frenchfry said:
Yeah, sorry, somehow I really don't think they have the Dems best interest at heart by suggesting that the sitting president who currently outpolls all of his Republican opponents (save Romney, where it's a statistical tie) before the campaign has really even begun not run for re-election. Despite, you know, Obama raising more money for the Dems 2012 re-election campaign than have all of the Republican candidates combined, and more than 3 times what Romney has raised so far.Scott SoCal said:
Those folks up on stage last night were quite possibly the most blissful group of politicians I've ever seen.
Most people would call saying that 4% constitutes a large majority for what it is, ie "lying". You call it "spinning". Ok then.No, you are parroting your network of "experts". BTW, a pollster spinning data? OMG, really?
That's a pretty convenient standard you set there. I doubt Brietbart and Hannity agree on everything.
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
You don't really understand what "consensus" means, do you.Scott SoCal said:
Every word.
Yep, read both. So let's keep it simple, then, and stick with the poll and the WSJ piece.
Sorry, I must of missed that part where Schoen disagreed with either Hannity or Breitbart.
VeloCity said:You don't really understand what "consensus" means, do you.
Every word.
Yep, read both. So let's keep it simple, then, and stick with the poll and the WSJ piece.
Survey results:
Schoen's WSJ article:
"Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth..."
"What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth,"
(As an aside, that "8% Not sure" made me laugh).
Sorry, I must of missed that part where Schoen disagreed with either Hannity or Breitbart.
I have to admire the effort but...I'm beginning to understand why you have so much trouble with science.Scott SoCal said:
Just for fun, I'll grant you everything you want. Even then, you come up with 54%. In what world does 54% constitute a "large majority"?
Judging from your "analysis" of Schoen's poll results, you might want to consider watching less Fox.
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
Race Radio said:
redtreviso said:
Amsterhammer said:This is the kind of post that perfectly demonstrates the soggy toilet paper for brains approach of someone who chooses to watch, and believe, what Fox News tells them. Laughable and pathetic.
Your anti-abortion soapbox has no place here and has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. A typical right-wing red herring. I had a look at the film in your signature link. I knew where the film maker was coming from as soon as he started referring to abortions as the "murder" of "babies". His link from the Holocaust to abortion was also extremely distateful. Your two other links above also have nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons why sane, rational, thinking people have an intense disgust for everything that FN stands for. Your Hugo Chavez link from 2006 is equally mystifying - wtf does that have to do with FN?
For once, Red's hyperbole is warranted. FN is a purveyor of misinformation, disinformation, distortion, omission, half-truths, and downright LIES. Much of its 'commentary' appears to consist of shouting down and bullying. By comparison with any other news organization in the western world, FN is the lowest, shabbiest, and most shameful common denominator.The fact that it has the kind of audience share that it does, simply confirms the sad fact that there are an astonishing number of very stupid right wingers in the US who, sadly, are too ignorant or disinterested to find out real facts for themselves and are happy to accept as gospel every word of the appalling sh!t that FN serves up as so-called news and commentary.
Here are some examples (duplicates in part) where I can personally testify to the lies and distortions that FN presents as "facts".
"Amsterdam is a cesspool of crime and corruption....."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKuJvYh6h9I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPsFIsxM3w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpU0NxPhA78&feature=related
Glenn_Wilson said:
Amsterhammer said:
If by "interpretation" you mean "putting words in people's mouths" - "This is what they REALLY mean when they say..." - then yeah, good job. You even took it a step further by basing it on stereotypes: "this is what they REALLY mean when they say, because this is what lefties REALLY believe...". I'm guessing that Schoen probably did the same thing.Scott SoCal said:
Sure. It's essentially meaningless. For one, it's a ridiculously small sample size - 200 people - and conducted at only one location. Somehow that's supposed to represent the views of a movement involving tens of thousands of people in numerous cities all over the globe. To use it as maybe an indicator, fine. But Schoen used it as the basis for a WSJ Opinion piece on what the entire OWS movement is about and what it's participants believe. That's absurd. You'd need a hell of a lot more data first. (And to be fair, it's the same complaint that a lot of tea party supporters had about early polls purporting to demonstrate what the tea party movement was all about, although otoh OWS/99% whatever you want to call it is becoming an international movement - participants in other countries may have entirely different ideas of what OWS is all about than do American participants - whereas the tea party is national.)
redtreviso said:
Rechtschreibfehler said:
redtreviso said:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram