- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I've long been saying -- it's both ends against the middle.
Thats why should always have two guns.
I've long been saying -- it's both ends against the middle.
Mom and apple pie! The freaks!
Beware: “public” pollsters with an agenda
Wednesday, June 24th, 2009
There are a few pollsters out there that claim to be publically distributing information, yet have a hidden agenda. Let’s take the Public Policy Polling firm as a prime example. This polling firm has consistently released polling number’s that show North Carolina’s senior Sen. Richard Burr’s approval ratings in the mid-30’s. Normally, this is dangerous territory for any sitting incumbent, but a closer look at the firm producing these “facts” shows they have an agenda.
“We’re absolutely rooting in this race. We don’t want Richard Burr to get reelected. We wanted Obama to win last fall.” - Public Policy Polling pollster Tom Jensen.
This is a quote in lieu of poll that showed Senator Burr as “vulnerable” by an admitted partisan hack. But Jensen decided not to make public his test of Sen. Richard Burr vs. the only announced opponent at this time, John Ross Hendrix. Hendrix, a “graphic artist” and perennial candidate is the announced Democrat candidate to take on Burr, yet he is not tested in this so-called survey. The simple fact remains that if Burr is tested in any poll against any “announced” Democrat, Burr cruises to reelection. Whether or not Hendrix is tested in Jensen’s poll samples, we’ll never know. What we do know is Jensen and Public Policy Polling will only release data that is favorable to Democrats.
Let’s look at another poll by Public Policy Polling in Ohio
This poll shows the Democrat(s) candidates leading the unopposed Republican candidate by 8-9 points. At least they admit their sample is 50% Democrat; 35% Republican. If anyone can tell me the last time a Presidential Democrat candidate won in Ohio by 15 points in my lifetime, I’ll buy you lunch.
Case in point: the Public Policy Polling firm has an agenda: electing Democrats. Taking their polls as scientific expert analysis as a true poll reflecting a hypothesis of voting behavior is a complete mistake. Any media outlet promoting their polling data should undoubtedly be questioned. Keep a close watch on this firm’s “public” polling, as it will consistently show Democrats leading to promote their own internal agenda. If they work for Democrat candidates, fine. But to release outrageous numbers showing essentially unopposed Senate candidates such as Richard Burr down is absurd and does a disgrace to the polling and survey community, as we stand by the numbers we produce for our clients and candidates.
Healthy skepticism of things like 9/11 is a good thing, and the "Truthers" do have a lot of circumstantial evidence on their side. The burden of proof is always on the government.
Way to destroy your credibility.
More than half of this country voted for a man with a paper thin resume promising nothing more than that he would be 'different.' Clearly, we're experiencing mass lunacy.
More than half of this country voted for a man with [...]
(1) The 69,297,997 who voted for Obama represent 30.1% of 230 million adults in this country - less than a third.
(2) Most people only vote for the lesser of two evils.
(3) The smartest people are the least likely to vote.
Clearly, we're experiencing mass lunacy.
[...] I think most people vote for the person they prefer.
Bull****. People who cannot be bothered to vote are neither smart, nor of any real use to this country.
So if you were to take a poll before the primaries letting people list and rank their top picks for president, 69,297,997 people would have picked Obama as their #1 choice? C'mon... He'd rank below Elmer Fudd! :roll:
No, the people who don't want to dignify your rigged democratic circus with 10 minutes of their time are acting rationally. You aren't.
Only 59% of Americans say confidently that they think Barack Obama was born in the country while 23% think he was not, and 18% are unsure.
Let me try and explain this simple concept to you, since either you are dishonest, or you are not bright enough to comprehend. I used a word, "most". It means that a majority of people voted their preference, not that all did.
That is a pretty serious accusation...if you can prove it. You have evidence that the election system is rigged(note this is not the same thing as certain precincts having voter fraud issues)? I am waiting to see what paranoid fantasy you come up with for this.
DP is a metaphor for the country. Check out the amount of extremists here, and you will suddenly discover that those who do not have far right or far left views are becoming a minority.
And I have ridiculed your claim, pointing out that people have very limited choices in selecting their government figureheads, and no substantive control over what those figureheads do after they are elected.
Whether it is rigged on a functional level is irrelevant - the system is inherently violent and irrational, and thus I refuse to justify it with my participation.
Right, because people usually prefer the lesser of two evils.Possible, but not likely. I think most people vote for the person they prefer.
I believe Alex's point is that the election is a charade. Bush(a Republican) set the precedent for massive spending and Obama(a Democrat) is doing his part by perpetuating it. The fact that you see a large difference between the ideologies of "Republicans" and "Democrats" is amusing to me.So where is this history of election violence? How is taking part in the process to chose the people who lead the country, the sate, the local area irrational? It's not. People who make excuses for their own laziness and apathy are the irrational ones.
I believe Alex's point is that the election is a charade. Bush(a Republican) set the precedent for massive spending and Obama(a Democrat) is doing his part by perpetuating it. The fact that you see a large difference between the ideologies of "Republicans" and "Democrats" is amusing to me.
I don't know, he'll have to answer that one himself.Spending money is not violent, nor is it fraud. Are you saying that Alex is just using way over the top hyperbole?
I do not think it is a good thing that you can "see clear differences". Just means you took the bait.When you are part of an extreme fringe, then I suppose that those more mainstream philosophies will seem alike, but that is simply because you are on the fringe. Those of us with more mainstream views can see clear differences between the policies advocated and enacted by republicans and democrats.