Angus Reid Poll: Should Abortions Be Legal?
Fri, 2007-03-02 14:18
#1
remind
Angus Reid Poll: Should Abortions Be Legal?
Fri, 2007-03-02 14:18
#2
remind
Angus Reid forums, the online polling section of Angus Reid, are currently conducting a poll online that asks whether abortions should remain legal, or be made illegal.
It is also asking in the same poll whether SSM should be or not be.
If interested in participating go to
[url=https://www.angusreidforum.com]https://www.angusreidforum.com[/url]
You must register for this.
Also, there are many other political questions such as the prosperity gap, wealth entitlement etc
[ 03 March 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Fri, 2007-03-02 15:06
#3
laine lowe
Any idea who hired them to conduct this poll? It's a bad omen that abortion and SSM are polling subjects AGAIN.
Fri, 2007-03-02 17:27
#4
remind
quote:
Originally posted by laine lowe:
[b]Any idea who hired them to conduct this poll? It's a bad omen that abortion and SSM are polling subjects AGAIN.[/b]
Nope, but I figure it has to be the CPC, as they ask questions about what is your primary concern are you religious, how did you vote, plus Abortion and SSM and prosperity gap.
[ 02 March 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Fri, 2007-03-02 18:07
#5
laine lowe
If it is the CPC (and it sounds like it might be or one of their proxy supporters), then Harper is already preparing justification for policies he is likely to introduce with a majority. The difference between Harper's CPC and Manning's Reformers is that Harper has incredible spin masters and strategists working for him imho. It truly is frightening.
Fri, 2007-03-02 20:23
#6
From the title of the thread, I figured someone was going to get banned for sure.
Fri, 2007-03-02 20:32
#7
Maybe the survey was requested by the Cons but I find it hard to believe that Harper would intentionally want to bring back the topics of SSM and abortion (even if he got a majority.
Why would he want the hassle just to please a few of his supporters.
[ 02 March 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]
Sat, 2007-03-03 03:15
#8
quote:
Why would he want the hassle just to please a few of his supporters.
Because he can, and he clearly not only enjoys it, but thinks it works. Why the re-opening of the SSM debate? Please, Harper is a slimy asshole. He'll do whatever it takes to please his US pupper masters, and if that means re-opening the abortion debate, that is what he'll do. Harper does not have Canada in his heart or in his policies - he has the US in both.
He needs to go, the sooner the better.
Sat, 2007-03-03 06:01
#9
I think it would be best to change the title of this thread so that it doesn't look like we're asking people to debate whether or not abortion should be legal. When I saw this thread title on TAT, I was all ready to come in and shut the thread down and ban whichever right-wing anti-feminist troll started it.
Then I discovered that the "right-wing anti-feminist troll" was remind. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Or not!
A better title might be something like, "Abortion poll" or something like that. Then we won't get anti-choice people thinking they are invited to answer the thread title. No mixed message that way...
Sat, 2007-03-03 06:29
#10
great. i get through a bunch of the questions for the opening angus reid questionnaire to sign-up and then it asks me to specify my gender (no transgender option.) augh.
Sat, 2007-03-03 06:31
#11
Maysie
I had the exact same response when I saw the title, and was prepared to come in here and kick some ass. Then I saw that remind started it and figured there was a logical reason, so I read on.
I went onto their frikkin site and answered all their dumbass questions, and logged myself in as a raging lefty. All those questions are clearly aimed at a neo-con audience, including the way questions were phrased, as well as the content. Crap like [i]Is Canada on track?[/i] and [i]Do you trust gonvernment to deliver services?[/i]
But, yeah, change the thread title, please!
Sat, 2007-03-03 06:51
#12
maybe a moderator could change the title to: "Angus Reid poll: "Should abortion be legal?" or something to clarify the context so someone doesn't at a glance misintepret the forum as significantly antifeminist and unsafe?
remind doesn't seem unreasonable, wouldn't they be okay with a moderator changing it if they are sleeping in saturday morning? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 03 March 2007: Message edited by: penumbra ]
Sat, 2007-03-03 08:10
#13
remind
Yes, the thread title could have been more accurate, so I have altered it. It was actually a second thought, as the angus reid online polling was being discussed in another thread, and then I thought; hey, the abortion poll part of it should have it's own thread in the feminism forum to be actioned ASAP by those interested.
Sat, 2007-03-03 12:10
#14
....Because he can, and he clearly not only enjoys it, but thinks it works. Why the re-opening of the SSM debate? Please, Harper is a slimy asshole. He'll do whatever it takes to please his US pupper masters, and if that means re-opening the abortion debate, that is what he'll do. Harper does not have Canada in his heart or in his policies - he has the US in both.
...
I usually don't pay any attention to a post like this, but this one might be worth a reply.
To start, I don't like Harper and the Cons and I vote NDP and consider myself a lefty.
However, I don't think Harper is especially evil or a slimy asshole or in bed with Bush. Personally is not even very much a socon and probably more in the Defenbaker mould of conservatism.
