• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Take the George W. Bush Quiz

KCConservative said:
Actually, I didn not forget about the sheep comment. It appears that some have missed the irony in my posts. You see, I still believe that polss are for sheep. My experiment in posting this new poll number was to see who would jump on the hypocrti bandwagon. Many did. Those who swear by the president's low approval numbers are backpeddlig and are not willing to accept his rising poll numbers. THey are the flip floppers.

:spin: it baby :spin: it. Don't get to dizzy.

I have not seen a single post from someone claiming to back polls that produce low numbers and not backing this poll. So where are these "Many" that did?
 
Last edited:
hipsterdufus said:
If polls are useless, why do we have so many of them on this website?
I should put in a caveat...

Polls that inherantly involve the person polled's political affiliation are useless...

Unobjective outlets and ill-phrased questions that are slanted lead to inaccurate reflections...


You could ask the VERY SAME QUESTION two different ways and the poll percentages would be vastly different...

Question - "Knowing that Rafael Palmiero was found to be taking steroids, do you think he should be in the Hall of Fame?"...Yes/No

Question - "Knowing that Rafeal Palmiero is one of two players who have ever had 3000 hits and 500 home runs, do you think he should be in the Hall of Fame?"...Yes/No

Same question...you will get two incredibly different answers...


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=132215&postcount=5

Here is an example of how political polls are biased....

Polls that do not have an underlying agenda are usually legit...

Here is an example of a poll with well-rounded options and no slant...

Here is an example of a poll with BS options and with a total slant...

Notice the difference?...:2wave:
 
Gibberish said:
:spin: it baby :spin: it. Don't get to dizzy.

I have not seen a single post from someone claiming to back polls that produce low numbers and not backing this poll. So where are these "Many" that did?

Ten you need to pay attention. I laid the trap and the libs took the bait. :rofl
 
KCConservative said:
Ten you need to pay attention. I laid the trap and the libs took the bait. :rofl

:rofl If we are just going to be running laps this discussion is done. :2wave:
 
KCConservative said:
Actually, I didn not forget about the sheep comment.
I didn't think you did. Sheep, monkeys, champs, jsut reminded me of the time champs claimed forgeting about monkeys. So I was saying if you were like champs you could claim you forgot. Basicaly I like picking on champs.
It appears that some have missed the irony in my posts. You see, I still believe that polss are for sheep. My experiment in posting this new poll number was to see who would jump on the hypocrti bandwagon. Many did. Those who swear by the president's low approval numbers are backpeddlig and are not willing to accept his rising poll numbers. THey are the flip floppers.

Nicely done. Now we watch them spasm in attempts to explain their behavior, which just makes them look all the more silly. Really KC. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Shirley you don't do this hoping they'll admit their error.

Is it:
Simple amusement?
To get that same feeling when you fake throwing the ball in a game of fetch with a dog?
You're evil?
You don't know these things about the left yet and are learning?
A study in human nature? (most are evil, lying, cheating, thieving, selfish, and too dim to realize they're dim.)
You are tired of the same old debates and are thinking of ways to amuse us? (which is where I am).
You feel sorry for me because champs ignores me and are trying to cheer me up?
Chicks in K.C. groove on it?
I think too much?

Anyway, I enjoyed it.

I might be on champs ignore list. Ask him about monkeys for me.
 
cnredd said:
How is that conducive to actual debate?...:confused:

Here, here, I concur. What a waste of memory and bandwidth. Adds nothing of consequence and is distracting to the important work at hand. Certainly as a mod cnredd, you can take steps to discourage such disruptive, inflammatory, wasteful shenanigans. An example should be made of this neredowell before this foolishness spreads and gets out of hand.

I expect prudent and decisive action. I await your reply.
 
alphieb said:
Falling oil prices that were up to $3.00 per gallon (not saying much)

So? Still falling.

Lower unemployment figures: INCORRECT

Um....you're wrong.

Iraqi constitution????? We will see what the Sunni's have to say about that?

We already did. It was overwhelmingly approved.

Answer: You forgot to mention that his approval ratings are 36% not real good KCC

Already answered.
 
Back
Top Bottom