|
|
Post by globe on Nov 23, 2005 19:11:26 GMT -5
As for the poll results, they dont mean a damn thing (esp internet polls) I just studied sampling in statsitics and most polls suffer from non response bias. The people with strong feelings (usually negative) will respond, while others wont so much. Case and point: 55% or so ppl dis-approved of Bush before the 2004 election, yet he still won.... so backing up your opinions with polls is a poor way to go, bc almost all polls are bias in some way.... i'm glad i took stat, v useful class Like I said, I wasnt trying to make any significant points about that MOD poll. Just thought it was interesting that the MOD wanted it kept quiet. As for the opinion polls in general, well if they were so unhelpfull and so inaccurate, why do so many organisations (not just political ones) spend millions of pounds carrying them out every year? I know my own company spends a lot of time and resources on them both with the staff & customers. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 23, 2005 19:22:03 GMT -5
i agree with you, but it depends on how the poll is designed...
the MSNBC, Fox News, stuff like that are completly inaccurate...
|
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 23, 2005 19:23:27 GMT -5
i'll reply to mape and globe's points when im feeling political again. dont want you to think id forgotten your replies
just been too busy doing James Blunt impressions
you're beautiful, you're beautiful, its true
see
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 23, 2005 19:24:59 GMT -5
i agree with you, but it depends on how the poll is designed... the MSNBC, Fox News, stuff like that are completly inaccurate... and how exactly do you know that they are inaccurate? were you taught that in some other class your taking? let me guess though, the polls who's results match your political views are accurate though? i have to add here, i dont have a clue about MSNBC or Fox News. |
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 23, 2005 19:27:01 GMT -5
i'll reply to mape and globe's points when im feeling political again. dont want you to think id forgotten your replies just been too busy doing James Blunt impressions you're beautiful, you're beautiful, its true see lol by the way ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 23, 2005 19:34:07 GMT -5
when MSNBC (news station) ask views on go online and vote for example: "Do you think Bush is doing a good job as president"
well, that suffers from non response bias. Those who hate bush, and those who dont think hes doing a good job will respond more than those who support Bush. Polls, such as the one above, focus on negative responders, thats why 55% said they disaproved, but that is not a good represenatation of the country....a census is the best possible way to gather information, but thats hard to do, and may suffer from voluntary bias where those who dont want to respond, wont...
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 23, 2005 19:44:07 GMT -5
when MSNBC (news station) ask views on go online and vote for example: "Do you think Bush is doing a good job as president" well, that suffers from non response bias. Those who hate bush, and those who dont think hes doing a good job will respond more than those who support Bush. Polls, such as the one above, focus on negative responders, thats why 55% said they disaproved, but that is not a good represenatation of the country....a census is the best possible way to gather information, but thats hard to do, and may suffer from voluntary bias where those who dont want to respond, wont... well the question "Do you think Bush is doing a good job as president" sounds pretty straight forward to me. but then again, im not an academic who's been taught about things like non response bias. Surely the reason 55% of people said they dissaproved was beacause 55% of people said they dissaproved? Just coz 55% of the people asked said they dissaproved of Bush, doesnt mean that they werent gonna vote for him in the election. I voted for Mr Blairs party at our last election, and I think he's a fucking tosser! |
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Majesty Revolver on Nov 23, 2005 19:52:39 GMT -5
when MSNBC (news station) ask views on go online and vote for example: "Do you think Bush is doing a good job as president" well, that suffers from non response bias. Those who hate bush, and those who dont think hes doing a good job will respond more than those who support Bush. Polls, such as the one above, focus on negative responders, thats why 55% said they disaproved, but that is not a good represenatation of the country....a census is the best possible way to gather information, but thats hard to do, and may suffer from voluntary bias where those who dont want to respond, wont... well the question "Do you think Bush is doing a good job as president" sounds pretty straight forward to me. but then again, im not an academic who's been taught about things like non response bias. Surely the reason 55% of people said they dissaproved was beacause 55% of people said they dissaproved? Just coz 55% of the people asked said they dissaproved of Bush, doesnt mean that they werent gonna vote for him in the election. I voted for Mr Blairs party at our last election, and I think he's a fucking tosser! Got to hand that one to you, Glober.... I hear ya completely. A lot of people view voting as chosing the best representative and often that person isn't someone they particularly want |
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 23, 2005 19:54:44 GMT -5
