Andy9o8 0 #1 April 8, 2011 Things like this make you wonder, "Why bother?" http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/ Quote46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned A new poll gauging Mississippi Republicans' preferences going into the 2012 election ended up revealing something more startling: 46 percent of GOP voters in the state think interracial marriage should be illegal. Results were announced Thursday by Public Policy Polling, a polling firm based in North Carolina. The company asked 400 Republican primary voters about their preferences for candidates for state and national offices, as well as their views on interracial marriage. A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure. It was only 45 years ago that Mississippi legalized interracial marriage,... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #2 April 8, 2011 Fucking Hell (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #3 April 8, 2011 QuoteThings like this make you wonder, "Why bother?" http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/ Quote46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned A new poll gauging Mississippi Republicans' preferences going into the 2012 election ended up revealing something more startling: 46 percent of GOP voters in the state think interracial marriage should be illegal. Results were announced Thursday by Public Policy Polling, a polling firm based in North Carolina. The company asked 400 Republican primary voters about their preferences for candidates for state and national offices, as well as their views on interracial marriage. A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure. It was only 45 years ago that Mississippi legalized interracial marriage,... "The firm also conducted a separate poll of non-Republican voters, asking them the same question about interracial marriage. Those results are expected to be released in the coming weeks,...." Maybe it will take a few weeks for PPP to figure out how to "spin" the "non-Repub" poll results to impart a result that will blow smoke up peoples' asses without being obvious. Or maybe they think everyone will have forgotten about the poll in a few weeks and only remember the GOP poll "results". Edit to add: It only took PPP 10 days to tally the GOP poll results and reach the stunning conclusion that they are a bunch of racist rednecks that are also supporters of Barbour, Gingrich, Huckabee and Palin. They made a special point of singling out Palin as a favorite of the Mississippi hick contingent. I'm sure it'll take weeks to figure out the nuances of the Dems answers and massage them to arrive at a result showing their superior, progressive attributes. Remains to be seen ...or more likely, not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #4 April 8, 2011 QuoteThings like this make you wonder, "Why bother?" Why bother with what? The war? The outcome of a war seldom changes people's opinions, it usually only determines who's opinion becomes the rule of law and the government of the day. America has fought wars for democracy too and I'm pretty sure that this is not the first time that a poll has revealed a potential vote outcome that would fly in the face of fairness or justice. Some questions I have though, that I'm hoping others can answer: When Mississippi legalized interracial marriage 45 years ago, was it a consequence of a vote outcome or a federal/constitutional ruling? If it was a vote outcome, what could have swayed public opinion since then to bring about this new trend? If interracial marriage was once again banned in a specific state, would/could a federal ruling overturn it? Can we be certain that all votes to ban interracial marriage are cast exclusively by a caucasian demographic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #5 April 8, 2011 Oh, hell. Andy had a good pot-stirrer going and here you had to go interject with logical reasoning. I mean, WTF dude? I'm still trying to figure out what the Civil War has to do with interracial marriage. Maybe Andy is just good a writing headlines. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #6 April 8, 2011 ...and here YOU go seeing through the smoke screen. You, my friend, are a spin doctor's worst enemy.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,167 #7 April 8, 2011 To answer your (rather excellent) questions: QuoteWhen Mississippi legalized interracial marriage 45 years ago, was it a consequence of a vote outcome or a federal/constitutional ruling? It was the consequence of a federal rulingQuoteIf it was a vote outcome, what could have swayed public opinion since then to bring about this new trend?N/A QuoteIf interracial marriage was once again banned in a specific state, would/could a federal ruling overturn it? Yes; the Constitution says that the states cannot have a law that is against the Constitution as a whole. The US Supreme Court is asked to rule on laws regularly that people think might go against the Constitution (it's their job)QuoteCan we be certain that all votes to ban interracial marriage are cast exclusively by a caucasian demographic? Absolutely not. We can infer from previous polls that it's likely the overwhelming majority are. And the poster who noticed how easy it was to put out the results for Republicans, and harder to do for the Democrats -- good catch, unless there are undisclosed extenuating circumstances (e.g. they only conducted the poll at Republican precincts). The southern US had a long history of being Democratic, because in part Lincoln's party, and the party of Reconstruction, were Republicans. In the late 1970's and after, this overwhelming democrat-ness of the southern US began to fall, as people began to align via actual ideology, and not memory. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #8 April 8, 2011 States rights. The war was fought as the result of disagreement over what rights individual states could control. Based on this result, if the South had succeeded in becoming a separate nation, we might have seen Las Vegas style wedding chapels all along the north side of the Mason-Dixon line. BTW, because I think this issue is more cultural in general and less of a specific political issue; I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant percentage of Democrats feeling the same way. By significant, I mean anything over about 2%. Could be the reason for the delay - they might be quite embarassed (depending on their political agenda) to have to report the results. I think they should stir the pot a little more and conduct a poll on gay marriage. And then a poll on gun ownership. And while they are at it, one to find out why Mississippians don't cover their open wells. OTOH, it does seem to be several weeks now without a story of a child in Mississippi being rescued from an open well. OTOH, I do think that the right to leave dangerous holes in your backyard is a right worth fighting for. OTOH, I have never seen a worthy study proving this is a regional versus national problem. OTOH, I do not want to see one if it requires $5 million in federal funds to conduct. Boy, Obama was right - this stuff is complicated." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #9 April 8, 2011 >46 percent of GOP voters in the state think interracial marriage should be illegal. Well, of course. It destroys the sanctity of marriage. But seriously, even the winners of the Civil War were mostly against interracial marriage. It takes more than a war to change people's minds. Often it takes a generation (or two) to accept a new morality. It took several generations to change people's minds about black rights (except, apparently, in Mississippi) and it's taken at least two generations to change people's minds about gay rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #10 April 8, 2011 Quote..... And the poster who noticed how easy it was to put out the results for Republicans, and harder to do for the Democrats -- good catch, unless there are undisclosed extenuating circumstances (e.g. they only conducted the poll at Republican precincts). My guess is that the results for "non-Repubs" were equally embarrassing and the hope is that that poll will be forgotten over time ...but the so-called results that were published will hopefully be remembered. Also, what is this Republicans and "Non-Republicans" BS? The southern US had a long history of being Democratic, because in part Lincoln's party, and the party of Reconstruction, were Republicans. In the late 1970's and after, this overwhelming democrat-ness of the southern US began to fall, as people began to align via actual ideology, and not memory. There are still plenty of bigoted southern Democrat rednecks in these here parts ....and this is Florida! not "the South". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #11 April 8, 2011 QuoteStates rights. The war was fought as the result of disagreement over what rights individual states could control. What State rights in particular?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #12 April 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteThings like this make you wonder, "Why bother?" http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/ Quote46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned A new poll gauging Mississippi Republicans' preferences going into the 2012 election ended up revealing something more startling: 46 percent of GOP voters in the state think interracial marriage should be illegal. Results were announced Thursday by Public Policy Polling, a polling firm based in North Carolina. The company asked 400 Republican primary voters about their preferences for candidates for state and national offices, as well as their views on interracial marriage. A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure. It was only 45 years ago that Mississippi legalized interracial marriage,... "The firm also conducted a separate poll of non-Republican voters, asking them the same question about interracial marriage. Those results are expected to be released in the coming weeks,...." Maybe it will take a few weeks for PPP to figure out how to "spin" the "non-Repub" poll results to impart a result that will blow smoke up peoples' asses without being obvious. Or maybe they think everyone will have forgotten about the poll in a few weeks and only remember the GOP poll "results". Edit to add: It only took PPP 10 days to tally the GOP poll results and reach the stunning conclusion that they are a bunch of racist rednecks that are also supporters of Barbour, Gingrich, Huckabee and Palin. They made a special point of singling out Palin as a favorite of the Mississippi hick contingent. I'm sure it'll take weeks to figure out the nuances of the Dems answers and massage them to arrive at a result showing their superior, progressive attributes. Remains to be seen ...or more likely, not. DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #13 April 8, 2011 Quote..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #14 April 8, 2011 QuoteQuote..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Call up FAUX NEWS... or the C of CC... they LIVE for shit like that... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #15 April 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote ..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Call up FAUX NEWS... or the C of CC... they LIVE for shit like that... You're still pissed because I called you a conservative, aren't you? It really wasn't a PA ...no, really!(OK ..brainlock! WTF is C of CC?