 

[wolverine]

Interesting how this poll 'comes to light' after her death. Yet before it was a constant drum beat of 'Americans support husband's fight to fullfill Terri's wishes'
or some other media

 

[musicman]

Interesting how this poll 'comes to light' after her death. Yet before it was a constant drum beat of 'Americans support husband's fight to fullfill Terri's wishes'
or some other media

Absolutely. We've GOT to become a more media-savvy people.

 

[Merlin1047]

Interesting how this poll 'comes to light' after her death. Yet before it was a constant drum beat of 'Americans support husband's fight to fullfill Terri's wishes'
or some other media

Under normal circumstances, I would absolutely support a husband's duty to assure that his wife's wishes are carried out. But in the Schiavo case, the husband is so lacking in credibility that the issue is substantially clouded.

 

[archangel]

I want to speak carefully here. It would be easy to fall into the trap of believing that, because polling can be done badly and dishonestly, it naturally follows that all polls are bad and dishonest. It would be equally easy to cherry-pick polls, and say that, since this or that poll bears out my personal opinion, it must, then, be a good poll. I am honestly trying to avoid either pitfall here.

In 1995, the newly-elected Republican Congress spoke of cutting funding for PBS. In response, PBS conducted its own poll (which should have raised a red flag right off the bat). The question put to respondents was, "If funding for PBS were cut, who would suffer more - children or adults?" Do you see the self-serving, loaded nature of that question - how it attempts to establish as a given that suffering will take place - why I use this as an example of a "bad polll"?

Now, I invite you to look over the Zogby poll posted in Avatar's link. I wonder if you'd agree with me that this is a genuine attempt to learn the views of the respondent, regarding a good-faith question, put in all honestly, with no shady manipulation of the facts. My personal feelings on the issue are irrelevant; this is what I would consider a "good poll".

We must become more careful consumers of information - for our own sakes. When we see a poll, we should ask, "Who's conducting this thing? What results would THEY like to see from it? What might they have done to 'help' me see it their way?" One of the most chilling comments I've ever read appeared in one of Kathianne's links here. A pollster said, "You tell me how you want the poll to come out, and I'll write the questions". Polls aren't bad by definition, but we should always deduce their meanings carefully.

Being a former intelligence officer..I can honestly say that polls are like analysis...they fit the view of the writer...nothing more...nothing less...I say do away with polls and stick to the facts! :bat:

 

[OCA]

I see....polls that support Mr. Schiavo are loaded, where polls that support the parents are not, I expected more from this board.

Face it Americans may have supported not removing the tube, myself I would not have had a problem with that, I did however have a huge problem with the fedral power grab.

 

[OCA]

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11131

I figured since this has new information. it would be wise to post this. Americans favor life. I guess 80% of Americans are religious zealots because they wouldn't have supported starving Terri.

But do American support your tinfoil hat theory of a huge hundred or more person conspiracy to kill Terri?

 

[musicman]

I see....polls that support Mr. Schiavo are loaded, where polls that support the parents are not, I expected more from this board.

Well, as I explained in my post, I have tried sincerely, conscientiously, and - I think - successfully, to avoid that trap. In my honest opinion, the Zogby poll - at a bare minimum - represents a straightforward attempt to learn the views of the respondent in regard to a fair, complete question. That's a hell of a lot more than I'll say for the initial poll conducted by the MSM/DNC. All those bastards have proven to me is that, by cleverly twisting words, they can misrepresent American opinion to the degree that it actually appears UPSIDE DOWN (80/20 against congressional intervention turns out to be 80/20 FOR). Liberals acknowledge no hard and fast concept of truth; political expediency is God. I can always tell when a liberal is lying - his lips are moving.

Face it Americans may have supported not removing the tube, myself I would not have had a problem with that, I did however have a huge problem with the fedral power grab.

And, as always, I respect your right to your opinion. My question, though, is, how can there have been a power grab when no power was grabbed?

 

[musicman]

Being a former intelligence officer..I can honestly say that polls are like analysis...they fit the view of the writer...nothing more...nothing less...I say do away with polls and stick to the facts! :bat:

In a perfect world - yes. But, polls are here to stay, as I'm sure you'll concede. Our best defense against treachery is to become more discerning consumers.