well the question "Do you think Bush is doing a good job as president" sounds pretty straight forward to me. but then again, im not an academic who's been taught about things like non response bias. You dont have to be an academic, Hamish.   Its just an extended version of apathy and choice, i guess. Someone on a website sees a poll asking what they think of Bush - they're more likely to reply if they have strong feelings one way or the other, than people who are only mildly interested. Therefore the results are skewed more towards representing the views of one group of people, compared to the group (probably much larger) of more apathetic people newspaper-backed polls are usually the best as they're conducted by third party research companies and are weighted to reflect the population. |
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 23, 2005 20:01:59 GMT -5
well the question "Do you think Bush is doing a good job as president" sounds pretty straight forward to me. but then again, im not an academic who's been taught about things like non response bias. You dont have to be an academic, Hamish. Its just an extended version of apathy and choice, i guess. Someone on a website sees a poll asking what they think of Bush - they're more likely to reply if they have strong feelings one way or the other, than people who are only mildly interested. Therefore the results are skewed more towards representing the views of one group of people, compared to the group (probably much larger) of more apathetic people newspaper-backed polls are usually the best as they're conducted by third party research companies and are weighted to reflect the population. wiy aye man. i know what the theory is behind it, even though i dont know if i really agree with it. just hate all these terms like "non response bias". its like calling a binman a fucking rubbish technician or something its just academic babble to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 23, 2005 20:05:06 GMT -5
DS you're a v intelligent guy, just not when it comes to predicting someones financial situation jp |
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 23, 2005 20:15:21 GMT -5
wiy aye man. i know what the theory is behind it, even though i dont know if i really agree with it. see i dont know how you could disagree with it. obviously some well constructed polls are different, but your average website or TV phone-in poll is not statistically accurate. Response to a voluntary poll like that is directly related to the individual person's strength of feeling, and not what that feeling may actually be. but i'm with you on the academic speak - my dad is now a "gas and heating engineer".... more commonly known as a plumber! lol yeah i know im very intelligent - thanks anyway liv4evr oh and btw - i called you out on being rich! i was right! you admitted it numpty |
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Majesty Revolver on Nov 23, 2005 20:18:31 GMT -5
I believe that politically correct terms are just annoying. It sounds stupid and suggests that a 'plumber' is in need of having a fancy title
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 23, 2005 20:23:56 GMT -5
wiy aye man. i know what the theory is behind it, even though i dont know if i really agree with it. see i dont know how you could disagree with it. obviously some well constructed polls are different, but your average website or TV phone-in poll is not statistically accurate. Response to a voluntary poll like that is directly related to the individual person's strength of feeling, and not what that feeling may actually be. but i'm with you on the academic speak - my dad is now a "gas and heating engineer".... more commonly known as a plumber! lol yeah i know im very intelligent - thanks anyway liv4evr oh and btw - i called you out on being rich! i was right! you admitted it numpty wait a min, your old man is a plumber? you must be rich aswell then! every plumber i know is fucking minted |
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Majesty Revolver on Nov 23, 2005 20:25:50 GMT -5
Trades get you good money, it's true
|
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Nov 23, 2005 20:32:12 GMT -5
Tam typing... I can't believe I am even posting here again.. this is a simple Q. was the war in iraq mislead ? Yes.. 1.) there was NO link between al-quaeda and Iraq. sadaam and 9/11 ? nada. 2.) the bush admin. took some intell and "stretched it" , this happens all the time.. someone from higher up tells the lower downs to get some info. that supports what we wld like to do ... NO ONE BELIeVES ME HERE ? ASK ANY GOV'T WORKER, IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME... iT IS SO EASY TO SAY "FAULTY INTELL.." COS WE DO NOT HAVE ASSESS TO THOSE TYPES OF REPORTS UNLESS YOU HAVE " top secret CLEARANCE.. " etc. 3.) neocons wanted this war /take over of iraq since the early 90s'.. for strategic reasons and there is also a group of ppl that believe the middle east can achieve democracy.. 4.) is iraq a better place w/o sadaam > yes. did we need to go to war unilaterally tho ? not at the expense of my daughter's future sorry.. not at the expense of the military families.. blah blah... 5.) was the planning post war piss poor ? hell yes. ask anyone who works in the field (which you do not.. ) they thought the oil program wld pay for the war  etc etc. 6.) weapons of mass destruction ? (and it's harder for our gov't to "stage a find" than you think.. you wld need a very short chain of command to pull it off. wld be hard to do, someone wld leak it, to risky ..) 7.) result - a moderate islamic state will surface or a civil war.. 8.) this war took away efforts and resources in afghanistan and the seizure of Osama. ask the military.. end of story.. cheers |
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Majesty Revolver on Nov 23, 2005 20:55:09 GMT -5
Tam, you've got it all, there!! GOod work
|
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 24, 2005 20:02:18 GMT -5
