Sean Hannity is on my list

Now available in paperback!

Unread postby humguitar » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:57 pm

On CSPAN, Sen. John Sununu from New Hampshire just said that he thinks that ABC has re-evaluated the situation and they will be allowing Ron Paul to participate in the debate tonight.

Fox is still not going to allow Paul in on their forum tomorrow. Sununu said that the Republican Party of New Hampshire has withdrawn their sponsorship of the Fox event tomorrow because of this. Sununu also said that it is "just wrong" of Fox to be excluding anyone.

Fox is making a HUGE mistake.
humguitar
Media analyst
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:45 pm

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Unread postby MrSinatra » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:11 pm

if ur asking... i agree that paul should be included in the fox debates, at least for now.
SYF Rocks!
www.LION-Radio.org

steve1633 wrote:if you havent realized yet that pp posts offer little in the way of intelligent discourse then youre dumber than i suspected, if its just easier to argue with someone like her then ya go ahead keep it up.
User avatar
MrSinatra
Mod Team
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:24 am
Location: 6' under

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:19 pm

hum-

Ron Paul has NEVER won a scientific poll. NEVER. NOT ONCE.

What he has 'won' are polls that allow people to vote as often as they like, thus skewing the results. Text messaging polls? Please. They are every bit as credible as those MTV uses to choose it's TRL video top ten.

The fact is that, when the votes of the first truly credible scientific poll were cast and counted, Ron Paul finished FIFTH.

Now..having put that particular issue to bed....

I was surprised though pleased to see ABC include Ron Paul in its debate tonight and I hope FNC follows suit.

To see and hear Ron Paul's fulsome praise of Barak Obama was worth the price of admission.

Excuse me, but shouldn't the fact that Paul's views are much closer to those of B. Hussein Obama than any of the GOP candidates send up bright red warning flags?
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby humguitar » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:25 am

Weps
hum-

Ron Paul has NEVER won a scientific poll. NEVER. NOT ONCE.
And what pray tell do you consider a "scientific" poll? One could argue that all of the polls that say that Ron Paul is only getting 2% of republican votes nationally are not "scientific" either. I have NEVER been asked to take part in one of those polls. I can also say that I have NEVER participated in the post debate text message polls that Fox has run, either.
What he has 'won' are polls that allow people to vote as often as they like, thus skewing the results. Text messaging polls? Please. They are every bit as credible as those MTV uses to choose it's TRL video top ten.
If Fox's post debate polls are so "unscientific", and if they can easily be falsified, why would a so called, "Fair and Balanced" news network such as Fox, keep using the same polling system? By the way, Sean Hannity tried to spread that lie about Ron Paul supporters voting more than once, only after he saw that Paul was winning. That has been exposed as false, it was not possible to vote more than once. Even if it were true, I suppose that Ron Paul supporters are the only ones smart enough to figure out that you could vote multiple times(well you might be right about that! :lol: ), and I suppose that only Ron Paul voters are going to be dishonest and vote more than once. :roll:

Fox did try to do something more "scientific" :roll: in the last few debates. They brought in their propaganda boy, Frank Luntz, with his Milton Bradley Lite Brite machine, and his handpicked focus group of 20 people, to tell us who REALLY won the debates. :roll:
To see and hear Ron Paul's fulsome praise of Barak Obama was worth the price of admission.

Excuse me, but shouldn't the fact that Paul's views are much closer to those of B. Hussein Obama than any of the GOP candidates send up bright red warning flags?
Let's see, he said that they

1. both attracted young voters(not a bad thing, in my opinion),

2. they both spoke out against the war(not a bad thing, in my opinion),

3. and they both respect people's liberties(not a bad thing again, in my opinion).

4.And then he pointed out that there are MAJOR differences in their economic policies(That is not a bad thing either, in my opinion).

It's quite a stretch to say that Paul was saying that he had more in common with Obama than with the other Republican candidates. :roll:
humguitar
Media analyst
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:45 pm

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:28 pm

And what pray tell do you consider a "scientific" poll?


One person, one vote.

Pretty simple concept, no?

One could argue that all of the polls that say that Ron Paul is only getting 2% of republican votes nationally are not "scientific" either. I have NEVER been asked to take part in one of those polls. I can also say that I have NEVER participated in the post debate text message polls that Fox has run, either.


Yes they are scientific because no one is called more than once in each particular survey.

I do participate in the Zogby online polls- again, "one person, opne vote" so they do qualify as scientific- though I've not been contacted by any national polling form via telephone. I don't find that particualrly surprising nor troubling because most polls are of only 100 or so people and there are 300,000,000 of us and my state (Alabama) doesn't vote until February 5th).

If Fox's post debate polls are so "unscientific", and if they can easily be falsified, why would a so called, "Fair and Balanced" news network such as Fox, keep using the same polling system?


They also conduct scientific polls but the results take a while to compile, thus defeating the purpose of 'instant feedbgack' data.

By the way, Sean Hannity tried to spread that lie about Ron Paul supporters voting more than once, only after he saw that Paul was winning.


That has been confirmed by many other sources, who report that Paulistas at their events basically urge their minions to 'vote early and vote often' for their guy. I've posted links to the sotires here and elsewhere and shall be more than happy to do so again.

That has been exposed as false, it was not possible to vote more than once. Even if it were true, I suppose that Ron Paul supporters are the only ones smart enough to figure out that you could vote multiple times(well you might be right about that! ), and I suppose that only Ron Paul voters are going to be dishonest and vote more than once.


No, they're the only ones whose desire to make a point outweighs their attention to good ethics. Paulistas desperately want everyone to believe that there is a massive groundswell of support for him and aren't above dishonest manipulation of polling results if it helps to make their case.

Fox did try to do something more "scientific" in the last few debates. They brought in their propaganda boy, Frank Luntz, with his Milton Bradley Lite Brite machine, and his handpicked focus group of 20 people, to tell us who REALLY won the debates.


Sounds like a serious case of sour grapes to me.

Just because roughly 92% of the GOP things Paul is a certifiable nutcase isn't Luntz's fault.

Let's see, he said that they

1. both attracted young voters(not a bad thing, in my opinion),


Proven in Obama's case; alleged in Paul's.

2. they both spoke out against the war(not a bad thing, in my opinion),


Again, roughly 92% of the GOP would disagree with you. But on the bright side, about 70% of Democrats would agree with you.

3. and they both respect people's liberties(not a bad thing again, in my opinion).


This proves Paul's naivety better than I ever could.

Can you look at Obama's platform- and since he hasn't bothered to lay out one specific to him, one must assume he backs the Democrat Party platform of massive tax increases, massive governmnet expansion and intrusion into your lives, abortion on demand, etc.- and point to a single instance in which Obama supports "people's liberties"?

That Paul doesn't see the truth of that statement speaks volumes about his poor judgement- as if we didn't have ample evidence of that already.

4.And then he pointed out that there are MAJOR differences in their economic policies(That is not a bad thing either, in my opinion).


How then to reconcile that statement with his fulsome praise of Obama's support for "people's liberties"? Does Ron Paul not think economic policies are part of "people's liberties"?

It's quite a stretch to say that Paul was saying that he had more in common with Obama than with the other Republican candidates.


Not really.

All I need do is quote Ron Paul to make the case.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby ScottT » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:46 pm

ScottT
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:03 pm

Previous

Return to 110 People who are Screwing up America... and Al Franken is number 37!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron