http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/23/washington/0123-nat-webBUSH.gif
Source. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/washington/23bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

How sad. He's at about the same level Nixon was at during Watergate. The trend will continue to drop, barring any future amazing, momentous, fucking great deeds of his. Like that'll happen.

Speaking of Nixon, his end-of-presidency approval rating was 24%. Conversely, Clinton's approval rating during and after the Lewinksy witch hunt seemingly never dropped below the mid 60s, and he left office with 65%. Reagan got 64%, and Kennedy got 63%. (Click (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml), click (http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_historical_approval.htm), and click (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicalcommentary/a/historical_prez.htm).)

It seems Bush will be remembered as one of the least popular presidents in US history.

Discuss.

The least popular man is sometimes the one who did what he had to, no matter what others thought of him. It doesn't always win you friends, but it certanly influences people.

Don't worry, ath, you can choose between the Hillster and Hussein Obama in a short time.

Thank the Lord for that.

The least popular man is sometimes the one who did what he had to, no matter what others thought of him. It doesn't always win you friends, but it certanly influences people."Did what he had to do?" Seriously?? Bush earned his lack of popularity the same way a bad CEO does or how ebola earned it's low numbers on the totem pole: Sheer idiocy, a disconnect from reality and arrogance. As for the ebola analogy; He has the disease and has spread it over the nation. It will be decades for us to recover our former status as a country to admire and even longer for the people to trust Republicans again. Nothing gets voters out better than a bad Republican adminstration.

Don't worry, ath, you can choose between the Hillster and Hussein Obama in a short time.Hallelujah.

What they don't tell you is that Bush's approval rating rises and falls with change in gas prices. Most of the people who voted in that poll were most likely just basing their decision on that alone.

Remember the 1994 elections? That was hillaryous.

Remember the 1994 elections? That was hillaryous.:p Waxing poetic about the distant past. Cling to that era tightly, it's all the failed Republicans have anymore. Sweeeet Justice.:D

Hillary baby, Hillary, she's magic, if you're a Repub.

Hillary baby, Hillary, she's magic, if you're a Repub.You reactionaries are far too scared of little Hillary. She's just a conservative centrist drone for the Establishment. But the tighty righties hide their faces every time they hear her name. Don't be so afraid ice. There is more to life than fear. Didn't your dead prophet teach something about that?:p

It's gonna be a joyous time watching "Sir Edmund" Hillary face the music, she is a nasty, currently closeted, socialist, who loves Big Government, much more than now, if she could have her way, but I think America will remember the real Hillary, and see through her incessant phoniness.

Bill Clinton reduced the size of government and created a surplus. Bush created two new government bureaucracies, and increased the deficit.

Bill Clinton had virtually no choice but to go along with much of the "Contract with America" after the Republican landslide in 1994, so the Repubs gladly accept your apology, spidergoat.

The Clintons caused the Republicans to win the House for the first time in forty years, go Hillary!

Might makes right, no matter what you otherwise believe.

The Clintons caused the Republicans to win the House for the first time in forty years, go Hillary!

And yet he maintained an approval rating comparable to Reagan's, at least in his last two years as President. Funny how you make fun of a popular president for some silly, immature reason, and cling so faithfully and blindly to a president whose popularity is dropping slowly (and for a good reason).

Might makes right, no matter what you otherwise believe.

Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.

A more virtuous, civilized, and moral quote, said by... guess who.

The pollsters only ask 1168 people and thus feel certain that that represents the feelings of all 300 million citizens? How interesting. I wonder who they asked?

How many times have y'all tried to get a group of people to agree on anything? Ain't easy, is it? ...and likely they'll never agree. Yet this poll....?

Baron Max

How many times have y'all tried to get a group of people to agree on anything? Ain't easy, is it? ...and likely they'll never agree. Yet this poll....?


Dear Max,

Yet this poll shows people disagreed. An approval rating of 28% would mean that 28% approved of the president and the rest didn't. That means people didn't agree on anything. It's just that the majority agreed on not approving Bush's policies. A minority disagreed with this. So people didn't agree

I hope you understand now.

regards,

your monkey

Dear Max, Yet this poll shows ...

The poll shows exactly what pollsters wanted it to show ...nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who believes polls is probably among the most gullible people on Earth.

Baron Max

yes, they wanted to show the approval rating of Bush. And that is what they showed.


Are you telling me that you are unaware that many americans are unhappy about the policies of Bush? :eek:

not to mention the rest of the world

yes, they wanted to show the approval rating of Bush. And that is what they showed.

So they were careful in selecting the 1168 people! If they'd have selected some others, the outcome would have been different. Pollsters aren't stupid, and they know who is paying the money for the poll, and they know what those people want the poll to show ....so they give the money-people what they want. Damned good business-sense, wouldn't you say?

Are you telling me that you are unaware that many americans are unhappy about the policies of Bush?

No, I'm aware of that. But the big question is still .....how many is "many"? And the polls don't do anything to answer that if they only ask 1168 pre-selected people!

Baron Max

The trend will continue to drop, barring any future amazing, momentous, fucking great deeds of his. Like that'll happen.
You never know. In Independance Day the president flew his jet fighter around killing aliens, saving the day etc. Didnt Bush train as a fighter pilot?

So they were careful in selecting the 1168 people! If they'd have selected some others, the outcome would have been different. Pollsters aren't stupid, and they know who is paying the money for the poll, and they know what those people want the poll to show ....so they give the money-people what they want. Damned good business-sense, wouldn't you say?
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/polls/approval1.png

...some odd and strange image of polls.....

Don't matter, Nick ...what matters is who was paying for the poll and what was their agenda or their bias.

As a pollster trying to make money, do you think Dan Rather and CBS would have paid for a poll that showed something that they didn't want to hear? And even if it did, do you think CBS would have aired it? And do you think that CBS would have gone back to that same pollster ever again?

It's about the money, the profit, and polling companies know about such things just as well as anyone else. And lest you forget, polling is a business! Pollsters can make up polls, ask the right select group, to give whatever results they wish .....and if you don't believe that, then you're one damned ignorant person!!

Baron Max

I think it's obvious who is ignorant here.


do you think Dan Rather and CBS would have paid for a poll that showed something that they didn't want to hear? And even if it did, do you think CBS would have aired it? And do you think that CBS would have gone back to that same pollster ever again?

What about FOX?

I think you are just trolling.

Take some time, Nick, and learn a little bit about how polling is done, who does it, and how the companies make a profit. Just a little bit of education will show you much about polling.

Baron Max

Take some time, Nick, and learn a little bit about how polling is done, who does it, and how the companies make a profit. Just a little bit of education will show you much about polling.

Baron Max

What about FOX?

You still cant do it can you? You cant explain why ALL the trends are all the same. All you can come up with is meaningless drivel.

Baron, that image of 15 separate poll sources is very compelling. They all agree in general.

Baron, that image of 15 separate poll sources is very compelling. They all agree in general.

Yes, it is compelling. But ask yourself .....who paid for those polls? And then ask yourself why they paid for the polls? Did they have an agenda that they wished to convey? Were they totally, completely without bias? Hmm?

A polling company would not last very long if their polls didn't show the buyer what the buyer wanted to see, would they? Follow the money ...you'll see.

Baron Max

What does FOX have to gain by showing falling approval ratings for Bush? Do they hate him too? Is there no-one who thinks Bush isn't out of favour except YOU?? LOL!

Your levels of delusions are amazing.

Even the Fox poll and the NPR poll agree. You don't have a case for bias.

What does FOX have to gain by showing falling approval ratings for Bush? Do they hate him too?

They don't show other polls because it would then become a "battle of the polls" ....and there ain't no polling company that would want their methods scrutiinized!

Is there no-one who thinks Bush isn't out of favour except YOU?? ... Your levels of delusions are amazing.

No, I think he is out of favor with the general public, but by how much is open to question. I think that polls lie on the side of hate-bias because that seems to be the best place for the money! And I were a polling company, that's where I'd be, too, so as to make a good profit. Just follow the money, you'll see pretty quickly how it works.

Baron Max

Drivel.

And I thought Buffalo was warped.

Drivel.

Well, Nick, if you know for certain, then why do you keep posting? If you're so certain, so positive, then you should feel nothing but pride in your knowledge and pity for me. Posting either can't possibly be any benefit for you.

Baron Max

Seriously Baron, you are really getting ridiculus!

By your logic,why do YOU keep posting if YOU are so sure! LOL!

....and there ain't no polling company that would want their methods scrutiinized!

http://people-press.org/reports/methodology.php3

Seriously Baron, you are really getting ridiculus!

What? ...are we then having some kind of contest? If you're sure of your viewpoint, then anything more is just denigrating me for my viewpoint and calling me ridiculous, etc.

By your logic,...

Ain't my logic. Check out the methods used in creating polls ...it's their logic, not mine!