this is a simple Q. was the war in iraq mislead ? Yes.. 1.) there was NO link between al-quaeda and Iraq. sadaam and 9/11 ? nada. 2.) the bush admin. took some intell and "stretched it" , this happens all the time.. someone from higher up tells the lower downs to get some info. that supports what we wld like to do ... NO ONE BELIeVES ME HERE ? ASK ANY GOV'T WORKER, IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME... iT IS SO EASY TO SAY "FAULTY INTELL.." COS WE DO NOT HAVE ASSESS TO THOSE TYPES OF REPORTS UNLESS YOU HAVE " top secret CLEARANCE.. " etc. 3.) neocons wanted this war /take over of iraq since the early 90s'.. for strategic reasons and there is also a group of ppl that believe the middle east can achieve democracy.. end of story.. cheers not quite end of story there Tam! you're sounding almost as arrogant as me there!  ;D ok you're answering the "were we misled on iraq" question - therefore only the first 3 points you posted are really relevant to that specific question. Did anybody believe 9/11-iraq link at the time? maybe it was a big issue in the US but it wasnt in the UK - it was always merely a tenuous, possible link. and in hindsight, a direct link to saddam probably wasnt there. But i find it very hard to believe that Al-quaeeda had no significant presence in a country like Iraq. but thats just my guesswork if the US government did deliberately fake or just exaggerate intelligence to show a link, then yeah people were misled. this may have happened with a lot of the intelligence.... but.... erm....when doesnt this happen? the government/politicians lie or hide/bend the truth every single day. always have, always will. it happened during the second world war thats why i dont get why this stuff is still being debated - i was trying to look at it more from the 'bigger picture' -an ideological view the facts were there, the intelligence (fact or fiction) was there, the international laws were there, saddam's history was there - even in hindsight, weigh them all up and i'd still come to the same conclusion (btw, the 1st gulf war/failure of UN/bad boy saddam were my reasons for supporting the 2nd war, the terrorism links were secondary to me personally) Back to Tam's other points - number 5 i agree with. post war planning was poor number 6- you arent winning me over with that one at all i'm afraid. The democrats want us to believe 3 things - that Bush is a fucking retard cowboy bumbling fool from the uneducated, uncultured, religious fanatic deep south...... that he masterminded a vast, global conspiracy involving thousands of politicians and intelligence agencies, alongside entire governments, to go to war over oil and business reasons, tricking and deceiving hundreds of millions of people along the way....... and that he cant plant evidence of WMDs in Iraq because its just too risky... Those 3 things do not make sense in my brain. they just dont go alongside each other. if anyone can explain the connections and logic then i'm all ears number 7 - time will tell. at least we've given the people of iraq a chance for freedom and to choose what they want. Is it our fault if they dont take it? Would we be to blame for that? or would we be to blame if we hadn't given them that chance that we all take for granted? number 8 - id agree with that. but its not all cut and dry. Capturing a fugitive like Bin Laden requires massive intelligence efforts, lo and behold many of those efforts failed and produced wrong information during the chase to find him..... Same happened when we were after Saddam - how many times did we turn on our TVs to see a breaking news headline saying intelligence had pin pointed the location of Bin Laden/Saddam and the army were moving in....only to find he wasnt there and that the intelligence was wrong? many many times... Is it therefore, too much of a stretch to start thinking the intelligence gathering and processing abilities of western countries in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, isnt as easy and certain as we assume? and that the intelligence gathered before the Iraq war was the best we had, and not in fact deliberatly misleading? and if our intelligence is so great and 100% accurate, how come we still havent found Bin Laden? i dont actually think thats too much of a stretch. but thats just me playing devil's advocate... |
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Nov 24, 2005 20:31:36 GMT -5
devil's advocate - good movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Nov 24, 2005 20:31:49 GMT -5
DS, there were no terrorists organizations, listed with the state dept , in the country of iraq pre- iraq war.. .... altho there are More there NOW as a result of the war ! go fuckin figure..
sounded arrogant as you ? jesus ?
|
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Nov 24, 2005 20:34:37 GMT -5
DS, there were no terrorists organizations, listed with the state dept , in the country of iraq pre- iraq war.. .... altho there are More there NOW as a result of the war ! go fuckin figure.. sounded arrogant as you ? jesus ? you do sound a little arrogant. like your point is the point, and it's final. |
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Nov 24, 2005 20:40:15 GMT -5
DS, there were no terrorists organizations, listed with the state dept , in the country of iraq pre- iraq war.. .... altho there are More there NOW as a result of the war ! go fuckin figure.. sounded arrogant as you ? jesus ? you do sound a little arrogant. like your point is the point, and it's final. "end of story" is an expression.. but I think it is waste of time to bang on too much about this topic and SHITE sources of info. feel confident in what I posted..on the previous page.. based on XY and Z , that's all. and I "don't believe the truth.." |
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 26, 2006 18:38:11 GMT -5
Was watching Hannity and Colmes last night and they had a guest on that was a high ranking general for Saddam's Army. I wish I could remember his name
He has wrote a book stating that Iraq's WMD's were shipped to Syria via trucks and buried in the desert.
I had heard claims of this b4 and even mentioned somewhere on this forum. Now it sounds like some info is finally starting to come out regarding this.
I'm sure we will hear more in the near future.
|
|
etc etc.
;D
