Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#227 Dec 21 2010 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Kachi wrote:
Alma, someday I'll teach you how to +1
Or he could learn from a pro.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#228 Dec 21 2010 at 9:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
idiggory wrote:
A. What justification do you have for arguing that adding a 2-month time limit on the repeal is a minor additional clause to the open ended question of "Should DADT be repealed?"



Because other polls which included changed "for/against" formulations but that didn't mention a lame duck session also shifted the results.

In addition to the one I quoted, there were at least two others that mentioned repealing the law, without any assumption of any specific session, which were also dramatically different than the polling results when just asked if they should be allowed to serve openly.

Quote:
B. Wait, so you argued that the word choice wouldn't make a profound difference and then you turn around and IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH said it would make a profound one?


I've argued all along that word choice changes the results of polls. And I'll even grant you that the word choice regarding the "current Democratic Congress" affects the result as well. Now, will you admit that the word choice about repealing a law verses "allowing them to serve openly" also affects the polling results?

That was my entire point. I was not excluding other factors. It is quite amusing that so many people leaped to the "lame duck session" bit as though that countered what I was saying. I don't care about that. Even when it's not mentioned, the polls consistently show up at mid 50s to mid 30s repeal/dont-repeal, while it's 70 to 20 when it's "allow to serve openly/don't allow to serve openly".


I was observing that difference. Nothing more. Sheesh!

Quote:
A question that asks "Do you think DADT should be repealed?" includes ALL those people. Who were a very large portion of the population.

A question that asks "Should DADT be repealed before the end of the year?" alienates everyone but those people who want it repealed and don't care about how ready the military would be for the policy change.


Yes, great. But I don't really consider that a word choice so much as a factor of the poll question itself. I'm talking about things that are purely about how one words the question, and how they affect the results. I guess my mistake was using an example where there was a modification to the question. I honestly didn't even see it or think it mattered for the point I was making. I could just as easily chosen any of a number of other examples. That was just the first on in the list.

Quote:
This applies to your reference to the next poll as well. In November, 50% of people were willing to repeal DADT when asked a general question rather than a temporally loaded one. 38% wanted DADT to stay in place regardless.


Yes, at the same time period when 72% of the people thought that gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military.

Do you see the discrepancy I'm talking about? It's still there, isn't it? And it can't be explained away by people not wanting to pass it during a lame duck session, or by the end of the year.


That's what I was talking about.

Quote:
What we see by looking at the later polls is that, after the pentagon's report, favor in repealing DADT jumps quite a bit.


Irrelevant to the point I was making. And frankly, there's no evidence of this. All of the polls asking if DADT should be repealed occurred in November. We don't have any from December, but as I already pointed out the "allow to serve openly" question from December only went up 2% between Feb and Dec. I'll point out that most of the "repeal/don't repeal" polls went up by similar amounts between similar periods of time (Feb 1020 and Nov 2010), so it's a stretch to argue that the pentagon report had anything at all to do with this.

What we can say is that based on whether we're talking about a positive or a negative, the poll numbers change. Heck. Even when we change the wording to "voting for a law which would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military" we get 67% voting for. Once again, we see a statistically relevant difference based solely on how the poll is worded. Voting for a law which allows gays to serve openly in the military is identical to "repealing DADT" in a realistic sense, right? Yet when we word it as voting "for" something, we get better results than when we're "repealing" something.

It's an innate aspect of psychology. We tend to look more favorably on things written in positive ways. We're more likely to be for something that is worded as allowing, giving, enabling, or passing/creating, than we are to be for something that is worded as stopping, ending, repealing, prohibiting, etc...


That's seriously the *only* point I was making. It's kinda funny that so many people are so insistent on denying that this occurs. It's right there in front of you.

Quote:
My problem with the marist poll is that they only put it out once. If they had asked the same question a second time two weeks ago, we might have gotten some very interesting data. The problem is that they only did one survey and did it on a temporally loaded question that no other poll shared. Which makes the data they provide ALONE useless. So you must examine other polls to make up for its lack of info over time.


Great. Look at the other ones then. You're smart enough to follow the point I'm making. So instead of nit picking the example I picked, why don't you examine the list of polls and see if the trend I pointed out is there? You know, see if I'm right instead of looking only at things that counter what I said.

I'd make another psychological observation about the responses I've been getting, but this is enough for one day I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#229 Dec 21 2010 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
why don't you examine the list of polls and see if the trend I pointed out is there?

One poll isn't a "trend". There could be a thousand reasons for its results which is why folks look at aggregated data, not the one poll that suits them most and claim that it's the most telling.

Given that your usual method of coping with polls you don't like is to invent imaginary ones in your head and tell us all how people would react them them, I can't imagine that you'll comprehend the above statement and will instead bore us with paragraphs of dribble.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 9:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#230 Dec 21 2010 at 9:41 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
why don't you examine the list of polls and see if the trend I pointed out is there?

One poll isn't a "trend". There could be a thousand reasons for its results which is why folks look at aggregated data, not the one poll that suits them most and claim that it's the most telling.

Given that your usual method of coping with polls you don't like is to invent imaginary ones in your head and tell us all how people would react them them, I can't imagine that you'll comprehend the above statement and will instead bore us with paragraphs of dribble.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 9:24pm by Jophiel


The grounds for this prediction seem unnecessarily specific.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#231 Dec 21 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was going to make another psychological observation about the reason Gbaji brought it up in the first place but I figured why waste people's time with what they already know?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#232 Dec 21 2010 at 11:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Screenshot
.

