Live vote: Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

[mpg]

Results of that poll...

"Not a scientific survey"

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by mpg:
"Not a scientific survey"

Okay, smart guy, what is a scientific survey?

And how does that compare with this one?

And why is that relevent to this discussion?

And how does that disprove these results?

 

[Billo_Really]

ORiginally posted by mpg:
You honestly believe that 89% of the American people want Bush impeached? If that was true, it would've already happened. In case you hadn't noticed, the Democrats control both houses of Congress.

Are you saying that his ~30% approval rating is based on unscientific polls, but this poll IS scientific?

The Dems don't have the votes in Congress to get it done. And the Reps are still clinging to this belief that they actually have a support base in this country. Have you seen what this country thinks of Congress compared to Bush?

Bush is ahead of Congress by 7%.

 

[mpg]

Okay, smart guy, what is a scientific survey?

And how does that compare with this one?

And why is that relevent to this discussion?

And how does that disprove these results?

The people who did this survey never intended for you to take it seriously. They said so themselves.

 

[RightinNYC]

Okay, smart guy, what is a scientific survey?

from the below cited source:

The major distinguishing difference between scientific and unscientific polls is who picks the respondents for the survey. In a scientific poll, the pollster identifies and seeks out the people to be interviewed. In an unscientific poll, the respondents usually "volunteer" their opinions, selecting themselves for the poll.

The results of the well-conducted scientific poll can provide a reliable guide to the opinions of many people in addition to those interviewed -- even the opinions of all Americans. The results of an unscientific poll tell you nothing more than simply what those respondents say.

And how does that compare with this one?

This is unscientific.

And why is that relevent to this discussion?

Because one is valid and one is not.

And how does that disprove these results?

It doesn't "disprove" them, it just lends no credibility to them. It's completely useless. If you still don't understand this and refuse to educate yourself about the most basic statistics, I'm not going to try to explain it any further. I and many other posters have shown you why you're wrong and provided you with links to places where you can learn about this for yourself.

I guess you can lead a billo to truth but you can't make him open his eyes and see it.

 

[bhkad]

Learn how to type in comprehensive sentences if your going to insult.

Learn how to spell if YOU'RE going to criticize.

 

[bhkad]

That has more to do with f.u.c.k.e.d up American's who keep making excuses for his criminal behavior to the detriment of this country.

You refuse to recognize the limits President Bush has observed in doing what he's done and you haven't a clue as to the legal validity and precendents that already existed covering the things he has done.

So, basically, you all are afraid of a comic book Terminator-like scenario and because of your sci-fi brain washing over the years, the minute the president uses emergency mechanisms that were made available to the POTUS for emergency situations by the constitution and the subsequent legal jurisdictions you go into comic book mode and without any legal evidence and little or no understanding of the laws you cry impeachment.

When Bush farts, you'll yell impeachment. When Bush blows his nose you'll yell impeachment.

What you NEED to be crying for is E.D.U.C.A.T.I.O.N. AND E.N.L.I.G.H.T.E.N.M.E.N.T.

And "Americans" needs no apostrophe. Americans need a clue.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by bhkad
You refuse to recognize the limits President Bush has observed in doing what he's done and you haven't a clue as to the legal validity and precendents that already existed covering the things he has done.

So, basically, you all are afraid of a comic book Terminator-like scenario and because of your sci-fi brain washing over the years, the minute the president uses emergency mechanisms that were made available to the POTUS for emergency situations by the constitution and the subsequent legal jurisdictions you go into comic book mode and without any legal evidence and little or no understanding of the laws you cry impeachment.

When Bush farts, you'll yell impeachment. When Bush blows his nose you'll yell impeachment.

What you NEED to be crying for is E.D.U.C.A.T.I.O.N. AND E.N.L.I.G.H.T.E.N.M.E.N.T.

And "Americans" needs no apostrophe. Americans need a clue.

I'm not going to go off topic here. I've got a couple of "impeachment" threads floating around where I state my reason's in plain "comic-book" english. I suggest you do a little homework first, junior, before you start putting your foot in your mouth!

If your planning on being a fiction writer, I wouldn't quit your day job.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Galenrox:
My ears literally started to bleed when I read this. You think I'm joking, you just gave me an aneurysm. This is one of the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, do you know ANYTHING about statistics? Anything at all? Because sample size doesn't mean dick if it's isn't a random sample!!!

Example, let's say we're trying to find out who's gonna win the 2004 election, so we ask everyone at the Democratic National Convention and all the protesters of the Republican National Convention, hell, we ask everyone in New York City who they're going to vote for, millions and millions of people, and what would the poll look like? Like 99.99999% for Kerry and one very confused individual? Is that what happened? Well considering we're talking about impeaching Bush, one should gather that despite the sample size in the millions, it doesn't mean dick about the overall population because it's not a random sample, and there are a great deal of biases.

I really hope that that was just a poorly thought out post, because otherwise, my God dude.

What I find ridiculous is the notion that this poll should be dismissed without anyone providing any evidence to validate that conclusion. MSNBC goes out over the internet. Anyone, anywhere can vote. We have no way of telling who the voters were. Their demographics, political affiliations, ethics, etc, we just don't know. Like I said, there are two choices (at this point), accurate or inaccurate. And no one has provided any relevent evidence to show that it is inaccurate.

Most people seem to be dismissing this simply because they don't like the results. By the same token, one of the reason's I'm not dismissing it, is because I do like the results. Which, BTW, are congruent with the results of the mid-term elections. However, I might change my position if someone would give me something (other than pure rhetoric) that shows the inaccuracy of this particular poll.

I find funny, not to long ago, I was being accused of not using credible media outlets for my sources. And now when I do use one, it gets the same, lame rap! It's like there's this list of pre-programmed responses:

1. attack the source
2. discredit the link
3. dismiss as propaganda
4. reject any conclusion
5. deny, deny, deny
6. change the subject
7. bait and switch

But never on that list is:

• I see your point, albeit I do not agree
• I see what your saying
• You know, you may be right on this one
• maybe I wasn't considering that
• maybe I jumped to conclusions
• I was wrong
• whether I agree or disagree, your comments are always welcome

Anything that doesn't echo one's own agenda, must be destroyed at all costs. That's the way it seems (at times). And I don't know about you, but I think some people around here are more concerned about being found wrong, than they are about being right.

 

[RightinNYC]

What I find ridiculous is the notion that this poll should be dismissed without anyone providing any evidence to validate that conclusion. MSNBC goes out over the internet. Anyone, anywhere can vote. We have no way of telling who the voters were. Their demographics, political affiliations, ethics, etc, we just don't know. Like I said, there are two choices (at this point), accurate or inaccurate. And no one has provided any relevent evidence to show that it is inaccurate.

Most people seem to be dismissing this simply because they don't like the results. By the same token, one of the reason's I'm not dismissing it, is because I do like the results. Which, BTW, are congruent with the results of the mid-term elections. However, I might change my position if someone would give me something (other than pure rhetoric) that shows the inaccuracy of this particular poll.

I find funny, not to long ago, I was being accused of not using credible media outlets for my sources. And now when I do use one, it gets the same, lame rap! It's like there's this list of pre-programmed responses:

1. attack the source
2. discredit the link
3. dismiss as propaganda
4. reject any conclusion
5. deny, deny, deny
6. change the subject
7. bait and switch

But never on that list is:

• I see your point, albeit I do not agree
• I see what your saying
• You know, you may be right on this one
• maybe I wasn't considering that
• maybe I jumped to conclusions
• I was wrong
• whether I agree or disagree, your comments are always welcome

Anything that doesn't echo one's own agenda, must be destroyed at all costs. That's the way it seems (at times). And I don't know about you, but I think some people around here are more concerned about being found wrong, than they are about being right.

I swear on the name of all that is holy that if you posted a link to an MSNBC poll that showed that 89% of the American public believed that Bush was right and that we should stay in Iraq for forever I would have posted the exact same thing.

Again, refer to my last post.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Several thoughts on some of the issue presented in the debate so far. Firstly, not only is it appropriate to discuss and question sources, but it is an important part of debating. Using information from a Fred Phelps supported source to show evidence against the viability of gay marriage should be questioned, as a the bias of a source like this could be evident and discounted. Just as citing information around GW Bush's popularity from Anne Coulter's website needs also to be questioned for validity based on that site's leanings. One wouldn't accept information about Jews or the holocaust found on a pro-Hitler website without serious scrutiny, would one? The questioning of sources is certainly important. A biased source does not, necessarily equate to biased information, but it is reasonable to question that information.

Next, we are discussing scientific methods and research. Billo asks is the MSNBC study scientific and if not why. This particular study does not adhere to scientific methodology. There are several important components when doing scientific study that are consistent if the study is to be accepted as valid. Firstly, a scientific study must have a hypothesis. The hypothesis, here, is the poll question, "Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?" This question, as a hypothesis is poorly constructed and too broad. What actions? How does one quantify justification? A hypothesis, in the scientific research standard, must be simple and measurable as stated. This question does not fit the bill.

Another component to scientific methods is the collection of data. It is important to have some controls over this data in order to prevent bias. There are no controls whatsoever in regards to this data. Are there limits on how often one can vote? I voted three times, already. Do the research questions allow for accurate data retrieval? I made my choices by flipping a coin. How are subjects chosen? For research such as this, random samples are, by far, the most accurate. In this case, the subjects are not chosen; they chose to participate for their own reasons. Is there bias amongst the sample size? Absolutely. A subject must have internet access and must want to vote in the poll, amongst other things.

Data interpretation is another component of scientific methods. Here, data interpretation is impossible, both because of the faulty hypothesis and because of the uncontrolled, unscientific data collection.

Lastly, repeatability is important for the validity of a scientific study. There is no other study that shows these kinds of result with these kinds of numbers.

I am not a fan of GW Bush, but having made an examination of the study using, as a benchmark, some of the tenets of scientific methods, I must conclude that the MSNBC poll is neither a scientific study, nor is it a valid representation of the hypothesis it presents.

The poll itself denotes a disclaimer that it is not a scientific study. Yet the results, also, cannot be taken with any validity because of the methods used.

 

[Billo_Really]

Oh for the love of God people, they asked a question and people responded. That's it! Pro-Bush people have/had just as much an opportunity to vote as the anti-Bush people do. If you want to dismiss it, fine, believe whatever you want. But don't try to explain to me yours was a "scientific" dismissal. Because no evidence that contradicts this poll has been shown. So, it is my view, that until such evidence is discovered, any dismissal without it, is invalid.

I can't believe the lengths people go to try and justify illogical thought.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Oh for the love of God people, they asked a question and people responded. That's it! Pro-Bush people have/had just as much an opportunity to vote as the anti-Bush people do. If you want to dismiss it, fine, believe whatever you want. But don't try to explain to me yours was a "scientific" dismissal. Because no evidence that contradicts this poll has been shown. So, it is my view, that until such evidence is discovered, any dismissal without it, is invalid.

I can't believe the lengths people go to try and justify illogical thought.

In bold. This is an example of the Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance) logical fallacy which states: this is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

 

[Psychoclown]

What amazes me as several people I KNOW are not Bush backers have come here to explain why this poll's results can be taken seriously, and you still claim we have some ulterior motive. I don't know how you could seriously claim RightinNYC, Galenrox, Captain Courtesy, or myself are neo-cons, hard rightwingers, or even Bush backers. Our motive is simple, we see you using an unscientific poll as evidence to support your position, so we call you on it. I firmly believe all of us would do the same if the poll results were the exact opposite. The results of this poll are irrelevant because of the methods they used. MSNBC admits this themselves when they claim the poll is not scientific, so if you won't take our word for it, take theirs.

Billo, I've seen thread after thread where you use questionable sources. You can't determine a source's credibility on the basis of if it agrees with you. Several posters have shown you why this poll cannot be taken seriously. They have even given you examples. This isn't some conspiracy. We're simply explaining what makes a good (credible) poll and what doesn't. If you refuse to listen, I don't what else we can do.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Galenrox:
No dammit, it is a scientific dismissal because it means NOTHING!!! Anyone who knows the first ****ing thing about statistics knows that that poll means NOTHING!!! And I don't mean "In my opinion as a mathematician that poll means nothing, but it's possible that someone with an informed opinion could disagree", I mean that **** it outright meaningless and failure to recognize that is proof that you don't know **** about how statistics work.

It doesn't matter if Bush supporters are equally able to vote, because if they choose not to vote in that poll IT ISN'T ****ING REPRESENTATIVE NOW IS IT? My god, man.

We're not testing a new drug for cancer. It is a poll about politics. The question asks if Bush should be impeached. In light of the past mid-term election results, the results for this poll make sense!

What doesn't make sense, is someone trying to bullshit me without any valid evidence! The poll says over 500,000 thousand people voted. Unless you can show they didn't, ...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Psychoclown
What amazes me as several people I KNOW are not Bush backers have come here to explain why this poll's results can be taken seriously, and you still claim we have some ulterior motive. I don't know how you could seriously claim RightinNYC, Galenrox, Captain Courtesy, or myself are neo-cons, hard rightwingers, or even Bush backers. Our motive is simple, we see you using an unscientific poll as evidence to support your position, so we call you on it. I firmly believe all of us would do the same if the poll results were the exact opposite. The results of this poll are irrelevant because of the methods they used. MSNBC admits this themselves when they claim the poll is not scientific, so if you won't take our word for it, take theirs.

Billo, I've seen thread after thread where you use questionable sources. You can't determine a source's credibility on the basis of if it agrees with you. Several posters have shown you why this poll cannot be taken seriously. They have even given you examples. This isn't some conspiracy. We're simply explaining what makes a good (credible) poll and what doesn't. If you refuse to listen, I don't what else we can do.

Listen, Jack, all I'm asking for is that somebody provide valid evidence that this poll is inaccurate. Just because it is an "un-scientific" poll, does not automatically mean the results of said poll are false! Maybe every one of you should go back and take a logic coarse again, because all these "seems like", "should of be's" and "not likes" don't cut it the relm of logical deductive reasoning. Or inductive reasoning in this case.

I'm not refusing to listen to anyone. I hear what everyone is saying and I understand their position. I JUST DON'T F.U.C.K.I.N' AGREE WITH IT! And I am sick of this bullshit of innuendo logic. Prove what you say or ...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Galenrox:
Well frankly I'm really surprised that you actually expected anyone to take this seriously. I don't know if I can communicate it more clearly, but statistically speaking that poll means absolutely nothing. I do mean absolutely nothing.
It's because the pool is biased. I know you argue that it's accessible to everyone with the internet, but that does not mean that certain types of people aren't more predisposed to being on the MSNBC website, or answering poll questions about whether or not Bush should be impeached.
The reasons why there are big companies which do polling is because finding representative samples is difficult. The numbers have to be selected by a random number generator, because even so much as someone unconsciously liking one number over another for whatever reason can throw the representativeness of the whole poll, if either side is overly represented by calling a particularly red or blue area code, for example.
And so their lack of effort is actually why it's not representative, because the sample is allowed to be freely biased.

I'm sorry if you don't think I take your positions seriously, but the reasons why people attack your sources are mostly because your sources are nonsense. You go to clearly ideological sites where they coincidentally post "news" stories that just so happen to promote the ideology of the site, or you post internet polls with nothing even close to representing a random sample which produce numbers that are nowhere near the numbers of actually scientifically conducted surveys, I'm really having a hard time believing you actually don't see why your sources get attacked. Your sources are about as credible as if I cited the Weekly World News.

You post propaganda, and you're surprised that people dismiss it as propaganda? You post discredited sources and you see ulterior motives in pointing out that your source is discredited?

I'm really at a loss for words, on what basis do you determine whether or not a source is credible?

I'm not going to play this source game. The truth or falsehood of an assertion is not determined soley on the source of the link. You consider the source to be prudent, but you do not put all your eggs in that basket. Many people that accuse me of using biased sources (and therefore should dismiss the assertions there of), do exactly that. Tashah, as an example of an un-biased source, used one of MY BIASED SOURCES (Alternet)! TOT's slam's Global Research, which is UN-AFFILIATED! In contrast, all these so-credible sources in the mainstream media show their bias by what they do not report. For the last 6 years, there has been a lid on anti-war reporting. And you want me to use these sources as the credible ones?

Look, if you or anyone else wants to think these sources are non-sense, I don't have a problem with it. I just get a little hot when it is done under the guise of logical deductive reasoning.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Captain Courtesy:
In bold. This is an example of the Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance) logical fallacy which states: this is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

Except that I'm not saying it is true, I'm saying it hasn't been proven false!

I've stated several times, it is either:

1. accurate
2. inaccurate

and those are our two choices at this point in time. I have not declared this to be an absolute truth. I have said that the results of this poll are in concert with the past mid-term election results where only two pro-war candidates kept their jobs. The reps even cheated in that election but under-estimated the level of opposition in this country to the war. Now you, and everyone else, are doing the exact same thing! It makes sense that only 10% of American's support this war and this President. All the so-called credible scientific polls have Bush barely over 20%, so this one is in the ballpark. Yet I'm supposed to blow it off as ridiculous.

 

[mpg]

The truth or falsehood of an assertion is not determined soley on the source of the link.

It wasn't even an assertion in the first place. Your own source said that. MSNBC never asserted that 89% of Americans want Bush impeached. There's no assertion to refute.

 

[mpg]

Except that I'm not saying it is true

Now you're contradicting yourself. In post #9 you said "With over 500,000 people voting, you can bet your a.s.s this is representative of the entire nation.". There are also many other posts where you kept insisting that that post was correct.

 

[mpg]

Oh for the love of God people, they asked a question and people responded. That's it! Pro-Bush people have/had just as much an opportunity to vote as the anti-Bush people do. If you want to dismiss it, fine, believe whatever you want. But don't try to explain to me yours was a "scientific" dismissal. Because no evidence that contradicts this poll has been shown. So, it is my view, that until such evidence is discovered, any dismissal without it, is invalid.

I can't believe the lengths people go to try and justify illogical thought.

This is the most entertaining thread I've ever read. Thank you very much.

 

[Psychoclown]

Listen, Jack, all I'm asking for is that somebody provide valid evidence that this poll is inaccurate. Just because it is an "un-scientific" poll, does not automatically mean the results of said poll are false! Maybe every one of you should go back and take a logic coarse again, because all these "seems like", "should of be's" and "not likes" don't cut it the relm of logical deductive reasoning. Or inductive reasoning in this case.

I'm not refusing to listen to anyone. I hear what everyone is saying and I understand their position. I JUST DON'T F.U.C.K.I.N' AGREE WITH IT! And I am sick of this bullshit of innuendo logic. Prove what you say or ...

First off, Bucko, my name's not Jack and let's try to maintain a respectful or at least civil tone.

Secondly, you said:

With over 500,000 people voting, you can bet your a.s.s this is representative of the entire nation.

We've responded with several explanations as to how this poll was conducted makes it very unlikely it is represenative of the entire nation. MSNBC itself makes not claim that this poll is represenative of the entire nation. I suppose it is technically within the realm of possibility, despite the overwhelming potential for bias in the pool and the unknown sample size (remember sample size is not responses, but is the number of different people who responded), this poll does accurately reflect the nation's views. But its not very likely at all. I'd rank it slightly above the off chance that Santa Claus really does exist.

Plus, if we use a little real world common sense, we can probably figure out this poll isn't represenative. If 89% of Americans support something, you can bet your hindquarters that there will be a serious political movement to support it. Given what we know about the current political climate - that there is no serious movement to impeach Bush - I'd say the percentage of people who want Bush impeached is less than 89%, probably significantly less.

 

[TOJ]

This is the most entertaining thread I've ever read. Thank you very much.

Hey, anytime Billo gets off his meds it gets pretty damned amusing. :lol:

 

[Billo_Really]

I think we are all losing our focus and
forgetting what is really important here...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Psychoclown
We've responded with several explanations as to how this poll was conducted makes it very unlikely it is represenative of the entire nation. MSNBC itself makes not claim that this poll is represenative of the entire nation. I suppose it is technically within the realm of possibility, despite the overwhelming potential for bias in the pool and the unknown sample size (remember sample size is not responses, but is the number of different people who responded), this poll does accurately reflect the nation's views. But its not very likely at all. I'd rank it slightly above the off chance that Santa Claus really does exist.

Plus, if we use a little real world common sense, we can probably figure out this poll isn't represenative. If 89% of Americans support something, you can bet your hindquarters that there will be a serious political movement to support it. Given what we know about the current political climate - that there is no serious movement to impeach Bush - I'd say the percentage of people who want Bush impeached is less than 89%, probably significantly less.

That's a better argument than telling me what I think. Or making a mountain out of a mole hill (like others seem to want to do). This isn't a discussion on the best polling methods and we are not testing a cure for cancer. It's just a dumb political poll with over 500,000 reponses. I don't give a rats a.s.s whether those responses are biased, by the same person or un-scientifically taken, that's not what this is about. Yes, it is within the realm the poll is an accurate representation of American's view on Bush. And yes, it is also within the realm of being total bullshit. You are right, it is hard to believe 89% of American's agree on a particular topic. But what are Bush's numbers on all the other polls, scientific or otherwise? He's not much beyond 20% approval rating. When you look at this in comparison to the past mid-terms, this could be true. All it really is, is an indication that this country is very, very unhappy with the direction Bush has taken it. But like I said, he still beat Congress by 7 percentage points.

And you really want to know the truth, these same people who keep bitching and complaining about my sources or the bias in this poll, do that no matter what poll or source I use. It's just a Pavlov's dog response. Try and find how many people around here have come out and admitted they were wrong on a subject. Very few have done that. Very few.