I also suspect that he thinks a lot of Canada but just views things through a Canadian style conservative approach.
Having said all that, I still would not vote for him.
Out of interest, why the rant? Did a Con politian run over your cat? (just kidding).
[ 03 March 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]
Sat, 2007-03-03 12:24
#15
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
However, I don't think Harper is especially evil or a slimy asshole or in bed with Bush. Personally is not even very much a socon and probably more in the Defenbaker mould of conservatism.
Personally, I think you're wrong. Diefenbaker was most assuredly a patriotic Canadian. Harper is a neocon, and a traitor, and evil in his banal and wet way.
Sat, 2007-03-03 12:26
#16
quote:
Originally posted by oreobw:
[b]...However, I don't think Harper is especially evil or a slimy asshole or in bed with Bush. Personally is not even very much a socon and probably more in the Defenbaker mould of conservatism.I also suspect that he thinks a lot of Canada but just views things through a Canadian style conservative approach...[/b]
Harper has been criticizing Canada for years. He would go and give speeches to Americans about what a crummy country Canada was. He is not a loyal Canadian. When a Canadian UN observer was murdered in Lebanon by the IDF last year, Harper implied that it was the observer's fault for being there in the first place. When Canadian citizens were murdered by the IDF in Lebanon, Harper supported the war criminals. He is no Diefenbaker; Diefenbaker was worth a hundred of Harper.
Sat, 2007-03-03 12:32
#17
....He is no Diefenbaker; Diefenbaker was worth a hundred of Harper...
I was not saying that he is another Def but that his conservatism in more in the Def style.
Sat, 2007-03-03 12:42
#18
Argh. Here's another one I got by e-mail on Afghanistan.
quote:
Angus reid Co. has a poll on it's site - so far the pro-war is winning.Please resp0nd - and send this to your friends.
Go to:
[url=http://rm.angusreidforum.com/?cid=46&rs=GgEnAF]http://rm.angusreidforum....
Sat, 2007-03-03 12:50
#19
Well, as usual, this poll avoids all nuance in a very complex situation. A lot of people who voted yes are probably still highly critical of the way our forces are being used there. After all, that's the NDP's official position. Technically, anyone in the NDP caucus ought to vote yes if they're following the party line.
Sat, 2007-03-03 12:55
#20
Well, it sure as heck SHOULDN'T be the NDP's position! Good lord. Are there any anti-war parties to vote for?
Sat, 2007-03-03 16:44
#21
M. Spector
There's no way I'm going to register with Angus Reid so they can collect a nice little dossier on my opinions.
This is even more insidious than the "loyalty program" scams they have at supermarkets and department stores where their computer keeps track of the stuff you buy so they can target direct mail or spam at you.
I'll vote in their polls if I can, but I'll damn well remain anonymous, thanks all the same.
Sat, 2007-03-03 18:09
#22
remind
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]There's no way I'm going to register with Angus Reid so they can collect a nice little dossier on my opinions.This is even more insidious than the "loyalty program" scams they have at supermarkets and department stores where their computer keeps track of the stuff you buy so they can target direct mail or spam at you.
I'll vote in their polls if I can, but I'll damn well remain anonymous, thanks all the same.[/b]
That's why I lie, except about everything that is important on such polls. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Oh, and gender I always put correctly.
And of course, a disposable email address always works good for me to. They can spam my throw away email address all they want.
Of course, I do not buy anything on line so this not an issue for me, though I do not understand how they can track you, if you have spyware scanned and trackers removed?
Sun, 2007-03-04 11:56
#23
quote:
Originally posted by oreobw:
[b]...I was not saying that he is another Def but that his conservatism in more in the Def style.[/b]
In what way exactly?
Sun, 2007-03-04 12:18
#24
Somehow I don't think Diefenbaker would have raised a stink if Canadians had walked into a war zone and gotten themselves killed.
Sun, 2007-03-04 12:41
#25
He would not have sent them there in order to suck up to the American President.
ETA: if you are referring to the civilians murdered by the IDF in Lebanon; I think Dief would have stood up for them since they were Canadians. It's part of the Prime Minister's job, if he isn't just an American puppet.
ETA again; and who are you saying walked into a war zone? The IDF took the war to Lebanon when they were already there.
[ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Contrarian ]
[ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Contrarian ]
Sun, 2007-03-04 19:09
#26
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
[b]He would not have sent them there in order to suck up to the American President.ETA: if you are referring to the civilians murdered by the IDF in Lebanon; I think Dief would have stood up for them since they were Canadians. It's part of the Prime Minister's job, if he isn't just an American puppet.
ETA again; and who are you saying walked into a war zone? The IDF took the war to Lebanon when they were already there.[/b]
No one sent them there.
And you are absolutely correct in my opinion, he would have stood up for them, and not made xenophobic commentary.
Good eye on catching 500apples trying to reframe the actual happenings at that time.