SERVEFollow

Which would be the same with my company analogy. Doesn't change the fact that you're all accountable to the population. They can only be ignored for so long.

That's the thing, they aren't being ignored, just not fully attended to as they believe so. This goes back to the overall ignorance. People wont even realize it till after they stop caring about it, playing on them being fickle.



I thought the whole reason for the 4 year elections were to prevent someone from having "too much rule".

Even so, they have that right. Just because they're voting based upon stupid stuff doesn't mean their vote shouldn't count. As far as DADT goes, it was an archaic piece of legislation. It had it's day in the Sun and now it's dead. Good riddance if you ask me. All that should enter your mind is if the man standing next to you is a good soldier, and if he has your back. If he has yours, you should have his. No homosexual pun intended there, I'm sure it could be taken that way.

Making decisions off emotions? Like your position on SSM, abortions and gays in the military, you mean?

No, you're NOT going to start the absolutely moronic debate on gays, military and showering again.

It's still scary to me that someone who thinks allowing gays to serve openly in the military will somehow make it stop functioning can tote a gun around in uniform and be part of said military. You'd think he could be kicked out for mental retardation or something...

Someone intelligent would step up.

Someone? You mean an entire new Combat Arms? Just because someone disagrees with your opinion of homosexuality in the military, it doesn't make them unintelligent. I sure hope you realize that.

Right, I'm the one who brought up DADT.

But you just called them stupid yourself! Belkira said they should be kicked out for being retarded and then you said we wouldn't have an infantry or any other combat arms.

How many different polls are going to represent "the first time"? That's what the previously quoted polls said.

I wanted to show the clip of **** Morris on The Factor explaining exactly what I've argued, but it doesn't appear to be a video on the net. I guess it wasn't popular enough. I did find an excerpt from his website though. I'm not arguing for/against his personal opinion on the subject matter, but only the concept of how polls should be conducted.

[quote=http://www.********************************************** Associated Press has released a survey, taken on May 5-9, 2011 to measure public approval of Obama after the killing of Osama bin Laden. The poll purports to show that the president’s job approval has soared to 60 percent. Don’t you believe it.

The AP sample contains twice as many Democrats as Republicans (35% Democrat vs. 18% Republican). While party identification is, itself, a variable to be determined by polling, the normal sample usually contains an approximately equal number of Democrats and Republicans. Lately, Republicans have actually been slightly in the plurality in most statistically valid samples.

This AP poll — with its 2:1 Democratic edge — is utter hogwash.

Even by the standards of AP’s previous polls, this sample doesn’t stand up. It is vastly more Democratic than any of the organization’s recent polls:

PARTY IDENTIFICATION IN AP POLLS
Democrat Republican
October, 2010 32% 25%
November, 2010 29% 24%
January, 2011 28% 25%
March, 2011 29% 20%
May, 2011 35% 18%

Of course, all of these AP polls reflect a decided pro-Democrat bias compared to most national survey findings. The Associated Press needs to search its soul — and consult with its polling company — to determine if this bias can be corrected.[/quote]

So, you and your friends can believe all you want that any random 1000 people accurately represents the U.S., but you're either in denial or in delusion. I don't care what the majority believes in, just don't tell me they that the believe in something if they don't purely for agenda purposes.

I'm arguing against misleading statistics. It doesn't matter what the topic is, it's wrong.