Posted on 03/21/2005 7:30:53 AM PST by Dog Gone
OK that settles it heresay wins. /S
After the blanket coverage that this story has been given, I think they do know.
Ask yourself, since YOU evidently understand the story.. what would you want?
Her cerebral coretex has pretty much atrophied, replaced by CS fluid. No amount of wishing, hoping, praying, protesting, accusations of abuse, or grandstanding judges and politicians will change that.
Bones
"This ABC News poll was conducted by telephone March 20, 2005, among a random national sample of 501 adults. The results have a 4.5-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa."
Here's a blog concerning this polling co.:
So there's been a lot of stink lately about a recent poll that indicated that nearly 70% of Americans think Iraq was behind 9/11.
But what did that poll really say?
I looked it up. The poll was paid for by the Washington Post. It was conducted by an outfit called TNS Intersearch of Horsham, PA, between August 7 and August 11, 2003. The poll was conducted by phone, and the total number of people sampled was 1,003. The margin of error is declared to be 3%.
What was the question? The question was this: "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks?"
It was a multiple-choice poll. The interviewer gave the respondents a number of choices to select from, and they were instructed to choose the one that best fit their opinion.
Now, before I get to the choices, think about the question. What's your answer? Was Saddam Hussein personally involved in 9/11? That could mean a lot of things. We know that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the planning of an assassination attempt on the life of former president George H. W. Bush. We know that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. We know that Saddam Hussein was, in short, personally involved in a lot of things.
So if I were asked that question, I'd have to say that I think it's possible, but that we don't know either way.
Turns out I couldn't have given that answer. Instead, I had to choose from one of these five answers: very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, not at all likely, or no opinion.
Sorry, Washington Post and Intersearch of Horsham, PA, but none of those answers accurately reflects my opinion. If I had to pick one of those, I probably would have settled on "somewhat likely." That's not accurate, but it's better than any of the others.
What about the results of the poll?
very likely somewhat likely not very likely not at all likely no opinion
32% 37% 15% 12% 3%
Notice anything interesting? More respondents answered "somewhat likely" than any of the other responses. In fact, more people said "somewhat likely" than said "not very likely," "not at all likely," and "no opinion" put together. Is it possible that people said "somewhat likely" when they meant "maybe?" I think it's fair to say that it's possible, yes.
In interpreting the results, though, either Intersearch or the Post added the numbers up and concluded that 69% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. The fallout from that proclamation is still settling.
Was it an accurate assessment? I don't think so. I don't think it accurately reflects opinions on the question. I certainly don't think that 1,000 respondents was a sufficient number to gain a good understanding of the diversity of opinions on the question. I also think the basic phrasing of the question yielded inaccurate results. How likely was it? That's an absurd way to phrase the question. A better way would have been to simply state it objectively: "Do you think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? Yes, probably, maybe, probably not, no."
I don't know much about statistics. I don't know much about polling. But I have what I consider to be a reasonably good nose for bullshit, and this poll stinks.
That is a BS poll.
1) People are generally ignorant of the facts, and I know for a fact that the vast majority would support federal intervention if Terri was a. not brain-dead, and b. apparently abused by her husband prior to her heart 'problem'.
2) These polls are notoriously inacurate as the past elections show.
3) Why would anyone trust ABC to get this right anyway?
I have a hunch this is quite accurate. The standard line I keep hearing is this: "If I were in that condition, I would want somebody to end my life, so I think somebody needs to end hers as well." I think this very well indicates how many seriously religious people there are in this country. Only a minority, really. And not a very big minority.
The real polls took place last week and enough got through to Congress and they acted.The Rats who voted in favor did not do so because of numbers like the ones in that poll.
Where's the poll which asked should the court decide over the wishes of her family? It is only her jackass husband who wants her killed.
Exactly. Most people I have spoken with were on the "husband's" side UNTIL they heard the facts. In every instance, they chabged their minds. It's all about cutting through the MSM bull excrement, and educating people. The MSM is as guilty as Greer.
I find it astounding that so many people are willing to allow a judicial-assisted murder.
Very few people realize that the court is ordering that a helpless woman be forcibly starved to death.
No way the vast majority of American's support starving a human to death who has no living will indicating how to deal with this situation. Her husband, who has already had two children with another woman, is telling us this is what Terri would want. Not buying it.
No, me thinks this is just another example of the MSM taking polls to create public opinion instead of reflecting it.
A 500 sample poll conducted on a Sunday?! And they believe this is reliable and valid enough to turn into a news story?!
I really do not believe this poll. Maybe, but I doubt it strongly.
Most Americans don't follow anything too closely. My gut feel is that they treat the case as if she were on life support and the husband wants the plug pulled, which is not the case.
I think the reason for the 'strong' opinions are people's fears that the government will get in the way of families' ability to handle these issues themselves as they see fit. In fact, I have seen posters here on FR saying that loved ones should never have the right to make such a decision.
The answer would be sobering indeed!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The judge has scheduled his hearing for 3 p.m. Right AFTER Limbaugh goes off the air. Hmmm...
I'll bet most of the calling was done between the hours from 8 AM to noon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.