The Nightstar Zoo
http://zoo.nightstar.net/

44% of the US want to restrict Muslim civil liberties
http://zoo.nightstar.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10681
Page 1 of 1

Author:  gnolam [ Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:  44% of the US want to restrict Muslim civil liberties

alternate title: "44% of the US consider Muslims Untermenschen"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_re_us/muslims_civil_liberties

Ok, American politics have now officially reached the level where it's no longer possible to discuss them without drawing the obvious Godwin parallels.

Author:  Jeremiah Smith [ Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

This country is full of fucking morons.

That's about all I can say.

Author:  Berken [ Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

I've always had the impression that most Americans answer pollsters casually, without thinking out the consequences of the opinions, and fully aware that they're not actually deciding anything in the real world.

Still, kinda depressing.

Author:  gwalla [ Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

44% of Americans can eat my cock, pardon my French.

Author:  Ishidan [ Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:12 am ]
Post subject: 

gwalla wrote:
44% of Americans can eat my cock, pardon my French.


I think you're short about 7 percent.

Author:  Ishidan [ Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:27 am ]
Post subject: 

Say...tell me again...
what's the percentages of Americans who--

--want prayer in schools-but only the prayers associated with their favorite flavor of their favorite religion? Like religion doesn't come in more flavors than a Baskin Robbins. It's like they demand that everybody eat chocolate mint chip ice cream for dessert. Refusing the ice cream-not an option. Saying you won't eat chocolate mint, but you'll eat strawberry ripple, not an option.(ever see a Hindi or Muslim try to get prayer in school in a school that holds regular Christian prayers?)?
--still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?
--are waiting for the Iraqis to welcome us as the liberators and harbingers of freedom?
--Want people who disagree with them to "shut up, you lost"?
--still believe there will not be a draft, even though the existing Army and Marine Corps units are depleted, the Reserves and Guard have been deployed and are rapidly running down their service contracts, and we're to the point that we're calling up geriatric Individual Ready Reserve members?
--Are all for sending enforcement teams down the coasts to round up all those slant eyed bastards and stick them in "relocation camps", and thereby seizing and auctioning off their proper...oh...wait...oops, sorry, <a href="http://www.jainternment.org/">wrong war</a>. Well, if you listen to Dubya, you get confused that way sometimes. All that WWII "Allies vs. Axis of Evil" yap.

Author:  bizzybody [ Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:03 am ]
Post subject: 

And you're going to beleive a poll of 715 out of 295,019,179 really "speaks" for the country as a whole?

Let's see a poll where they ask a million people.

These polls with miniscule sample sizes are pure BS.

Author:  Vorn the Unspeakable [ Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:09 am ]
Post subject: 

715 is not large, no... but, then, you never need more than a few hundred to get a reasonable estimate of the population as a whole; the closer you get to the whole population, the less additional information you get for each person. This is the result of the Law Of Large Numbers; with a population the size of the US, a sample of about 0.1% - 30,000 people - is about all you'll ever need unless you need a definitive, absolute answer.

Vorn

Author:  Berken [ Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:21 am ]
Post subject: 

Vorn the Unspeakable wrote:
715 is not large, no... but, then, you never need more than a few hundred to get a reasonable estimate of the population as a whole; the closer you get to the whole population, the less additional information you get for each person. This is the result of the Law Of Large Numbers; with a population the size of the US, a sample of about 0.1% - 30,000 people - is about all you'll ever need unless you need a definitive, absolute answer. Vorn

Yup. In that case you don't call it a poll, you call it an election.

Author:  Gerald [ Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ishidan wrote:
Say...tell me again...
what's the percentages of Americans who--

--want prayer in schools-but only the prayers associated with their favorite flavor of their favorite religion? Like religion doesn't come in more flavors than a Baskin Robbins. It's like they demand that everybody eat chocolate mint chip ice cream for dessert. Refusing the ice cream-not an option. Saying you won't eat chocolate mint, but you'll eat strawberry ripple, not an option.(ever see a Hindi or Muslim try to get prayer in school in a school that holds regular Christian prayers?)?
--still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?
--are waiting for the Iraqis to welcome us as the liberators and harbingers of freedom?
--Want people who disagree with them to "shut up, you lost"?
--still believe there will not be a draft, even though the existing Army and Marine Corps units are depleted, the Reserves and Guard have been deployed and are rapidly running down their service contracts, and we're to the point that we're calling up geriatric Individual Ready Reserve members?
--Are all for sending enforcement teams down the coasts to round up all those slant eyed bastards and stick them in "relocation camps", and thereby seizing and auctioning off their proper...oh...wait...oops, sorry, <a href="http://www.jainternment.org/">wrong war</a>. Well, if you listen to Dubya, you get confused that way sometimes. All that WWII "Allies vs. Axis of Evil" yap.


I'm waiting on a precentage of Americans who are capable of:

-posting a link to an article that gives credit to those they disagree with
-posting a link to an article that bashes people they do agree with
-taking a moment to assume the opposite side are not some idiots yet also clever Machiavellians when evaluating things
-automatically disagreeing or finding some angle for which to find an excuse to denounce someone they dislike (also means realizing that just because you have problems with a person that does not mean you have to have a problem with everything they do)
-considering that everyone has a point of view and to consider for a moment that other people with radically different ideas could actually be completely rational
-apply for a moment criticisms inwardly and see if they apply.

...judging from most discussions I see I bet those are somewhere near zero. :?

