I have a bias, sure. But the polls contained questions that are currently being asked by many people in addition to myself. Should I have included a question along the lines of, "Do you want to give President Bush a rimjob?" to balance it all out?
Besides, I made sure to keep both the wording of most of the questions as well as the available multiple choice answers fairly unbiased.
Hardly, you inserted a whole bunch of other biased, rarely asked questions. The one about global warming is dubious. Then you inserted this wonderful bunch at the end as well:
Do you think that the oil companies could redeem themselves by giving a substantial portion of their post-Katrina profit increases to recovery and rebuilding efforts?
Redeem themselves from WHAT? Talk about bias.
Do you think that the rise in gas prices reportedly due to shortages is bullshit and really just price gouging?
Yeah, "bullshit" isn't biased emotive language. Also, associating a negative connotation with price gouging isn't biased either.
Do you think that Condoleeza Rice's response (shopping for shoes, going to plays, finally returning four days later) was acceptable?
Did you have to take a bathroom break halfway through this poll?These two should be obvious
( ... )
The question regarding global warming is appropriate based on the frequency of its asking at present. Whether you believe it to be dubious or not should be reflected only in your answer and is irrelevant to the asking of the question itself
( ... )
I haven't seen any evidence to substantiate your claim that democratic leadership made the first move in stifling an attempt to make the investigation bipartisan. As far as I'm aware, the Republican committee made the first move in doing so by refusing to invite any Democrats to the initial meeting concerning the creation of an investigative panel. Additionally, Republicans have been quoted as stating that there will be no attempt to keep the panel equally bipartisan, and that a panel resembling that of the balanced 9/11 commission will not be sought.
So, why are people blaiming everyone BESIDES the people themselves. First of, one should never trust and rely on the governmnet. Second, it was the people who stayed behind... if they died... its their fault... if not... lucky them (if they died of starvation/dehidration... thir fault). Really... why couldn't people fill bottles and anything that can hold liquid, with tap water BEFORE Katrina. That water would be better than any after. The person himself/herself should take responsibily for his/her actions, and should not blame anyone else but him/herself. Oh and the arguement that they were too poor... well WHO put them into poverty? It is only the person himself/herself that is at fault of poverty... not anyone else. If one was to stupid to get education and get further in life... it is NOT ANYONE ELSE's fault.
Therefore... the people that got hurt by the huricane are mostly at fault.
Do you think that a local government bears more responsibility in an event such as this than a heavily equipped, financed and staffed federal government?
Do you think that a response would have been quicker if the National Guard was not overseas?
Right, because the entire National Guard was overseas. OK.
Should President Bush be impeached for the mismanagement of national resources and money which would ultimately jeopardize thousands of lives, in the instance of his handling and restructuring of FEMA?
Yeah, because that doesn't fall to Congress or anything. President Bush controls every single dollar in government. Our representatives had absolutely nothing to do with it.
It is common knowledge that the entire National Guard is not overseas. The question was asking whether having a portion overseas affected the response.
I wasn't suggesting that Congress bore little-to-no responsibility. But ultimately, in an instance such as this, the leader takes responsibility - always. President Bush is the leader.
Your comment gives the impression of someone scrounging for ways to pass the buck. Set aside your blinding admiration for the man, or your desperate need to defend his stature for the sake of your own beliefs, or whatever it is that compels you to mindlessly protect him, and acknowledge the reality of the situation. Many other former Bush supporters have done it.
Your comment gives the impression of someone scrounging for ways to pass the buck. Set aside your blinding admiration for the man, or your desperate need to defend his stature for the sake of your own beliefs, or whatever it is that compels you to mindlessly protect him, and acknowledge the reality of the situation.* side stitches from laughing
( ... )
It was a question, not a statement - hence the opportunity to select an answer that reflects your opinion. That's how polls work. You don't argue about the question, you answer the fucking thing in order to reflect your opinion.
But alright, tell me this: if there was a shortage, and that is the reasoning behind the price increase, why have prices now fallen despite the damaged refineries not having been repaired yet?
Comments 38
(The comment has been removed)
Besides, I made sure to keep both the wording of most of the questions as well as the available multiple choice answers fairly unbiased.
Reply
Do you think that the oil companies could redeem themselves by giving a substantial portion of their post-Katrina profit increases to recovery and rebuilding efforts?
Redeem themselves from WHAT? Talk about bias.
Do you think that the rise in gas prices reportedly due to shortages is bullshit and really just price gouging?
Yeah, "bullshit" isn't biased emotive language. Also, associating a negative connotation with price gouging isn't biased either.
Do you think that Condoleeza Rice's response (shopping for shoes, going to plays, finally returning four days later) was acceptable?
Did you have to take a bathroom break halfway through this poll?These two should be obvious ( ... )
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Therefore... the people that got hurt by the huricane are mostly at fault.
Makes any sense to anyone?
Reply
Didn't you know, Bush is perosnally responsable for every poor (esp. black) person in america?
Reply
Are you being sarcastic about the bush being responsible for every poor person?
Reply
Never, I'm always perfectly straightforeward about my views. I never use sarcasm to point out stupidity in others.
Reply
These grossly biased questions are cute:
Do you think that a local government bears more responsibility in an event such as this than a heavily equipped, financed and staffed federal government?
Do you think that a response would have been quicker if the National Guard was not overseas?
Right, because the entire National Guard was overseas. OK.
Should President Bush be impeached for the mismanagement of national resources and money which would ultimately jeopardize thousands of lives, in the instance of his handling and restructuring of FEMA?
Yeah, because that doesn't fall to Congress or anything. President Bush controls every single dollar in government. Our representatives had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Reply
I wasn't suggesting that Congress bore little-to-no responsibility. But ultimately, in an instance such as this, the leader takes responsibility - always. President Bush is the leader.
Your comment gives the impression of someone scrounging for ways to pass the buck. Set aside your blinding admiration for the man, or your desperate need to defend his stature for the sake of your own beliefs, or whatever it is that compels you to mindlessly protect him, and acknowledge the reality of the situation. Many other former Bush supporters have done it.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
But alright, tell me this: if there was a shortage, and that is the reasoning behind the price increase, why have prices now fallen despite the damaged refineries not having been repaired yet?
Reply
Leave a comment