The Washington Times undertook an independent survey of the comments posted during the public comment section over Virginia's proposed new adoption regs. Here's what they found:
"Fewer than 30 people supported the changes, according to a Washington Times review of the 1,074 comments."
Thank you once again to everyone who helped us get the word out last week - your efforts resulted in an absolutely overwhelming show of opposition to these harmful proposed changes.
Please continue to encourage VA Gov. Bob McDonnell to oppose these regs (you can do so easily right here). He's already expressed opposition to changing the system and thereby threatening all the religious-based organizations that already work on behalf of kids in Virginia, but let's make sure he continues to hear from us.
12 Comments
Of course it's only 30 and more than likely the same person wrote all 30! Most people are normal, sane, law-abiding and know that the best environment for a child is a loving home with a parent of each gender.
Or perhaps people that disagree with things are more likely to comment. Squeaky wheel and all.
Or perhaps the majority of Virginians and Americans don't support the proposed changes. Now THERE's a novel thought, LOL!
It's possible but this is hardly any type of statistical analysis. Counting comments on an article ISN'T indicative of anything but the people that commented. That's all.
Phillip R:
What has "statistical analysis" got to do with anything? That's a totally irrelevant comment.
Right. Counting comments on an article ISN'T indicative of anything but the people that commented, in the same way that a vote ISN'T indicative of anything but the people that voted.
The fact still remains that there were fewer than 30 people who commented in support of the changes and nothing you say or do will change that. Suck it up!
Welcome back, Don!
Hi, MikeyB! Thank you very much!
I find it interesting that the number 30 is a little less than 3% of the total comments posted. That's the same 3% of LGBT-identified folks who want to shut down faith-based agencies and redefine marriage for the rest of us.
Don-
It's not like there's a filter preventing spammed comments or repeat people posting. But hey, good for you, you have an online article that has a bunch of comments on it that support your position. I'm sure if the situation were reversed you'd be arguing how it doesn't matter. But hey, who am I to bring logic into NOM? Because let's face it...they don't have any.
kerain:
Come back and post when you have something intelligent and coherent to say. We already have all of the mindless nattering we can use from your homosexual activist friends.
Don-
Address the point I made and don't dodge it. While dodging might win you the support of NOM, the reasonable, sane person isn't won over.
kieran:
Excuse me, but you are obviously mistaking me for someone who follows your orders. Try again!
You made no "point" to address. What you wrote is unintelligible and incoherent. Duh!
What makes you think that I give a rat's patootie about winning anyone over? Based upon the results every time that homosexual "marriage" has been put to a vote, no one needs to be won over to our side. You are the ones who need to win people over. It's precisely because you can't win people over that you avoid a vote like the plague and try to force your agenda through by judicial interpretation and legislation.
Kieran, you come across like an adolsecent who is not yet able to articulate what ever it is that you are wanting to say. Take a course or something, will 'ya!
One Trackback
[...] reminder that, even though there has been overwhelming public opposition to these proposed new regs and good signals from Governor McDonnell, we still need to keep the [...]