I have to agree with you on that point. On 9-11 and the days following, I thought quite a bit of GW and had high hopes for him.

 

Once again... Context. You see, I've read many of your posts.

I like to think of myself as a thoughtful moralist; but, as I realize that many liberals think of themselves as balanced, and correct, rather than leftist socialists, I myself, in truth, may be even more conservative than I believe I am. I can live with that I guess.

 

Personally, I just like a good debate. It keeps my edge up in politics, researching the topics, finding statitistical evidence, etc. I know I can debate with those like XLT without getting upset or taking any of this personally. It's just a debate to me....

Anyway, You need to brush up on your statistical analysis. 3500 is actually a pretty large Sample that should yield fairly accurate results:

The task of polling is to get information from a few people and use it to learn about the larger population. (In political polling, the population is usually all likely voters.) Why not just ask everybody? Because sampling is cheaper.

But how big a sample do you need?

The desire for accuracy says "as large as you can afford."
But the bottom line says "as small as you can poll accurately."
Sample size is dictated by how accurate you must be, or how large a margin of error you can tolerate.
Jessica Utts, a statistics expert at University of California at Davis, says you can usually estimate the margin of error by finding the square root of the sample size (n), then dividing 1 by that number:
What is the margin of error if we sample 1,600 people?

The square root of 1,600 = 40, and 1/40 = .025, or 2.5%. Thus the margin of error is 2.5%.

Because the statistic can be smaller or larger than the true amount, we say "the margin of error is plus or minus 2.5%." The reported proportion plus or minus the margin of error is called the confidence interval (defined).

If (and only if) you're interested in scientific (non-political) statistics, read here. In testing a scientific hypothesis (defined) the goal is to find out if the results could be due to chance. When the statistics say there's only a 5% probability of getting such convincing results if chance alone is responsible, we call these results statistically significant. (You may see the following gibberish to indicate significance: "p (defined) <.05".)


As you can see from the graph, the first increases in sample size produce the biggest benefits:


going from 100 to 1,000 will decrease your margin of error from 10% to 3%.
But going from 1,000 to 10,000 cases will only reduce the margin to 1%. So a 10-fold increase in sampling expense gives us a puny (defined) increase in accuracy.

http://whyfiles.org/009poll/math_primer.html

 

Truth is, I don't really know if you are conservative or not, only made the comparison because you called me liberal and like having opponents Even 01 has called me moderate! What things in particular make you think I'm liberal? Not that there is anything wrong with liberal or conservative, I don't really want to lump all liberals or conservatives into one pile and assume they all have the same viewpoints.

 

I don’t generally like to post links and would rather explain things myself but this particular site seems to explain it much better then I can.

This is not to say that polls by one party are right or wrong, I just don’t like polls in general regardless what they are about and/or who done them “unless” all the specifics are outlined, specifics about how the poll was conducted, who participated in the poll (i.e. percentage of people of different beliefs, religions etc,)

Anyway, check this link out:

Why Polls Shouldn't Be Used to Make Decisions

However I do stand my comments that the particular poll in question (75% don’t want us in Iraq) as not being true because of the facts and reality on the ground and in the country, in my opinion have proven the opposite of those poll results…

 

Yea... That's a pretty weak argument against, hard, sound statitistical evidence, but... whatever....

Here's a little more on Bush's Totally misleading (lies in my book) Negative add Campaigne:

Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."

On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.

The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.


On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.

The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.

Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

It's pretty obvious this president doesn't have a lot of "good" to talk about so has to Attack, attack and attack... It's pretty sad politics has come to tactics like these. Especially how bad he's taking these things out of context (again, lies).

This is really an administration of "character"????

Sure, if you actually BELIEVE all this BullS.. I can See why you think Kerry swaps around on stuff and is a bad person. But when these beliefs are based on Lies it's just wrong.

All I want is for people to know the TRUTH, and base their political decisions on that, instead of all this BS flying around.

I think I just made it pretty clear that those in Iraq don't want us there...

It was nice to hear Kerry name North Korea and Iran today. Yea, THOSE countries ARE threats. They HAVE Nuclear material and are just running around totally unchecked.... How did Iraq, a country under a No fly zone, with NO WMD, and providing 12% of America's oil for food become such a threat to the US?? Reality check. They WEREN'T. And a president can't effect gas prices.. Wake up people!

 

”I voted for the $87 billion to support our troops before I voted against the $87 billion to screw our troops of any support and turn this war into a political agenda for my own personal gain…”

Not the exact quote, but it is exactly what he meant…

Yep, Kerry is really tough on North Korea, where was he about 5 – 6 years ago? He was supporting the appeasement approach that the majority of liberals still believe in though it has been proven time and time again NOT to work.