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,167 #16 April 8, 2011 Quote facts is facts Maybe, but they generally require a context for meaning. As it turns out, they were only interviewing Republicans. We won't see any figures for Democrats. Could be that it's a racial thing, could be that it's a Republican thing, could be there's something in the "weighting" mentioned below. The article didn't say anything about how the question was worded. Another quote from the article: Quote PPP surveyed 400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters from March 24th to 27th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.9%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify. I'm no conservative, but context really does make a difference here. The respondents might, in fact, be 46% hard-core racists. But you really can't surmise that from this information. It's fun to roll my eyes, however . I still want an eye-rolling icon Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #17 April 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote ..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Call up FAUX NEWS... or the C of CC... they LIVE for shit like that... You're still pissed because I called you a conservative, aren't you? It really wasn't a PA ...no, really!(OK ..brainlock! WTF is C of CC?) Oh Gee now how do we solve this dilema Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #18 April 8, 2011 Quote Quote facts is facts Maybe, but they generally require a context for meaning. As it turns out, they were only interviewing Republicans. We won't see any figures for Democrats. Could be that it's a racial thing, could be that it's a Republican thing, could be there's something in the "weighting" mentioned below. The article didn't say anything about how the question was worded. Another quote from the article: Quote PPP surveyed 400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters from March 24th to 27th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.9%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify. I'm no conservative, but context really does make a difference here. The respondents might, in fact, be 46% hard-core racists. But you really can't surmise that from this information. It's fun to roll my eyes, however . I still want an eye-rolling icon Wendy P. That is why I utilized my TradeMarked RED highlights to emphasize the rather OBVIOUS to those who have difficulty with grasping the OBVIOUS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #19 April 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote ..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Call up FAUX NEWS... or the C of CC... they LIVE for shit like that... You're still pissed because I called you a conservative, aren't you? It really wasn't a PA ...no, really!(OK ..brainlock! WTF is C of CC?) Oh Gee now how do we solve this dilema Oh, OK ...kinda like the right-wing version of the Daily Kooks. Never heard of 'em. BTW- thanks for the google help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #20 April 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote ..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Call up FAUX NEWS... or the C of CC... they LIVE for shit like that... You're still pissed because I called you a conservative, aren't you? It really wasn't a PA ...no, really!(OK ..brainlock! WTF is C of CC?) Oh Gee now how do we solve this dilema Oh, OK ...kinda like the right-wing version of the Daily Kooks. Never heard of 'em. BTW- thanks for the google help. Not even close.... go read thru their website... a definite "flavor" will start to develop.... although I doubt the USUAL SUSPECTS here would be able to see that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,467 #21 April 8, 2011 >The article didn't say anything about how the question was worded. Actual question from the poll: QUESTION: Do you think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal? Legal............................................................... 40% Illegal .............................................................. 46% Not sure .......................................................... 14% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,167 #22 April 8, 2011 OK -- you looked farther than I did. Not a mention about baby beating, marrying your sister, or sheep Wonder why they included it? Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #23 April 8, 2011 Quote Not even close.... go read thru their website... a definite "flavor" will start to develop.... although I doubt the USUAL SUSPECTS here would be able to see that. Yeah, I only scanned a couple of the headlines but I could see where that was going. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,274 #24 April 8, 2011 Quote OK -- you looked farther than I did. Not a mention about baby beating, marrying your sister, or sheep Wonder why they included it? Wendy P. I'm wondering if some of those polled weren't paying attention and misheard/assumed the question as being about homosexual marriage. If those numbers genuinely reflect the considered views of the respondants then it is one absurd state of affairs!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #25 April 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteThings like this make you wonder, "Why bother?" http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/ Quote46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned A new poll gauging Mississippi Republicans' preferences going into the 2012 election ended up revealing something more startling: 46 percent of GOP voters in the state think interracial marriage should be illegal. Results were announced Thursday by Public Policy Polling, a polling firm based in North Carolina. The company asked 400 Republican primary voters about their preferences for candidates for state and national offices, as well as their views on interracial marriage. A whopping 46 percent of those 400 likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure. It was only 45 years ago that Mississippi legalized interracial marriage,... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. They left out one significant thing. FIFY in green. They found 186 morons who support that. Do I think those are the only 186 racist fuckwits in the state of Mississippi? Absolutely not. But anytime a poll or "study" makes people on all sides sit up and go "Holy Shit! WTF?!?" I always want more details. How did they go about finding their sample? How did they choose the sample size? How were the questions asked, and was there any dialog not scripted for the pollsters? But yeah, Mississippi is an ass-backward state with a shit load of racial tension and downright hatred on both sides. Thanks to a 2008 ruling about primaries, D and R are split right along race lines. One more reason why I don't like having a false dichotomy in political parties in the US. Anyone who believes in everything spouted by a party is an idiot. (and gullible as hell since parties change positions depending on time, party in power, location, etc) Give me a socially liberal fiscally conservative government over the Rs or Ds any day.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Butters 0 #11 April 8, 2011 QuoteStates rights. The war was fought as the result of disagreement over what rights individual states could control. What State rights in particular?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #12 April 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteThings like this make you wonder, "Why bother?" http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/ Quote46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned A new poll gauging Mississippi Republicans' preferences going into the 2012 election ended up revealing something more startling: 46 percent of GOP voters in the state think interracial marriage should be illegal. Results were announced Thursday by Public Policy Polling, a polling firm based in North Carolina. The company asked 400 Republican primary voters about their preferences for candidates for state and national offices, as well as their views on interracial marriage. A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure. It was only 45 years ago that Mississippi legalized interracial marriage,... "The firm also conducted a separate poll of non-Republican voters, asking them the same question about interracial marriage. Those results are expected to be released in the coming weeks,...." Maybe it will take a few weeks for PPP to figure out how to "spin" the "non-Repub" poll results to impart a result that will blow smoke up peoples' asses without being obvious. Or maybe they think everyone will have forgotten about the poll in a few weeks and only remember the GOP poll "results". Edit to add: It only took PPP 10 days to tally the GOP poll results and reach the stunning conclusion that they are a bunch of racist rednecks that are also supporters of Barbour, Gingrich, Huckabee and Palin. They made a special point of singling out Palin as a favorite of the Mississippi hick contingent. I'm sure it'll take weeks to figure out the nuances of the Dems answers and massage them to arrive at a result showing their superior, progressive attributes. Remains to be seen ...or more likely, not. DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #13 April 8, 2011 Quote..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #14 April 8, 2011 QuoteQuote..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Call up FAUX NEWS... or the C of CC... they LIVE for shit like that... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #15 April 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote ..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Call up FAUX NEWS... or the C of CC... they LIVE for shit like that... You're still pissed because I called you a conservative, aren't you? It really wasn't a PA ...no, really!(OK ..brainlock! WTF is C of CC?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,167 #16 April 8, 2011 Quote facts is facts Maybe, but they generally require a context for meaning. As it turns out, they were only interviewing Republicans. We won't see any figures for Democrats. Could be that it's a racial thing, could be that it's a Republican thing, could be there's something in the "weighting" mentioned below. The article didn't say anything about how the question was worded. Another quote from the article: Quote PPP surveyed 400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters from March 24th to 27th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.9%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify. I'm no conservative, but context really does make a difference here. The respondents might, in fact, be 46% hard-core racists. But you really can't surmise that from this information. It's fun to roll my eyes, however . I still want an eye-rolling icon Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #17 April 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote ..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Call up FAUX NEWS... or the C of CC... they LIVE for shit like that... You're still pissed because I called you a conservative, aren't you? It really wasn't a PA ...no, really!(OK ..brainlock! WTF is C of CC?) Oh Gee now how do we solve this dilema Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #18 April 8, 2011 Quote Quote facts is facts Maybe, but they generally require a context for meaning. As it turns out, they were only interviewing Republicans. We won't see any figures for Democrats. Could be that it's a racial thing, could be that it's a Republican thing, could be there's something in the "weighting" mentioned below. The article didn't say anything about how the question was worded. Another quote from the article: Quote PPP surveyed 400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters from March 24th to 27th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.9%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify. I'm no conservative, but context really does make a difference here. The respondents might, in fact, be 46% hard-core racists. But you really can't surmise that from this information. It's fun to roll my eyes, however . I still want an eye-rolling icon Wendy P. That is why I utilized my TradeMarked RED highlights to emphasize the rather OBVIOUS to those who have difficulty with grasping the OBVIOUS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #19 April 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote ..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Call up FAUX NEWS... or the C of CC... they LIVE for shit like that... You're still pissed because I called you a conservative, aren't you? It really wasn't a PA ...no, really!(OK ..brainlock! WTF is C of CC?) Oh Gee now how do we solve this dilema Oh, OK ...kinda like the right-wing version of the Daily Kooks. Never heard of 'em. BTW- thanks for the google help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #20 April 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote ..... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. Oh ..don't misinterpret my response. I've not disputed, nor am I in a position to dispute any of the "facts" or results published by the group. I haven't even questioned their methodology or selection process. And I haven't commented specifically on the groups suspected ideological bias. I am only commenting on their omission of "facts" that would give the published "facts" some actual relevance with respect to the population at large. I am good with waiting for the results for the "Non-Repub" sample. Not gonna hold my breath, though. Call up FAUX NEWS... or the C of CC... they LIVE for shit like that... You're still pissed because I called you a conservative, aren't you? It really wasn't a PA ...no, really!(OK ..brainlock! WTF is C of CC?) Oh Gee now how do we solve this dilema Oh, OK ...kinda like the right-wing version of the Daily Kooks. Never heard of 'em. BTW- thanks for the google help. Not even close.... go read thru their website... a definite "flavor" will start to develop.... although I doubt the USUAL SUSPECTS here would be able to see that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #21 April 8, 2011 >The article didn't say anything about how the question was worded. Actual question from the poll: QUESTION: Do you think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal? Legal............................................................... 40% Illegal .............................................................. 46% Not sure .......................................................... 14% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,167 #22 April 8, 2011 OK -- you looked farther than I did. Not a mention about baby beating, marrying your sister, or sheep Wonder why they included it? Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #23 April 8, 2011 Quote Not even close.... go read thru their website... a definite "flavor" will start to develop.... although I doubt the USUAL SUSPECTS here would be able to see that. Yeah, I only scanned a couple of the headlines but I could see where that was going. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,274 #24 April 8, 2011 Quote OK -- you looked farther than I did. Not a mention about baby beating, marrying your sister, or sheep Wonder why they included it? Wendy P. I'm wondering if some of those polled weren't paying attention and misheard/assumed the question as being about homosexual marriage. If those numbers genuinely reflect the considered views of the respondants then it is one absurd state of affairs!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #25 April 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteThings like this make you wonder, "Why bother?" http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/ Quote46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned A new poll gauging Mississippi Republicans' preferences going into the 2012 election ended up revealing something more startling: 46 percent of GOP voters in the state think interracial marriage should be illegal. Results were announced Thursday by Public Policy Polling, a polling firm based in North Carolina. The company asked 400 Republican primary voters about their preferences for candidates for state and national offices, as well as their views on interracial marriage. A whopping 46 percent of those 400 likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure. It was only 45 years ago that Mississippi legalized interracial marriage,... DUH.....facts is facts..... no matter how YOU... need to try to spin this away from those you support so whole heartedly. They left out one significant thing. FIFY in green. They found 186 morons who support that. Do I think those are the only 186 racist fuckwits in the state of Mississippi? Absolutely not. But anytime a poll or "study" makes people on all sides sit up and go "Holy Shit! WTF?!?" I always want more details. How did they go about finding their sample? How did they choose the sample size? How were the questions asked, and was there any dialog not scripted for the pollsters? But yeah, Mississippi is an ass-backward state with a shit load of racial tension and downright hatred on both sides. Thanks to a 2008 ruling about primaries, D and R are split right along race lines. One more reason why I don't like having a false dichotomy in political parties in the US. Anyone who believes in everything spouted by a party is an idiot. (and gullible as hell since parties change positions depending on time, party in power, location, etc) Give me a socially liberal fiscally conservative government over the Rs or Ds any day.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
