posted 09-17-2001 10:38 AM            

If only Washington DC would come to their collective senses, they could see the same thing. We may win, but we will also loose.

posted 09-17-2001 03:33 PM            

However, a New York times/CBS News survey found that:
84% expres confidence in President bush;
85% Want military action against those responsible; and
74% are willing to lose personal freedoms in the process.

In findings similar to other polls since hijacked commercial airplanes slammed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon last Tuesday, killing as many as 5,000 people, the latest survey found that 85 percent backed U.S. military action against those responsible for the attacks.

Among respondents, 75 percent still supported military engagement even if that risked the deaths of innocent people. Sixty-eight percent said they believed the United States would go to war.

The telephone poll of 959 adults nationwide was conducted on Thursday and Friday and had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Those who lived through World War Two and the wars in Korea and Vietnam were the least likely to back military action, the poll showed.

posted 09-17-2001 08:37 PM            

So do I. Too often, politicians will read polls, convene ‘focus groups’, etc., to see ‘which way
the wind blows’ before taking a position. This is cowardly, but we get whom we vote for, don’t
we?

“How can any of us be sure that the polls are un-biased, and not slanted in any way by the various
media and others that are conducting these polls?”

We can’t, unless we are comfortable with a pollster who has a reputation for honesty. Gallup and
Rocky Mountain seem to be pretty accurate, even when the poll results are not ‘politically
correct’. But that’s a decision we each have to make based on what we know about the pollsters.

“How can we be sure that some polls are not "socially engineered" to present a particular
outcome?”

We can’t! Just the way that a poll is worded can influence the outcome. For example, if you
were developing a poll on peoples’ views on abortion, you would get two different sets of results,
depending on whether you asked:

‘Do you believe a woman has a right to her own reproductive choice?’

Versus:

‘Do you think its acceptable to murder an innocent pre-born baby?’

They both mean the same thing, of course, but the fact that they have different “semantic loading”
will cause a big difference in the response. Obviously, a pro-choice pollster would pick the first
question, a pro-life pollster would pick the second, and each one would be able to show that the
majority of people support whatever their agenda was. So it’s up to you and me to check out the
wording to see if the poll is biased by its semantic loading.

“Who polices the Pollsters?”

You and I do. If we, as the public, do not act the way the poll predicts we will, then the
politicians and others who commission these polls will not trust them as prognosticators any
more, and that particular pollster will be out of a job.

“Why do polls often seem to agree specifically with the political ideaologies, opinions, and desires
of TPTB?”

There’re two answers to that. First, polls often seem to DISagree with the political ideologies
of the politicians. Second, remember it’s not the politicians that force the polls to fit their
ideologies -- most of those jerks don’t have an ideology; they just want to get re-elected.
What they usually do is make their ideologies fit the poll or focus group results. Clinton was
famous for this.

“This administration wants war, the polls seem to reflect only that idea...”

This is probably one case where the bulk of the people want what the politicians want. It’s not
war per se; the people haven’t thought that far. But the polls show most people are willing
to put up with some vague “hardship” or “sacrifice”.

“(W)here are polls presented that reflect the feelings of veterans of prior wars and their
families...where are their opinions polled, feelings presented, and duly noted?”

Well, as I mentioned, the CBS poll I quoted did isolate veterans and reported that they weren’t
quite as anxious to go out and kill a Moslim for Mommy. They didn’t quote the breakdown --
probably -- because they didn’t think most people would care to interpret the poll that carefully
(and they’re probably right). But if you went to their website and looked for the poll, you’d
probably find out the results in raw-data form and could interpret ‘em yourself.

“No one in my area wants war or having our boys sent away and most are concerned about the
possibility of weapons of mass destruction being used should a war be initiated...the horrible
thought, the "nightmarish" scenario of WWlll. War is not the answer, never has been...we should
not allow history to repeat itself. We should endeavor to "re-write" history for future generations
by finding a more "humane" and positive way to solve this worlds problems.”

For what it’s worth, I’m inclined to agree with you.But most people I talk with, including many of
my colleagues who are retired career military men, believe that we can do the deed with
overwhelming military force. I don’t, and I outline my reasons why in this thread: http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000066-4.html

But it looks like I’m in the minority. Oh, well....

Regards,