Yep, Kerry believes in the war in Iraq, just not at this time and in this way…

Yep, Kerry believes in school education, just not at this time and in this way, not enough money has been spent even though it is one of the largest increases in education spending…

Yep, Kerry believes in the war on terrorism, just not at this time and in this way…

Kerry is a “flip-flopper” always has been and always will be, that is the truth, its ugly, its negative but it’s an accurate reflection of his 20 plus year record…

It’s one thing to debate and choose a President based on domestic issues, it’s a completely different story when national security is involved and thus Kerry has proven he is absolutely NOT qualified to be Commander In Chief. CIC has to be someone with moral values, strong leadership skills and most importantly someone the public can believe that what they say today is what they will actually believe tomorrow, next week and next month…

Kerry is a has been, he is finished and has been used by Clinton’s to pave the way for 2008 when Hillary will run for President, God help us in 2008…

 

You didn't make it clear at all, sorry.

Wow, Saddam dumping millions of dollars (at least 40 million documented) into terrorist organizations, having plans drawn up to park a nuke in Tel Aviv (or was it Haifa) harbor and cleary playing games with the UN for 12 years. Yeah, he wasn't a threat. Oh and where did that 60,000 leathal doses of Sarin come from? I do agree that NK and Iran are threats as well, along with Saudi Arabia. None of them have as long a history with being the uncontrollable tyrant Saddam was, but hey, NK is getting close. More than a couple thousand civilians will get killed in that fight though. Now who's the gung ho war monger?

 

If Hard, undisputed, scientific Fact isn't clear enough, I guess there's just no hope for some of you guys....

Drawn Up plans...

So you think Bush is going to attack North Korea or appease them??? Or just let them do whatever they want and create and distribute Nuclear material the way they have been for the last three years under Bush's watch... Yea, Bush is a Real tough guy.....

 

(edit: decided to edit out this post, as it would probably have been misinterpreted as a person attack, which was not its intent --- enjoy your continued debate )

 

About?

Let’s see, I know I can weed out polls because they are not scientifically undisputable, I know I can weed out the fact that Saddam had WMD’S because that was proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be TRUE, and there is absolutely NO scientific data to say or prove otherwise, I know I can weed the FACT that Saddam had used WMD’S many of times including on his own people, absolutely no doubt there and absolutely NO scientific data to say or prove otherwise…

So, I have no idea what you are referring to with your above quote, could you enlighten us?

 

01 is correct here, Saddam had quite a few WMD's in 1991!

 

We're talking about this statement made by XLT

"75% or MORE are glad we went there, glad we did what we did and WANT us to stay until they are under FULL control…"

This is Totally false. I provided Hard, statistical, scientific evidence to support that it was false. In fact 82% DON'T want us there.

Do you have any evidence to support your statement other than one Iraqi that we fixed his arm and now loves the USA??

My numbers have a 3% margin of error. This means you could go and literally ask All Iraqi's the same question and get the same results within 3%. This is Science. It's not wrong just because you don't understand it or "Choose" to not believe it.

Show me your evidence!

It just boggles my mind that when someone shows you REAL Fact and evidence you somehow don't believe it, yet if some Republican Tells you Iraq still has WMD (STILL being the key word here) you're ready to go to war and lose American lives over it.

Meanwhile there IS EVIDENCE that North Korea has nuclear material (they sold some to Libia remember), There IS evidence Iran has a nuclear program, yet you just keep quiet... Kerry's not being quiet about it. It's pretty obvious where the REAL threats are.

 

Kerry is a liar, always was, always will be. He has done nothing for his home state of Massachusetts. One of the highest per capita income states but they are essentially bankrupt. Also one of the highest income tax states. Where is all that money going. Mismanagement. Education is going down the tubes because the state is cutting budgets and not giving towns their money.

If you truly think Kerry is the answer then go ahead and vote for him but do not come back here compalining a year or two down the road about the high number of layoffs, increased taxes for the lower and middle classes that Kerry does not care about, high energy costs etc. Of course if that all happens you will probably still blame it on Bush.

As far as WMDs go, if you gave me nearly 12 years to hide something I am sure I could hide them where you would never find them. If anybody believes that he never had them they are just plain stupid.

My friend just got back from Iraq. He has been there for 14 months. Most citizens (over 75%) were very glad that Saddam was removed and that the coalition was able to do it. Now that that has happened they would like us to leave but they want us to make sure they are secure before we do. They want to be able to run their own country now without the threat that Saddam or some other dictator will take over in the ensuing power vacuum should we just pack up and go.
You can make a poll give any results you want. It is all in how you create and ask the questions and what answers you are looking for.

 

You'd Think if Kerry was that bad for Mass. they wouldn't have re-elected him for 20 years... Some things just make too much since.

Noone ever said Iraq Never had WMD. Don't try to put words in my mouth. It's argued the US provided some...

You guys like to change stories around a lot. Bush said Sadaam STILL had WMD. We did over 500 inspections and couldn't find any, but he somehow Still had them. He had a Nuclear program and bought Nuke cake from Africa too. SH was supposedly STILL MAKING bilogical weapons and had mobile labs. Yea, the story sure has changed since then... A lot different from this story:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html