Brenda,
I find you utterly engaging! You are so bright and
informed. You are correct about polls. Any poll can
prove any point if you word the questions correctly.
Very good. Please do not miss read this as sarcastic
for I am being sincere here. As for the remark about
Saddam, the meaning was that I find some more accepting
of his views than mine. To be fair no one (yet anyway)
has compared me to him. I'm still trying to wade through
the list of new information listed, so I will get to the poll
link later. Thanks for your post.
Kasey
PS: The bath water was just full of dirty
slings and arrows so I had to throw it
out:)
On 8 Oct 2002 at 22:01, kasey simpson wrote:
> Majority against......latest poll
> 62% for not against.
Well, there's all kinds of poll data. What does that 62% number mean exactly?
And
in answer to what question? And when was it taken?
Here is some interesting data from Gallup:
Only 47% of Americans will unequivocally support the President authorizing an
invasion of Iraq.
49% believe the U.S. has not done all it can diplomatically to resolve the
situation
while 46% believe it has.
Only 38% favor the U.S. going it alone (this is from Sept 20-22, things
certainly could
have changed).
Support for the war diminishes with the number of casualties:
51% support if there are 100 casualties, 46% if that number increases to 1000
and
33% if it increases to 5000.
There's lot's more interesting data to be found here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr021008.asp
Taking poll data for what it is, one can still draw the conclusion that there
is no
simple for or against. (Just as the war itself is not the same as the
resolution that will
receive a vote on Thursday.) It seems that most people in the U.S. do not
support
unilateral invasion and that there is not majority support without
reservations. But if
there is a multilateral effort or a UN sanctioned effort, support is nearly
80%.
To me this is an important point. Most Americans do not want to bail on the
UN and
hopefully, ultimately the unilateralist, domination stance of certain members
of the
Bush administration will lose traction.
> It seems that me (or my opinions) are worse than that of
> Saddam.
C'mon, Kasey. I don't think anyone has written anything even close to this.
At least
not on list. And if it has happened off list, the offender owes you a mighty
a apology,
with days of self-flagellation. In the literal sense. (See, we're not all
against
violence. : )
<digressive attempt at levity>
After all, Saddam is a homocidal, demonic, maniacal, psychotic, evil,
tyrannical
despot. I've been watching the Senate debates on the resolution and if I have
to hear
one more politician preface their point with yet another verbose description
of
Saddam's lunacy, I'm gonna scream. It's like there's some keyword list of
"evil"
terminology floating around Washington. To quote Buffy - "Alright, I get it.
You're
evil".
</digressive attempt at levity>
> For surly ones as loving and accepting as you would have
> enjoyed an intellectual debate, rather than a war of words, meant to
> cut ones soul out. The Simpson family says you are welcome.
No offense, Kasey but this is a bit of a cop out and I for one won't let you
off that
easy. There are people here willing to engage in an intellectual debate, so
let's not
throw out the proverbial baby with the slings & arrows bathwater. If you
really want
to debate issues, I'm here. And on the JMDLPC list for when it heats up! :
)
Brenda
n.p.: Gov't Mule - "Monkey Hill"
------------------------------
Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.Get more from the Web. FREE
MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
