Public Opinion Polls

[itllclear 1]

Whenever I see a poll on the "public's opinion" on some issue, I wonder how many of the people being polled have a clue as to the subject of the poll.

For instance, I'd love to see a poll asking for an opinion on the Middle East that began with "Of people correctly naming the President, the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense, and who could correctly point out Israel, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran on a map, X% were in favor of "y."

Of course, it might take a long time to get a sample that would make it worth publishing a poll.

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[vortexring 0]

But surely then it wouldn't be a public opinion poll, would it?

It would be a poll from a bunch of people who can correctly name the president, the vice president, etc, etc.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Whenever I see a poll on the "public's opinion" on some issue, I wonder how many of the people being polled have a clue as to the subject of the poll.

For instance, I'd love to see a poll asking for an opinion on the Middle East that began with "Of people correctly naming the President, the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense, and who could correctly point out Israel, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran on a map, X% were in favor of "y."

And they should have 4 year degrees and know the chief exports of each of those states. Double count those who have injected heroin into their veins.

BTW, the VP, SecState, and SecDef are irrelevent to the topic at hand. All are there to support the President. And with this Administration, that's all they do. Not a big bunch of independent thinkers.

And you left out Kuwait in your trivia game.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

BTW, the VP, SecState, and SecDef are irrelevent to the topic at hand. All are there to support the President.

That's funny. I thought they were there to support the constitution.

How is the U.S. different from a dictatorship again?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

BTW, the VP, SecState, and SecDef are irrelevent to the topic at hand. All are there to support the President.

That's funny. I thought they were there to support the constitution.

How is the U.S. different from a dictatorship again?

You might consider getting a new ladle.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

You might consider getting a new ladle.

I guess it was wishful thinking that your responses would become substantive as the day wore on.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

You might consider getting a new ladle.

I guess it was wishful thinking that your responses would become substantive as the day wore on.

Wassup Pot?

It is pretty funny how you go about chastising others for the same low-brow tactics that you use.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Wassup Pot?

Your moral superiority is inspiring.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

BTW, the VP, SecState, and SecDef are irrelevent to the topic at hand. All are there to support the President.

That's funny. I thought they were there to support the constitution.

How is the U.S. different from a dictatorship again?

The cabinet is not part of the constitution. The executive branch is. Who in that branch determines the US policy in the Middle East? The President. Not Rice or Powell, or Rumsfeld, or the new guy who just went through a confirmation process (also not in the Constitution, and probably shouldn't exist). Bush sets the policy, they advise and enact. If the Administration commits constitutional violations, the President should be held accountable.

Good luck finding support for your irrelevent claim.