The stuff of Alma's nightmares.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#233 Dec 22 2010 at 1:31 AM Rating: Good
I, on Page 1 wrote:
Lindsey Graham's a dude. Granted, he has a girl's name, a southern accent, lacks ********** & fits the whole "christian conservative whom bangs male hookers but isn't really ***" profile so i can see how that would confuse you.


Now the infamous Michael Rogers (He's the dude who outed Larry Craig & McCain's chief of staff, as well as some others)seems to be beginning the process of outing Miss Graham!

Too funny, especially after he just voted against DADT repeal, is a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, a former member of the Air Force, & currently a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserve!!!


Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 2:31am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#234 Dec 22 2010 at 3:31 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Gbaji, if such a basic concept like changing the entire question of a poll isn't easy enough for you to understand, it just isn't worth it. I've already explained why you are wrong--I'm not going to do it again just because you can't grasp basic polling technique.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#235 Dec 22 2010 at 6:17 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
NO YOU SHUT UP!!!!

LAST
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#236 Dec 22 2010 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
*
53 posts
Almalieque wrote:
ok, So I just got my car back and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today


Wow, that's ***, you're making me uncomfortable now. Would you mind keeping your homosexual thoughts to yourself so I don't have to be forced to hear them?

It's just a privacy issue, don't get all offended.
____________________________
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
#237 Dec 22 2010 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
ok, So I just got my car back and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today



Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Oh, that's funny. "I really can't keep this up, I know I'm wrong, so I'll make up some arbitrary goal and say that's what I was trying to do."

Ah, Alma.
#238 Dec 22 2010 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LeWoVoc wrote:
Quote:
and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today, so I'm done playing with you all while I enjoy my break...
Does anyone find this as sad as I do?

I find it sad that someone would have posting goals. And that they would choose "3,900" as their goal.

It would actually be less pathetic to learn that they just lied about having a "posting goal" of 3,900 to get out of a losing argument than for this to actually be the case.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#239varusword75, Posted: Dec 22 2010 at 9:33 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Doesn't repealing DADT mean the rules go back to what they were prior to it?
#240 Dec 22 2010 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Not everyone can have your post count Joph. :P

[EDIT]

@varus, lol.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 10:34am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#241 Dec 22 2010 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Doesn't repealing DADT mean the rules go back to what they were prior to it?

No, but take comfort in knowing as little about the law as Gbaji does.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#242 Dec 22 2010 at 9:43 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
I suppose it is easy to conflate media slogans with the actual legal wording of a the bill. I too found myself highly confused when Republicans offered to take a Black and Decker heavy duty to an infant, and then upon realizing their horrible act, do it again.
#243varusword75, Posted: Dec 22 2010 at 10:45 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#244 Dec 22 2010 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
It was rhetorical.

You don't know what that actually means, do you?

Quote:
So what's next is a recruiter is going to deny entrance to some ***** because he's going to be able to legally ask them what their sexual orientation is and then cite the UCMJ as the reason for the ***** being denied.

You're obviously unaware that his ability to legally ask them derives from the 1993/94 policy. With the repeal, the code will have to be revised.
Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 wrote:
(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).

Subsection (f) being the striking of Section 654, the military policy on homosexuality.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#245 Dec 22 2010 at 11:02 AM Rating: Decent
*
53 posts
varusword75 wrote:


In many of its aspects, the UCMJ is significantly more restrictive than civilian law. For example, the UCMJ restricts the First Amendment right of free speech and more closely regulates the sexual behavior of military members, specifically forbidding homosexuality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and adultery.

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/dah_08/dah_08_04316.html


So what's next is a recruiter is going to deny entrance to some ***** because he's going to be able to legally ask them what their sexual orientation is and then cite the UCMJ as the reason for the ***** being denied.



Do recruiters ask "So, are you currently cheating on your wife?", since adultery and homosexuality are equally forbidden?

Just curious.


Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 12:03pm by SuperAtheist
____________________________
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
#246 Dec 22 2010 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
varus wrote:
liberals


Ahem.

Man I wish I had Premium right now...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#247 Dec 22 2010 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
idiggory wrote:
varus wrote:
liberals
Screenshot
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#248 Dec 22 2010 at 11:27 AM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Jophed,

Quote:
With the repeal, the code will have to be revised



Now we get to it. As it stands recruiters can ask recruits sexual orientation and use it as a disqualifier. Glad we both agree on the interpretation of the law.


#249 Dec 22 2010 at 11:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
With the repeal, the code will have to be revised



Now we get to it. As it stands recruiters can ask recruits sexual orientation and use it as a disqualifier. Glad we both agree on the interpretation of the law.


As it stood.
#250 Dec 22 2010 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Varus is slightly right in a meaningless way and mostly wrong in the usual way.

DADT is still the law of the land even with Obama's signature. The repeal act calls for the Dept of Defense to draw up new rules and guidelines first then, once that's done (technically 60 days after that's done and approved by the President, Sec. of Defense and JCoS Chairman), Sec 654 is officially struck from the law. So while there'll never be a period where a recruiter can fall back on old rules to ask if you're a homosexual, you can't go in today wearing your favorite rainbow hotpants and expect to sign up without incident either.

The GOP tried last night to submit an amendment to an appropriations bill which would require the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff to unanimously approve of the Dept of Defense changes in a last ditch effort to block its provisions (expecting the Marine Commandant to deny its implementation) but the media caught wind of it and it was quickly dropped.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#251 Dec 22 2010 at 12:00 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Jophed,


I'm right. That's all you had to say.

Simple fact is until it's re-written the law is as it was prior to DADT. So if officers in the military wanted to be hard ****s they could ask every single person under their command about their sexual orientation and dismiss anyone who says they are *****.

That this is just a minor technicality makes no difference.



Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 84 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (84)