So, you prefer a poll where the question is written and asked in such a way as to elicit a desired outcome? You prefer a poll where a number of people are supposedly picked at "random" (but we know they're not) as opposed to one where the pollster doesn't get to decide who gets asked? Do you think the opinion of someone who didn't watch the debates is more valid than the opinion of someone who did watch the debates?
Chan, I know this is difficult to comprehend but when websites have polls that you click on to vote they are very much skewed and prone to being manipulated by groups.
They are naturally biased by whatever demographic frequents that website. Then that bias can be overcome by an orchastrated campaign by a group to vote a certain way on an online poll.
In other words they are prone to publicity campaigns for a person or issue that is involved with the poll. A canidate's blogasphere can notify supporters of online polls and urge them to go vote to make their guy look good. It happens all the time. Remember back on FCF or NFCF we were asked to vote for some Pentecostal involved in an online singing contest.
You are astute, misguided but astute, so I am sure you know all of this but just don't want to acknowledge it.
Chan, I know this is difficult to comprehend but when websites have polls that you click on to vote they are very much skewed and prone to being manipulated by groups.
They are naturally biased by whatever demographic frequents that website. Then that bias can be overcome by an orchastrated campaign by a group to vote a certain way on an online poll.
In other words they are prone to publicity campaigns for a person or issue that is involved with the poll. A canidate's blogasphere can notify supporters of online polls and urge them to go vote to make their guy look good. It happens all the time. Remember back on FCF or NFCF we were asked to vote for some Pentecostal involved in an online singing contest.
You are astute, misguided but astute, so I am sure you know all of this but just don't want to acknowledge it.
And other polls are naturally biased by the way the questions are written, who asks the questions, how the questions are asked, and who is selected to be asked.
Maybe you should acknowledge that these online polls are just as meaningless as the so-called "legitimate" polls.
Of course, if one of the FOX News or other media darlings had done well in the online and text messaging polls I suspect that you, like FOX News, the rest of the media, and Rush Limbaugh, wouldn't be dismissing those polls.
And other polls are naturally biased by the way the questions are written, who asks the questions, how the questions are asked, and who is selected to be asked.
Maybe you should acknowledge that these online polls are just as meaningless as the so-called "legitimate" polls.
Of course, if one of the FOX News or other media darlings had done well in the online and text messaging polls I suspect that you, like FOX News, the rest of the media, and Rush Limbaugh, wouldn't be dismissing those polls.
You are incorrect. I give no credence to website "voluntary" polls regardless of what they are about or their results because of the reasons I outlined. They are meaningless.
You are correct that many legitimate polls have biased questionis so I also always try to dig deep and see exactly what the people being polled were asked and then I weigh how much credence I give to the poll by that and also the demographic makeup of the persons polled.
You are incorrect. I give no credence to website "voluntary" polls regardless of what they are about or their results because of the reasons I outlined. They are meaningless.
You are correct that many legitimate polls have biased questionis so I also always try to dig deep and see exactly what the people being polled were asked and then I weigh how much credence I give to the poll by that and also the demographic makeup of the persons polled.
I agree with a statement attributed to Mark Twain (who attributed it to Voltaire): "There are lies, damned lies and statistics" (a poll is a kind of statistic).
What I object to here is the hypocrisy of dismissing online and text message polls when they favor someone the media doesn't like and praising them when they favor someone the media likes.
I agree with a statement attributed to Mark Twain (who attributed it to Voltaire): "There are lies, damned lies and statistics" (a poll is a kind of statistic).
What I object to here is the hypocrisy of dismissing online and text message polls when they favor someone the media doesn't like and praising them when they favor someone the media likes.
I understand. But like I said in my case I don't give credence to them even when they favor my position, canidates, etc. It is just foolish to do so.
PLEASE tell me you are joking?????????????????????????
I honestly believe that history will treat Bill Clinton very well and George Bush will be listed among the worse presidents in US history. When you compare their accomplishments Clinton clearly outshines Bush. Clinton is the most intelligent president in many years.
I have been a Republican all my life, but I can't stand Bush. I cringe every time he speaks wondering what stupid statement he'll make next. IMO he's an embarrassment to the the USA. His adminstration will be most remembered for his stupidity and for being so headstrong he would rather live a lie than to do what is in the best interest of the country and the world in general. The day Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State represents for me the beginning of the end of any hope for a successful Bush presidency.
It's too bad that Clinton will also be remembered as well for his moral failures. Apparently his attendance at those UPC campmeetings didn't impact him as they should have!
When will Christians in the US acknowledge that George Bush has been a disaster and that in spite of his shortcomings, Bill Clinton was the most effective president the US has had in recent history? You should be out there campaigning for Hillary!
Uh...TB...I am supposin' that this was TIC. If not, I'm gonna have to make a trip to Canada... Oh! I see! That was what this was all about all along! You just wanted to rile some of us up so you could have some company!
Bill Clinton was NOWHERE NEAR as effective as Ronald Reagan. He was an unmitigated disaster for the US in terms of respect.
Now, as for GW...at the risk of angering CC1--I am highly disappointed in him. But, I am also highly disappointed with EVERY SINGLE candidate we have, both Republican and Democrat.
__________________ Oh! That I may be found faithful!
I honestly believe that history will treat Bill Clinton very well and George Bush will be listed among the worse presidents in US history. When you compare their accomplishments Clinton clearly outshines Bush. Clinton is the most intelligent president in many years.
I have been a Republican all my life, but I can't stand Bush. I cringe every time he speaks wondering what stupid statement he'll make next. IMO he's an embarrassment to the the USA. His adminstration will be most remembered for his stupidity and for being so headstrong he would rather live a lie than to do what is in the best interest of the country and the world in general. The day Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State represents for me the beginning of the end of any hope for a successful Bush presidency.
It's too bad that Clinton will also be remembered as well for his moral failures. Apparently his attendance at those UPC campmeetings didn't impact him as they should have!
Clinton may be the smartest man in the white house since Woodrow Wilson. (i dont really like him either.)
However, I think history will be ambivilent to WBJC (william blythe jefferson clinton). there were sone good things like welfare reform and the 1996 telecomunications act. however i believe in 50 years, his foreign policy will be considerd abject failure. He failed to socielize healthcare, he failed to anticipate the stock market bubble.
GWB will be seen in much the same light. (dont have time right now as my hamburger just walked thru the door.)
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Uh...TB...I am supposin' that this was TIC. If not, I'm gonna have to make a trip to Canada... Oh! I see! That was what this was all about all along! You just wanted to rile some of us up so you could have some company!
Bill Clinton was NOWHERE NEAR as effective as Ronald Reagan. He was an unmitigated disaster for the US in terms of respect.
Now, as for GW...at the risk of angering CC1--I am highly disappointed in him. But, I am also highly disappointed with EVERY SINGLE candidate we have, both Republican and Democrat.
wait for Fred Thompson. this is going to turn around, provided he doesnt die of cancer.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Linear Mode