*hinit*That includes this forum*hint*

Author:  Berken [ Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Gerald wrote:
Ishidan wrote:
Say...tell me again...
what's the percentages of Americans who--

--want prayer in schools-but only the prayers associated with their favorite flavor of their favorite religion? Like religion doesn't come in more flavors than a Baskin Robbins. It's like they demand that everybody eat chocolate mint chip ice cream for dessert. Refusing the ice cream-not an option. Saying you won't eat chocolate mint, but you'll eat strawberry ripple, not an option.(ever see a Hindi or Muslim try to get prayer in school in a school that holds regular Christian prayers?)?
--still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?
--are waiting for the Iraqis to welcome us as the liberators and harbingers of freedom?
--Want people who disagree with them to "shut up, you lost"?
--still believe there will not be a draft, even though the existing Army and Marine Corps units are depleted, the Reserves and Guard have been deployed and are rapidly running down their service contracts, and we're to the point that we're calling up geriatric Individual Ready Reserve members?
--Are all for sending enforcement teams down the coasts to round up all those slant eyed bastards and stick them in "relocation camps", and thereby seizing and auctioning off their proper...oh...wait...oops, sorry, <a href="http://www.jainternment.org/">wrong war</a>. Well, if you listen to Dubya, you get confused that way sometimes. All that WWII "Allies vs. Axis of Evil" yap.

I'm waiting on a precentage of Americans who are capable of:

-posting a link to an article that gives credit to those they disagree with
-posting a link to an article that bashes people they do agree with
-taking a moment to assume the opposite side are not some idiots yet also clever Machiavellians when evaluating things
-automatically disagreeing or finding some angle for which to find an excuse to denounce someone they dislike (also means realizing that just because you have problems with a person that does not mean you have to have a problem with everything they do)
-considering that everyone has a point of view and to consider for a moment that other people with radically different ideas could actually be completely rational
-apply for a moment criticisms inwardly and see if they apply.

...judging from most discussions I see I bet those are somewhere near zero. :?

*hinit*That includes this forum*hint*

:angel: That's nice and idealistic and all, but do you have any comments of that quality on the question at hand?

It's not that I don't agree with you. It would help if America's political elites would start applying these standards to their columns, TV shows, etc. There are always people who reduce their views to a snarl of rage or a snapped obscenity. This wouldn't be a crippling weakness if our standards of political behavior were higher. The bitchy, simplistic comments would be there, but ranked lower on the social scale than reasoned debate. This meant that, however irrational (or violent) barroom, dorm lobby, and watercooler arguments got, there would always be an elite of political and opinion leaders who were looked up to and trusted to understand things better than the rest of us and try to run things in a sensible fashion. This didn't routinely produce honest and effective government, but it kept our democracy intact and its functioning at a relatively efficient level for two centuries.

As late as 1960, you could have a political debate between two smart, sophisticated candidates (Kennedy and Nixon) and the commentators would praise them for being smart and sophisticated and discuss their opinions on the issues, rather than gossiping about them and grading them like they were actors auditioning for a bit part on a TV sitcom.

Author:  Berken [ Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

More weird polling, with comments:

Quote:
We are a confused lot, aren't we? On the one hand, Americans seem to know exactly how a failed secretary of defense can redeem himself: By resigning. A majority thinks Rummy should step aside.* Bold of them, no?

Don't get too excited. In another new poll,** fewer than two-thirds said Americans should be allowed to criticize the government in a time of war. Seen the other way, more than a third of Americans think speaking out against government policy right now should be banned, presumably by government. And how many of those First Amendment foes support Bush's mission of spreading democracy by military force, we wonder? It's a curious vision of democracy, this idea that government should be able to ban anti-government speech. Almost Saddam-like, even! . . . Cue founding fathers, spinning in graves. -- Geraldine Sealey


* PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey finds a majority of Americans (52%) saying Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should resign. Only 36% say he should not. As might be expected, Democrats particularly favor resignation (70% yes, 20% no), while independents are in favor by a 24-point margin (55% to 31%). One third of Republicans also say Rumsfeld should resign, though 57% disagree.

** http://www.cpod.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5350

Going back to my original point; people don't think when they answer these pollsters. And, of course, the pollsters almost never follow up and encourage them to do so.

Author:  gwalla [ Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think the decline in the quality of political discourse is a symptom of the general devaluation of maturity promoted by advertising and entertainment. The goal of industry, socially, seems to be to extend adolescence in both directions.

Author:  Berken [ Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:54 am ]
Post subject: 

gwalla wrote:
I think the decline in the quality of political discourse is a symptom of the general devaluation of maturity promoted by advertising and entertainment. The goal of industry, socially, seems to be to extend adolescence in both directions.

Yo! Dead on. One of the wisest statements I've heard in recent months.

Author:  Kerlyssa [ Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:13 am ]
Post subject: 

Mmm. Can anyone manage the PDF file on the Cornell site? It locks my browser when I try it. Frankly, I'm not impressed with this article, or the one on the Cornell site. It does NOT include the questions asked, only the conclusions a bunch of students drew from them. I'm reserving any and all judgement until I know them.

Author:  BBlalock [ Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:01 am ]
Post subject: 

There are restrictions on *all* of our civil liberties.

If people were thinking when they answered the question the results would have been 100%.

Author:  bizzybody [ Fri Dec 31, 2004 1:13 am ]
Post subject: 

If you're using Acrobat 5 or possibly the first version of 6, it pops up an update dialog box _under_ the window without putting a button on the taskbar. To get to the box you have to use Alt+Tab then click no. Then it'll go ahead and load the PDF.

Acrobat 6.x pops the "Do you wanna update? Huh? Do ya? How about downloading a trial version of Photoshop Elements too?" box to the front, along with the associated browser window.

Author:  gwalla [ Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

Fucking Photoshop Elements.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/