Baron Max

Ain't my logic. Check out the methods used in creating polls ...it's their logic, not mine!

Duh! The logic of your post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1277265&postcount=36)!

http://people-press.org/reports/methodology.php3

Okay, ....show me some poll results that were taken by the "Pew Research Group" (or whoever they were). And it would be nice to see their profits over the past few years, too, to show how many people actually use that group.

Baron Max

They are a non-profit and non-partisan organization.

The pollsters only ask 1168 people and thus feel certain that that represents the feelings of all 300 million citizens?

Once I started to call all 300 million Americans, but gave up after 1 million. It was too tiring...

There is a science called statistics, you know.... (also google or wiki margin of error)

They are a non-profit and non-partisan organization.

having done telephone work in my life, i have to disagree here. many of the cold calls we had to make were blatantly biased, meant to bring doubt about a particular candidate....in the name of Pew.

*shrug*

Are you saying Pew does push-polling?

yeah.
i am referring to the last senate race, i had to do polling for south carolina.

i dont know if it is a constant thing, but im sure if it happened once, it happens more than we would think.

Here's a site which agglomerates lots of different polls to get an overall picture:

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

Are you saying Pew does push-polling?

It doesn't even have to be blatant bias, it could be just the way the questions are worded or spoken ...many people might be led into saying "YES" to keep from appearing stupid or ill-informed. See?

It's all in the art of fuckin' with people's minds! And pollsters are experts at it. And if you think just a little bit about it, you can surely see that it's in their best interest (profit) to sway/slant particular polls to what they think or know that they're client wants. What's so hard to understand about that?

Baron Max

Like well rehearsed used car salespersons.

Max, you are bitching generally, without providing an argument.

I could argue, that the real numbers are way LOWER, but the polls are biased towards the president. :)

Just to make you feel good, Fox News got a 85% excellent speach rating for the State of the Union. Of course no bias on their part...

Max, you are bitching generally, without providing an argument.

I've been providing an argument, but y'all don't seem to want to listen; follow the money!

I'll ask you again; Would Dan Rather and CBS have used a poll that gave President Bush good ratings during the last election? ..even if they'd paid good money for that poll? No, of course not! Dan Rather even invented bullshit so as to make Bush look bad ....why would they want to reveal a poll that showed him in a good light?

Now ...would any pollster, who wanted to make money, ever try to give CBS and Dan Rather a poll result that was against everything that DR and CBS stood for? What pollster would do that?

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Baron Max

Well posted, Baron Max.

One thing I have learned about political polls is that they tend to reflect the viewership of the given media outlet at a given point. How many liberals will go to FOXNEWS.COM, or for that matter conservatives go to CNN.COM to participate in a poll?

One of my favorite books from my political science classes in College was called "HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS" by Darrell Huff. It's available at amazon.com for around $10. Any statistical data can be manipulated or interprited in such ways as to bend it into any conclusion you want. It has been the bread and butter of marketers (which is all political races boil down to) for centuries.

Still, there is no other way to judge the trends and averages of opinion in the country. Cons are quite willing to use statitics if they support them. The fact remains, GWB has one of the lowest approval ratings since Carter and Nixon. He is unpopular, his policies are unpopular, and he doesn't represent the will of the nation.

Great side step there. Actually, I don't like using statistics much either. I prefer things more concrete... and from sources other than the penny presses.

Great side step there. Actually, I don't like using statistics much either. I prefer things more concrete... and from sources other than the penny presses.In otherwords: If the stats don't line up with my opinion or conservative opinion they are a lie. But if the stats DO support My opinion and conservative spin then it's a FACT. Things aren't looking good for the conservative movement in the USA, so bashing the stats the Right has clung to through the Clinton years and the stats saying GW's win was a MANDATE and all the stats about how popular his policies were and all the stats about support for the war on Iraq and the war on immigrants and the stats about how much America feared Hussein and all the stats about the elections were....just "not concrete enough.":rolleyes: Typical rightwing revisionism. Your side was flooding the land with stats and polls but now that they've shown America doesn't want conservative policies it's a vast leftwing conspiracy!!:p

" or how ebola earned it's low numbers on the totem pole
:D LOL

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/23/washington/0123-nat-webBUSH.gif
Source. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/washington/23bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

How sad. He's at about the same level Nixon was at during Watergate. The trend will continue to drop, barring any future amazing, momentous, fucking great deeds of his. Like that'll happen.

Speaking of Nixon, his end-of-presidency approval rating was 24%. Conversely, Clinton's approval rating during and after the Lewinksy witch hunt seemingly never dropped below the mid 60s, and he left office with 65%. Reagan got 64%, and Kennedy got 63%. (Click (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml), click (http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_historical_approval.htm), and click (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicalcommentary/a/historical_prez.htm).)

It seems Bush will be remembered as one of the least popular presidents in US history.

Discuss.

Only bashers and haters care about popularity.

In short, who cares???

Yes, it is compelling. But ask yourself .....who paid for those polls? And then ask yourself why they paid for the polls? Did they have an agenda that they wished to convey? Were they totally, completely without bias? Hmm? Baron, everyone I talk to in the USA is unhappy with Bush.

Only bashers and haters care about popularity.

In short, who cares???If the graph was about a non rightist would you feel the same? I think not. Though I'll remember this post so that when President Clinton's ratings slip somewhere in her term you'll know better than to post a graph showing her slip in popularity.:D

If the graph was about a non rightist would you feel the same? I think not. Though I'll remember this post so that when President Clinton's ratings slip somewhere in her term you'll know better than to post a graph showing her slip in popularity.:D

Tip Buckaroo.

It does not matter who is the president it is meaningless to discuss popularity.

You cannot be that dumb not to recognize why!

Tip Buckaroo.

It does not matter who is the president it is meaningless to discuss popularity.

You cannot be that dumb not to recognize why!You wouldn't be saying that if Bush's ratings were up. Like I said, if the stats are on YOUR side they're true, if not, it doesn't matter anyway:rolleyes: It's a lie.....

He's right.
The presidency is a huge popularity contest to mislead you.
You as a communist should know that.
But I understand that as a fag, you'd be easily distracted with all the girly popularity shit.

He's right.
The presidency is a huge popularity contest to mislead you.
You as a communist should know that.
But I understand that as a fag, you'd be easily distracted with all the girly popularity shit.Actually the gay thing is never part of my political thinking and never has been. It comes up as often as you think of heterosex.
I won't report you for the nasty gaybashing. Breeders are like cavemen when it comes to social interaction with non cave dwellers.

It comes up as often as you think of heterosex.

Constantly and without respite?

I won't report you for the nasty gaybashing.

:mad:

Constantly and without respite?



:mad:Nevermind. I will.

Nevermind. I will.

Gay.

Only bashers and haters care about popularity.

In short, who cares???

This, coming from one of the forums' regular bashers and haters of liberals?

Why am I not surprised?

This, coming from one of the forums' regular bashers and haters of liberals?

Why am I not surprised?

That's ad hom and bullshit.
You know it.

Radicaland,
Who cares? You know Bush does. Incidently, we also have a representative government.

That's ad hom and bullshit.
You know it.

Riiiiight. Like he wouldn't care about a future Democratic president's popularity.

Radicaland,
Who cares? You know Bush does. Incidently, we also have a representative government.

And unfortunately for him, liberals have an equal right to voice their opinions.

Ath, it's Democrat President, not Democratic, unless you are a Democratic rather than a Democrat.

I kinda like that though, Ath the Democratic.

Ath, it's Democrat President, not Democratic, unless you are a Democratic rather than a Democrat.

I kinda like that though, Ath the Democratic.

well, it would be a change from the president we have now, then, wouldnt it?

Let's hope Cheney will run for president.

I would vote for him.

Oh wait, did you say CHENEY!???!?!?

Let's hope Cheney will run for president.

no way. i want Jerry Falwell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell

a man who has clearly seen the true diaper rash of baby jesus.

yeah, he is a winner.

how come the US is a breeding ground for these 'people'?

http://www.srichinmoysongs.com/images/people/jesus-christ-pic

http://www.srichinmoysongs.com/images/people/jesus-christ-pic
I wonder what his approval rating is.

Ath, it's Democrat President, not Democratic, unless you are a Democratic rather than a Democrat.

I kinda like that though, Ath the Democratic.

You can't say "a Democratic", because the word is an adjective, so it's like saying "a purple". And since when is the adjective for a Democrat not "Democratic"? :bugeye:

100%

he is perfect, remember?
*giggles maniacally*

Zombies are far from perfect. In fact, they are positively vile.

Zombies are far from perfect. In fact, they are positively vile.

especially this one:
http://www.paulepictures.com/images/music/robertsmith1.jpg

So it should be the Republicanic Party, according to your logic, ath.

The Maniac Party.

The Maniac Party.

in america, we call them assholes.

So it should be the Republicanic Party, according to your logic, ath.

Nope, because "Republican" happens to be both a noun and an adjective. Just like "vegetarian".

Oh, I see your point, how convenient that they get to say "we are democratic."

Oh, I see your point, how convenient that they get to say "we are democratic."

a republic is better than a democracy, any day.

And unfortunately for him, liberals have an equal right to voice their opinions.

Depends.
Ever hear of the Sedition Act?

Oh, I see your point, how convenient that they get to say "we are democratic."
Too Bad. The Dems got the word. Be sure to watch the DEMOCRATIC National Convention this summer! A gathering of the DEMOCRATIC Party!! Must suck to be you.:o

Oh, I see your point, how convenient that they get to say "we are democratic."

That is exactly why the CONS hate it.

The poll shows exactly what pollsters wanted it to show ...nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who believes polls is probably among the most gullible people on Earth.

Baron Max

Indeed. A recent poll showed that most people don't trust polls.

I think I saw that one?


Is it the one that said a recent poll show most polls are inaccurate?

Anyways, read the fine print. Who was it conducted by?


The New York Times

Who hate's the administration/party regardless of the decision's made/not made


The New York Times.

In any polls, political or not, the people usually have a hope for which way the data will sway. And if they are aware of certain types of people are going a certain way they will usually seek those voting in there direction out.

It's like being a hockey fan and conducting your poll of favorite sports in Alberta.

The recent congressional elections are supporting evidence for Bush's low approval ratings. Not just one poll was cited, but about a dozen, all agreeing on the same basic trend- America is not happy with Bush, specifically Iraq. The New York Times is not biased against Bush, that meme is part of their Media War.

The recent congressional elections are supporting evidence for Bush's low approval ratings.

And all this time I thought the people were electing congressmen, not trying to voice opinions about the war or the president! Shame on me for thinking elections are about electing government representatives! :D

Not just one poll was cited, but about a dozen, all agreeing on the same basic trend- ....

Who paid for the polls? And what's their stance on the war and President Bush? Follow the money, Spider.

Baron Max

Bush is a loser, barely more than a quarter of the population thinks he's doing a good job. Deal with it.

Bush is a loser, barely more than a quarter of the population thinks he's doing a good job.

Prove it ....without using polls! :D

Baron Max

Bush reads the polls, too. I guarantee Rove is all over that every day. Polls can be fairly accurate if proper methods are used. You are trying to refute facts you find unappealing through feigned ignorance.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, ......
Some things don't have to be proven in a court of law with tons of evidence and videotapes, etc., ya' know?

Baron Max

Bush reads the polls, too.

He claims that he doesn't, so why shouldn't I believe him?

Polls can be fairly accurate if proper methods are used.

I agree. Properly conducted polls can and do show accurate results.

Do you know of any political-related polls that follow those proper methods???? If so, please give me a list, and show evidence that they follow "proper methods".

Follow the money, Spider, and you simply can't go wrong.

Baron Max

You wouldn't be saying that if Bush's ratings were up. Like I said, if the stats are on YOUR side they're true, if not, it doesn't matter anyway:rolleyes: It's a lie.....

I take it back. You are that dumb.

I could care less if Bush's popularity were 100%. The same as I could care less if a leftist's popularity were 0%.

This, coming from one of the forums' regular bashers and haters of liberals?

Why am I not surprised?

You have a right to your opinion.

Radicaland,
Who cares? You know Bush does. Incidently, we also have a representative government.

I think Bush may care to some extent. But not to the extent that you think, if he really cared as much as you think he did. There would be no more troops in Iraq at this very moment.

And, I have no idea where the representative government statement came from. I never said we didn't. Perhaps, I am missing something with this.

I take it back. You are that dumb.

I could care less if Bush's popularity were 100%. The same as I could care less if a leftist's popularity were 0%.Duly noted. I'll remember this post when you start popping up with polls and stats supporting righties.

Riiiiight. Like he wouldn't care about a future Democratic president's popularity.



And unfortunately for him, liberals have an equal right to voice their opinions.

As to the first statement, distinguish the difference between a democratic president and an undemocratic president, with few exceptions (Johnson, Johnson, Ford, etc) all president are elected. So, not sure where you are going with that. But good luck anyway!!!

Yes, marxists have an equal right to voice their opinions. But you seem to forget that I have an equal right to disagree or not respond to it at all. Mostly, I just don't respond. If I had a dollar for every time I wanted to respond, I would be rich. But why waste time?

Duly noted. I'll remember this post when you start popping up with polls and stats supporting righties.