 

[archangel]

In a perfect world - yes. But, polls are here to stay, as I'm sure you'll concede. Our best defense against treachery is to become more discerning consumers.

I only concede that polls are here to stay to bolster the ad departments salespitch...that does not mean that they are relevant to life or death situations or that they have a place in this realm! This has nothing to do with a perfect world....sorry! :bangheads

 

[manu1959]

intelligence officer ........... i like that ..... never met one ..... but i like it

 

[archangel]

intelligence officer ........... i like that ..... never met one ..... but i like it

Thanks for the support...not all government agents are bad guys...we have families too! And some of us have common sense regardless of perceived notions....lol

 

[musicman]

I only concede that polls are here to stay to bolster the ad departments salespitch...that does not mean that they are relevant to life or death situations or that they have a place in this realm! This has nothing to do with a perfect world....sorry! :bangheads

And I don't disagree with you, archangel. All I'm saying is: Fair? Not always (or even bloody OFTEN, for that matter!). Relevant? Not in and of themselves, no - only to the degree that they make THEMSELVES so, by virtue of their existence. But, like it or not, here to stay? Absent some sort of organized determination by intelligent society to ignore their bullshit out of existence (which ain't likely) - I'd say, 'fraid so.

 

[manu1959]

And I don't disagree with you, archangel. All I'm saying is: Fair? Not always (or even bloody OFTEN, for that matter!). Relevant? Not in and of themselves, no - only to the degree that they make THEMSELVES so, by virtue of their existence. But, like it or not, here to stay? Absent some sort of organized determination by intelligent society to ignore their bullshit out of existence (which ain't likely) - I'd say, 'fraid so.

i would like to see a poll with this question:

do you place stock in polls?

 

[OCA]

Well, as I explained in my post, I have tried sincerely, conscientiously, and - I think - successfully, to avoid that trap. In my honest opinion, the Zogby poll - at a bare minimum - represents a straightforward attempt to learn the views of the respondent in regard to a fair, complete question. That's a hell of a lot more than I'll say for the initial poll conducted by the MSM/DNC. All those bastards have proven to me is that, by cleverly twisting words, they can misrepresent American opinion to the degree that it actually appears UPSIDE DOWN (80/20 against congressional intervention turns out to be 80/20 FOR). Liberals acknowledge no hard and fast concept of truth; political expediency is God. I can always tell when a liberal is lying - his lips are moving.







And, as always, I respect your right to your opinion. My question, though, is, how can there have been a power grab when no power was grabbed?

That is my point, we sold our souls and show no gain for it. It was a power grab in the sense that Republicans knew it was not politically expedient but because they could because of sheer numbers, they did.

And I believe i've seen several polls, some of them not traditionally considered liberal sources that show truelly that it was more closer to 70-30 against intervention. This Zogby poll is so far the only one i've seen to show for.

I live in a highly Republican county(like 70%) at the Republican club(a big hall with a bar) the sentiment, even from old timers is overwhelmingly against involvement. Honestly I haven't met too many people except zealots that werte or.

What will Republicans do in '06 when the religous right, who helped get Bush elected again, delivers on their fanatical promises and ousts Republicans in '06?

 

[Annie]

That is my point, we sold our souls and show no gain for it. It was a power grab in the sense that Republicans knew it was not politically expedient but because they could because of sheer numbers, they did.

And I believe i've seen several polls, some of them not traditionally considered liberal sources that show truelly that it was more closer to 70-30 against intervention. This Zogby poll is so far the only one i've seen to show for.

I live in a highly Republican county(like 70%) at the Republican club(a big hall with a bar) the sentiment, even from old timers is overwhelmingly against involvement. Honestly I haven't met too many people except zealots that werte or.

What will Republicans do in '06 when the religous right, who helped get Bush elected again, delivers on their fanatical promises and ousts Republicans in '06?

OCA, I tend to believe you. Question for you though, while not agreeing with the 'power grab' were the majority for the feeding tube being left in place or returned? At minimum, allowing an attempt to give water, ice chips, jello, anything?

 

[musicman]

i would like to see a poll with this question:

do you place stock in polls?

Well, let's have ABC or PBS write it, then:

Do you find polls, A) an expression of your innate intelligence and compassion, B) an absolutely vital function to the democratic process, or C) an orgasmic experience?