Bush hits a new low

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As much as the radical liberal left would like to see it, Bush will not be impeached either, for what ever reason someone dreams up.

Radical?

As of 7/5/07 American Research Group found....

45-46% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Bush.

50-54% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Cheney.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/


I was too young to really know the details and numbers with Clinton but why aren't these numbers known when I'm sure everyone knew about Clinton's?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Radical?

As of 7/5/07 American Research Group found....

45-46% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Bush.

50-54% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Cheney.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/


I was too young to really know the details and numbers with Clinton but why aren't these numbers known when I'm sure everyone knew about Clinton's?

Point is, it ain't happing.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Point is, it ain't happing.

No one thinks its just going to happen, I am just saying that more than just "radical" leftists want Bush and Cheney impeached. Unless you think that 50% of the US population (or at least the survey population) are radicals...

What did you just say, was that important?

Your last four posts have been the same thing, it is getting really old.

[Happy Monkey]

The new meaning of "radical left" is "not a member if the DC cocktail circuit".

[TheMercenary]

Pierce, this is exactly what I am talking about. (from your post)

Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Please explain to me how 933 people know what the majority 302 million people are thinking....

How does a sample of 0.0003 percent of the population knows what the other 99.99997 percent are thinking?

And that would also be of people who 1) owned a phone, at home most likely 2) were home in the local area that was sampled on a 3 day period 3) who chose not to hang up on a telephone pollster. That is all they measured? from 933 people you get: 45-46% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Bush. And 50-54% of adults want to start the impeachment process against Cheney.? Give me a frigging break already. People are drinking the color of Koolaid that makes them happy and all warm inside because some dumb assed statistically very weak poll says what they want to believe. And the beat goes on....

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

How does a sample of 0.0003 percent of the population knows what the other 99.99997 percent are thinking?

If he understood statistics, then TheMercenary could provide numbers - show us how that poll with a 3% margin of error, etc is wrong. TheMercenary automatically knows the numbers cannot be right only because he knows. That is his reasoning.

If TheMercenary really knew, then he would not be asking accusatory questions. Instead he would have told us why those poll numbers had greater error. He did not probably for the same reason found in so many of his posts. He did not know. He just knew that poll must be wrong because numbers contradict TheMercenary's political agenda. His ‘feelings’ are justification for his criticism – facts be damned.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Bla, bla, bla....TheMercenary ......TheMercenary.....TheMercenary ......bla, bal, bla, bla.... TheMercenary............Bla, bla, bla, bla..... bla, bla...

Did you have a point to make?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Did you have a point to make?

Why do you post so much and say nothing? And why do you repeat the same nothing so often?

[piercehawkeye45]

That is why I said survey population but that is the only one that I have seen. Even though it obviously doesn't hold up to the proportion of the entire population of the United States, it still gives an idea assuming that they didn't just randomly get a lot of anti-Bushers.

You can not base this as fact but it can give an idea of what is happening and is it really that hard to believe since Bush's approval rating recently went down to 26% or something like that?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

That is why I said survey population but that is the only one that I have seen. Even though it obviously doesn't hold up to the proportion of the entire population of the United States, it still gives an idea assuming that they didn't just randomly get a lot of anti-Bushers.

You can not base this as fact but it can give an idea of what is happening and is it really that hard to believe since Bush's approval rating recently went down to 26% or something like that?

Yea, he really is smoking Pelosi and Reid in Congress isn't he?

[Cicero]

When I was a manager at a "research" bank (which included political polling and corporate data) the client companies only allowed for pre-determined answer sets.
"Well is that a yes or no?"
"Would you rather, impeach Bush or spray yourself down with flesh removing acid?"
One or the other........
There's statistics for you.

[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..."

[tw]

Originally Posted by theotherguy

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, ....

the numbers.

The first thing extremists need your eyes to do - glaze over as soon as numbers are posted.

Many years back, an author played mind games with 'white boys' - and did it so well. Barak was amusing. Then he made one mistake. He finally posted numbers since he was playing those mind games with people easily deceived by numbers. Guess who joined the fray once a real fact existed? Using algebra, Barak had proven X 'something' was the same as Y 'others'. It was right there quoted from his book. But the 'white boys' eyes glazed over when he posted it.

I most enjoyed watching Barak play on guilt within 'white boys'. But Barak then committed original sin. His numbers were fiction. Entertainment ended because numbers from his book were lies. Even his editor could not do basic algebra?

The post was entitled "Hey Professor". Fallacy in his numbers was questioned in multiple posts that he never answered. Barak quietly stopped posting in The Cellar after the "Hey Professor" post. No more fun watching him 'bait white boys'. They were easily baited because, for example, they never demanded numbers. Had Barak not made the mistake of quoting numbers from his book, who knows; he might still be here today.

Numbers are either the irrefutable fact or numbers are how we identify liars. For both reasons, we always want numbers. Your eyes should get large once numbers appear since those are the useful posts.

'Number or no numbers' is also why one poster five years ago and so adamantly insisted that the Saddam WMD threat was not justified.

Let numbers glaze over your eyes - and Rush Limbaugh needs you for a disciple.

Numbers: military doctrine said America needed 600,000 troops deployed to "Mission Accomplished" before last year. We are now watching a slow defeat - Deja vue Nam - made so obvious even years ago by simple numbers. Did you see it coming back then - or did your eyes glaze over as retired generals and military analysts kept repeating those numbers - too few troops?

Notice how TheMercenary is quick to mock and deny - but never provided useful numbers in reply. Just another example of why numbers - in this case a lack of - should make your eyes large. If TheMercenary based doubt of polls in logic, then his criticism would have contained numbers. He posted no numbers in reply because his entire post was based in Rush Limbaugh rhetoric - a political agenda. TheMercenary could not dispute the numbers - so he disparaged them. Those missing numbers in his criticism should also make your eyes large. His 'missing numbers' says so much about TheMercenary's reasoning.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Bla... bla, bla, bla, bla......TheMercenary........TheMercenary........ Bla, bla, bla, bla..............TheMercenary .......... Bla, bla, bla............. TheMercenary.........Bla.

(yawn)

[theotherguy]

Originally Posted by tw

The first thing extremists need your eyes to do - glaze over as soon as numbers are posted.

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.