the oh, so tolerant Left has spoken

[+paradox]

57% Of Republicans Say Dismantle Constitution And Make Christianity National Religion

Nebraska Woman Sues All Homosexuals

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Public Policy Polling!?!?!? LOL!

The Public Policy Polling controversy
Harry J Enten
Public Policy Polling's methodology is under attack. But since PPP is prolific, cheap and accurate, criticism is unlikely to dent it

Quotes put together by Mark Blumenthal are telling. Accuracy is what people care about. Most people don't care if you only interview tourists in SoHo to figure out who will win a US election, even if that is terrible methodology. Thus, Cohn's arguments about how PPP is accurate, which are quite clever, just don't matter to a lot of people.

What does matter is that Mark Blumenthal's readjustment of Nate Silver's 2010 pollster rankings to ensure no penalty for not following AAPOR disclosure requirements found that PPP ranked sixth out of 30 major pollsters. Silver'sanalysis of the 2010 election put PPP in the middle of the pack for accuracy. Steve Singiser's 2012 pollster overview had PPP fifth out of 17 very active pollsters.

I tend to think that accuracy is overrated, as my chart on special elections over the past ten years shows. I get the feeling though that most give credit to PPP just for trying, even if they are worse than the average pollster in special elections.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/25/public-policy-polling-controversy

Conclusion
Many professional pollsters have long thought that Public Policy Polling's methods were suspect. Nate Cohn's recent expose confirms for many their suspicions. That said, in a world in which polling data can be hard to come by, there's no real sign that usage of PPP's data has or will slow, as long as their polls continue to be seen as accurate.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/25/public-policy-polling-controversy

 

[mrldii]

@ TruLibby:

Haven't you been spending the last few days reminding others to attack the message...NOT the messenger?


Personally, I find it ironic that even ONE conservative doesn't mind dismantling The Constitution to make Christianity the nation's official religion.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

??

@ TruLibby:

Haven't you been spending the last few days reminding others to attack the message...NOT the messenger?


Personally, I find it ironic that even ONE conservative doesn't mind dismantling The Constitution to make Christianity the nation's official religion.

??????

 

[mrldii]

??


??????

*Sorry*, I can not help you. English is my first - and only - language.

 

[DrLeftover]

Does anybody know a conservative that has proposed revoking the First Amendment in this way?

 

[mrldii]

Anybody who believes the U.S. is/should be "a Christian nation" and/or believes that She "should serve Jesus Christ, the Son of God" is proposing revocation of the 1st Amendment.

Depending on whose Poll you believe, that would be either 57% or 46% of Republicans and either 32% or 34% of Americans.

Seems our Constitution is not nearly as sacred as some profess to believe it is, when speaking out of the other side of their mouths.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/25/republicans-christian-america_n_6754032.html



You're welcome. runk:

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

*Sorry*, I can not help you. English is my first - and only - language.

Read it just fine. But it is still ??????????

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Does anybody know a conservative that has proposed revoking the First Amendment in this way?

Thank you!!!!!!!!

 

[mrldii]

Read it just fine. But it is still ??????????

Then, you will need to look up each word in the dictionary, since you're having difficulty when strung together in sentences, which are then strung together to form paragraphs.


Again, I am *sorry* that I can not help you; I just speak/write English, I don't teach it.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Then, you will need to look up each word in the dictionary, since you're having difficulty when strung together in sentences, which are then strung together to form paragraphs.


Again, I am *sorry* that I can not help you; I just speak/write English, I don't teach it.

Nope! I know each word perfectly fine. And have read the sentences just fine. It should have been laughing at what you wrote instead of question marks.

 

[+paradox]

that's some great debating skills you got there @TRUE LIBERTY *?????????????????*

fyi (for your information), those question marks are meant to represent me laughing at your posts...

sorry...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

that's some great debating skills you got there @TRUE LIBERTY *?????????????????*

fyi (for your information), those question marks are meant to represent me laughing at your posts...



sorry...

I would be very concerned if you said anything else. When we agree on something that is when I get worried.

 

[+paradox]

I would be very concerned if you said anything else. When we agree on something that is when I get worried.

i wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you here, just talking about your debating skills...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

i wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you here, just talking about your debating skills...

Nothing wrong with my debating skills but it surely was about agreeing or disagreeing.

 

[DrLeftover]

Does anybody know a conservative that has proposed revoking the First Amendment in this way?

Anybody who believes the U.S. is/should be "a Christian nation" and/or believes that She "should serve Jesus Christ, the Son of God" is proposing revocation of the 1st Amendment.

Depending on whose Poll you believe, that would be either 57% or 46% of Republicans and either 32% or 34% of Americans.

Seems our Constitution is not nearly as sacred as some profess to believe it is, when speaking out of the other side of their mouths.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/25/republicans-christian-america_n_6754032.html
You're welcome. runk:

So the answer was "no".

You had to paint with the same large brush you have accused other of using, and proposing a supposition that will never be law, to make your point.

You are welcome, indeed. Sorry, I don't use 'smiley faces'.

 

[mrldii]

So the answer was "no".

You had to paint with the same large brush you have accused other of using, and proposing a supposition that will never be law, to make your point.

You are welcome, indeed. Sorry, I don't use 'smiley faces'.

You're reading skills are on par with your debating skills; "57% or 46% of Republicans and either 32% or 34% of Americans" is hardly "nobody".


Didn't you once say you were placing me on permanent ignore? What happened? Did you change your mind? Last I heard, changing one's mind is a woman's prerogative.

 

[DrLeftover]

And what does your last statement say about either your reading skills OR your memory?

 

[+paradox]

And what does your last statement say about either your reading skills OR your memory?

and what does that have to do with republicans wanting to destroy the second amendment?

 

[+paradox]

Nothing wrong with my debating skills but it surely was about agreeing or disagreeing.

me only mentioning your debating skills is about disagreeing or agreeing? with who and with what?