<p>Maybe some should litter the Berkely forum with the antithesis of this trash...</p>
<p>taffy</p>
<p>have you decided where you are going yet?</p>
<p>confused23, it is obvious you ARE CONFUSED. You were told to "Go Away".
There is nothing to debate..."Go Away" is clear enough for me. However if you don't like the direct version......try, "PLEASE GO AWAY!". Thank you, from a Mom that raised a son that is willing to die for your freedom to remain "confused".</p>
<p>Confused...your back!!!</p>
<p>Regarding the Zogby Poll, perhaps YOU should read this from the 'Mystery Pollster' (liberal too!)</p>
<p>"..... one aspect of the methodology is clear from the information that John Zogby has provided on-the-record: The survey did not involve a "random probability" sample of all American troops serving in Iraq.</p>
<p>.......So what can we say about the degree to which the Zogby survey used random probability sampling to survey U.S. troops? Again, as I wrote earlier in the week, the method Zogby used to gain access to the undisclosed locations constrained his ability to select them. The selection was not random, but since he will not disclose the locations, we cannot take their identity into account in evaluating the results. ... All we know for certain is that the poll was not a random sample of the population of all U.S. troops in Iraq. </p>
<p>...As to the selection of respondents at those unspecified locations, we also do not know the procedures used to select respondents. Again, I did not press Zogby on the details of those procedures in our conversation because I would not have been able to report them here. I believe MPs readers deserve more than "trust me" as an explanation......</p>
<p>John Zogby insists it is enough that those of us who have heard more about his survey's methodology conclude that it was "honestly and objectively done." I think he misses an important point. Consumers of Zogby's Iraq troop poll data also need to understand where it fits on the continuum between strict probability-based sampling and non-random convenience sampling. Zogby certainly believes that "security concerns" prevent further disclosure, that we do not "need to know" more. Perhaps. But without knowing more, it is hard to decide whether to trust the results. "</p>
<p>To all students, or future students, at American military academies and to their parents:</p>
<p>God bless each of you and thank you for what you are doing.</p>
<p>Two more tidbits...</p>
<p>Mr Zogby hung up on Hugh Hewitt, a radio personality, who was interviewing Zogby concerning his methodology on this particular poll. I guess Mr. Zogby did not like Hewitt's questions.</p>
<p>Secondly, I understand that George Soros paid for that poll!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>DrJ4...Thank you for your kind post...</p>
<p>God bless all our troops, especially those in harms way</p>
<p>"taffy</p>
<p>have you decided where you are going yet?"</p>
<p>nope, waiting on texas and west point. got into davis and illinois, my backups to those.</p>
<p>Did you get into Kings Point?</p>
<p>Thank you for confirming my suspicions, and I assure you if you posted on the Berkeley forum they would judge you based on what you wrote and not try to attack you based on your ethnicity, or some random name your chose 2 years ago to go on collegeconfidential.com. And that idiot post about Saddam "wanting" to acquire WMD's is naive as it is stupid. Of course, what country wouldn't want WMD's, they kind of protect you. You dunce. Why do you think America isn't invading No. Ko. It's because it has weapons of mass destruction. I bet you guys would start calling Zogby a deluded towelhead if you realized he was Arabic, wouldn't you? Even if you disagree with the poll you can't argue with the fact that Bush made a mistake about Saddam having WMD's; the basis for the war wasn't that he wanted to have them or was going to have them, it was that he HAD them. And such hypocrites you are about Saddam supporting Hamas and PLO, didn't America kind of train this guy named Bin Laden in the 80's and didn't America also give Saddamn chemical weapons? It's all politics, grow up.</p>
<p>And P.S. Why don't you go back to England, unless you're a Native American, Hank Hill, because this land isn't any more yours than it is mine.</p>
<p>See if anywhere in these Berk. threads we attacked Mr. "Liberal Censors" based on his race or ethnicity, your comments on my ethnicity reflect more about you than me.</p>
<p>There's this show called "All in the Family". One of the characters remind me of you people, can you guess which?</p>
<p>Thank you for reminding us that you are the most brilliant 17 year old in the entire universe.</p>
<p>NOW, GO AWAY!</p>
<p>Don't you have a tux to get fitted for your Prom or something?</p>
<p>prom's not till early june dont change the subject, and by the way do you know that as education levels have increased, levels of church and temple going and moque going etc have decreased so has the level of church going and conservatism, why do you think that?</p>
<p>Because the world is obviously becoming a better place. Chew on that...</p>
<p>Tux fitting!....good one LFWB :)</p>
<p>I admit I fell for it...really I should have gone with my gut and Jamzmom's "ignore button"....</p>
<p>Well, so much for Confused being receptive to clarity regarding Zogby's recent poll! Confused23, I know you are young; but, it really is not very helpful to label those who do not agree with you as "stupid", "idiots", "hypocrites" and "poop"!</p>
<p>"and by the way do you know that as education levels have increased, levels of church and temple going and moque going etc have decreased so has the level of church going and conservatism, why do you think that?"</p>
<p>I dont think that you have a categorical syllogism there. If you did, Jesuits wouldnt attend church.</p>
<p>no i have not gotten into any service academies (or heard from them) because I'm still waiting on dodmerb to mail me back the OK.</p>
<p>Sorry, but I've said it before and I'll say it again.....ANYONE who thinks George Bush went after Suddam because of WMD is SIMPLY kidding themselves. That thought is the equivalent of believing the official NTSB report on TWA Flight 800's fireball in the sky! (IMHO of course ;))</p>
<p>Right On. Recently I had the privilege of talking with the American ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS--kind of like the UN except for the Western Hemisphere). The question that I asked him applies really well here: "Sir, why does America feel compelled to go to other countries to spread democracy?"</p>
<p>His response: "How many democratic countries have declared war on the U.S. in the last 150 years?"</p>
<p>This goes to show our leaders' thoughts about Iraq. We didn't go to Iraq simply because we thought he posed a threat because of the WMD's. While the possibility for WMD's was there, we went to Iraq because it is such an important country in the Middle East, and by establishing a democracy there, the prospect of democratic peace in the Middle East could be a reality if the other neighboring countries decided to play along: The Domino Theory, in reverse. Since most of our wars in the past 20 years have been in or around the Middle East, and since the Middle East is a great source of our fuel and energy economies, the Iraq invasion was justified as a win-win-win situation for both the U.S. and the Iraqis and the entire Middle East. It was and still is a risk, but a very worthwhile risk if it works.</p>
<p>More about WMD's: I also had the opportunity to ask why America and Russia have nuclear weapons yet discourage other countries from developing WMD's. This is why: America and Russia sort of check each other in that neither of us will use our weapons because of the MAD theory. But when third-world countries begin to develop their own weapons, they disrupt this delicate balance and pose a worldwide threat. That is why the UN will cease trading with these countries and supporting them in other ways, because of their disrupting the balance of WMD's (specifically nuclear). Our goal in checking Saddam's WMD's was because he disrupted the balance, and in a delicate region like the Middle East, a dirty bomb could cause huge problems. Seeing as Israel would be a prime target, and Israel is one of our best allies, a World War could erupt from the Middle East if it remains unstable. That is the simple reason for our intervention.</p>
<p>I believe I said something about not wasting time "polevaulting over *<strong><em>ants" a while back. That applies to our *</em></strong>ant buddy here. I suggest we freeze him out and waste no more time on his arrogant, misinformed little butt.</p>