What would you say if you were polled

[bblight]

I know that I'd lie!

I hate the thought of these polsters getting anything correct. If they polled me I'd be a Ted Kennedy Marxist!
The polsters wouldn't get a hint of the truth out of me!

I see them as nothing more than a way for politicians to manipulate me, and I detest the thought that I could be directed like an automaton!

 

[lander]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bblight:
I know that I'd lie!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least you're consistant.
If you really want to throw people off guard maybe you should try saying something factual

 

[bblight]

Lander, please define "factual"?
Do you mean Michael Moore factual?
Or maybe you mean Sandy Berger, "It was done by accident" factual?
Maybe I can use ythe bashers brand of factual - what ever fits my diatribe of the moment!

In every case, I'd still be lieing!

Beyond a certain point, I don't think that polsters serve a function that serves the needs of the citizenry. Rather it allows the politicians to adjust their postions to best suit the politicians needs.

Lander, this ain't about supporting Bush or Kerry, but about making sure that the USA is being best served by the politicians.
If you disagree, please elucidate on your position!

 

[lander]

Mr America,
Let's start by supporting your counrty by using it's national language somewhat correctly.

Lieing is not a word; notice that it ain't.

Now, as for your perception that the word "factual" is open to interptretation -- it is not.

A single bit of information is either true or false - not neither, not both. You might be confused when a series of actions (informational bits) are strung together in the case where some are true and other are false. In that scenario, the series is not true or false a whole, and thus needs to be re-structured to be composed of all absolute truths.

Also, remember, just becasue we do not understand something does not mean that there is not an absolute truth associated with it; it simply means that we are unable to comprehend the matter at hand (yes, even guys like Stephen Hawking are victim to these human limitations).

That said, I don't disagree with your assertions on pollsters. I find their data interesting, but surely it helps the DNC and RNC infinately more that it helps us. Still, America is based on free speech, and poll information is clearly a subset of free speech - thus, I do not agree with your implicit message that they need to be controlled to "purify politics."

Regardless of what Grand Wizzard Asscroft says, free speech is vastly more important that Bush or Kerry.

 

[bblight]

Lander, here's a quote from your post:
"Still, America is based on free speech, and poll information is clearly a subset of free speech - thus, I do not agree with your implicit message that they need to be controlled to "purify politics.""

First, I didn't say, nor did I imply that polsters need to be controlled to "purify politics" - What I did say is, given the opportunity, I'll lie to any polsters so that the outcome is skewed, and of no value to any politicians. My reason is that most polls ultimate provide no value to the citizen.

On electiopn day polls have actually harmed the electorate by discouraging west coast voters from going to the polls in some national elections where the outcome was already determined by the polsters. I consider every vote to be the most valuable assett a citizen can have - and no vote should be discouraged or go to waste.

In my opinion, polls, by their nature and by their certainty, can actually harm the electorate by discouraging a voter.
I can't state the following factually, but I do believe it could have happened; In the last presidential election, some Gore voters might not have gone to the Florida polls after polsters said that Gore had a lead in the polls and would win Florida. Gore could be the President today.

Again, I ascert that polsters are harmful to the electorate, and given the chance, I would lie to them to skew the outcome of their poll.

 

[lander]

Good post Blight (for a change).

I thought you were leading into the need to surpress pollsters, but since you state otherwise there is little to debate here.

 

[Redneckman]

Lander, since you thought it necessary to correct bblight's spelling, it's "suppress".

 

[jointpleasures]

Nobody, I repeat nobody, can put out as colorful a graph on various polls than our own Funk Soul Brother. If Kerry get a 25 point bump on the funksters graph after the DNC, then I'll have reason to be concerned for the cowboys future as president.

I suggest all Bush voters call your local demi headquarters and ask them for a ride to the voting booths on election day. You don't have to be home when they knock on your door. If you smoke, you may want to take the ride!

 

[bblight]

Lander agrees with me???? I'm not sure if I should be elated or worried -

This is just proof that beneath the rhetoric, we're all in the same book, if not on the same page.


PS, Lyed, lieing, you know what I meant.

 

[lander]

RN,
Noted.

Blight,
I'm not sure I'd go that far. There's little room for agreement when it comes to polarized issues like war, abortion, etc ...
Some issues, I think you can find a happy medium or agreement on based on logic (like your west-coast voter turnout point that you made), but we run into problems with items that cannot be proven as absolute truths (facts).

Take abortion.
I'll say it's wrong because it's murder one. Life doens't spontaneously generate, so the man/woman have already made their decision.

You might say that it's wrong because God forbids it (just an example - I do not know your religious beliefs).

Other's will say it's ok because a fetus is a parasite, etc ..

How do we go about finding a common groud when none of us can actually prove the basis (premises) of our arguments.

Some of the crap just becomes to philosophical to "win", but I do hope that we can agree ...

the one thing that pisses people off more than anything is when somebody has taken a position that is later disproved, yet refused to concede their argument. Denial, I suppose.

It's very evident on both sides.

 

[SENDITIN]

the one thing that pisses people off more than anything is when somebody has taken a position that is later disproved, yet refused to concede their argument. Denial, I suppose

You mean sorta like "Bush lied about WMD's"..."Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time"..."Bush lied about Iraq trying to acquire yellow-cake from Nigeria"...etc. etc.

 

[lander]

In order

"Bush lied about WMD's"...
No. Ignoring evidence because you do not want to hear it is essentially making decisions off of a lie. Refamiliarise yourself with my bit about single bits of information being factual, and sequences of information not being factual if one bit is false.


"Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time"
Yes. As far as any of us can tell, Bush and other senior officials dismissed rather vague reports of suspicious terrorist activity, but that hardly equates to pre-existing knowledge of 9/11. All signs indicate that this is a case of a gravely incompetent administration, not a terror conspiracy.

"Bush lied about Iraq trying to acquire yellow-cake from Nigeria"
Again, ignoring evidence because you do not want to hear it is essentially making decisions off of a lie. Refamiliarise yourself with my bit about single bits of information being factual, and sequences of information not being factual if one bit is false

...etc. etc.
Please elaborate.

 

[bblight]

Lander, can you come up with anything positive - even about your side? It seems to me that all you do is bash. Why don't you try something positive for a change.

 

[lander]

I've applauded Bush for the partial-birth abortion ban and the ephedra ban several times.

The problem is that Bush has only done two positive things in a span of nearly four years while doing countless negative things.

I have little faith in Kerry, but I stand by my convictions that it simply cannot get worse.