I will warn you, though, if you hold your breath waiting for it, you will expire before it happens.

Duly or unduly, note it all you want.

I've been providing an argument, but y'all don't seem to want to listen; follow the money!

Max, you are such a moron, I keep telling you, but you don't listen:

Using your logic, if Fox News orders a poll they should get favorable numbers for the prez, because you follow the money, and FN is on the prez's side. But they got the same numbers than Dan Rather, so you just have to trust 15 different polling agencies...

Also these agencies depend on INDEPENDENCE, thus they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were messing with the numbers. How would we know it? The law of averages you moron. If one agency reports always favorable numbers contrary to the others' numbers they will lose credit...

Max, you are a sad pathetic apologist... You haven't learnt anything from me..

Depends.
Ever hear of the Sedition Act?

Whatever act it was that John (Quincy?) Adams and the fifth Congress enacted, forbidding people from speaking out against their country and such? I believe that was repealed when Adams left office. Am I wrong?

Too Bad. The Dems got the word. Be sure to watch the DEMOCRATIC National Convention this summer! A gathering of the DEMOCRATIC Party!! Must suck to be you.:o

I heard that convention isn't open to the general public, and only delegates are able to get in. Do I hear wrong?

Anyways, read the fine print. Who was it conducted by?


The New York Times

No one has argued against that.

Who hate's the administration/party regardless of the decision's made/not made


The New York Times.

Before you continue: Is this all a part of your media conspiracy theory?

In any polls, political or not, the people usually have a hope for which way the data will sway. And if they are aware of certain types of people are going a certain way they will usually seek those voting in there direction out.

It's like being a hockey fan and conducting your poll of favorite sports in Alberta.

Nope. It's a randomized sample. Nice try.

I could care less if Bush's popularity were 100%. The same as I could care less if a leftist's popularity were 0%.

Then I suppose the only thing we can do is take your word for it. *Shrugs*

You have a right to your opinion.

Such an honor!

I think Bush may care to some extent. But not to the extent that you think, if he really cared as much as you think he did. There would be no more troops in Iraq at this very moment.

So he's acting against the will of the people now?

As to the first statement, distinguish the difference between a democratic president and an undemocratic president, with few exceptions (Johnson, Johnson, Ford, etc) all president are elected. So, not sure where you are going with that. But good luck anyway!!!

You've yet to show the relevancy of that outburst.

Yes, marxists have an equal right to voice their opinions. But you seem to forget that I have an equal right to disagree or not respond to it at all. Mostly, I just don't respond. If I had a dollar for every time I wanted to respond, I would be rich. But why waste time?

Well it's a good thing you came out and declared this. Sometimes with neocons, it's hard to tell whether they actually think liberals have the right to voice their opinion. They certainly don't act like it sometimes. This, combined with their general disregard for a few other rights can make any proper man skeptical of just about any neocon.

Also, you seem to have toned down your rabid polemics, if only a bit. Spider must be doing a good job. :)

Whatever act it was that John (Quincy?) Adams and the fifth Congress enacted, forbidding people from speaking out against their country and such? I believe that was repealed when Adams left office. Am I wrong?



I heard that convention isn't open to the general public, and only delegates are able to get in. Do I hear wrong?



No one has argued against that.



Before you continue: Is this all a part of your media conspiracy theory?



Nope. It's a randomized sample. Nice try.



Then I suppose the only thing we can do is take your word for it. *Shrugs*



Such an honor!



So he's acting against the will of the people now?



You've yet to show the relevancy of that outburst.



Well it's a good thing you came out and declared this. Sometimes with neocons, it's hard to tell whether they actually think liberals have the right to voice their opinion. They certainly don't act like it sometimes. This, combined with their general disregard for a few other rights can make any proper man be skeptical of just about any neocon.

Also, you seem to have toned down your rabid polemics, if only a bit. Spider must be doing a good job. :)Not sure about political convention rules. I've only gone to protest outside and heckle delegates as they enter & exit.

What do you heckle them about?

What do you heckle them about?Depends on the Party convention, the candidates and the issues. In the 80's we protested Reagan, his policies and inaction during the AIDS epidemic.
Protested Clinton for support of Israel, US involvement in the Balkans and NAFTA. This round I'm going to Minneapolis to protest the REpublican convention. (A liberal very pro union city) I want a sign with Foley's picture and the words; "Do I make you a little horny?" Followed by; "Republican Family Values." And shout in their faces how many more soldiers they plan to kill in their war, etc.
Just a few examples.

Max, you are a sad pathetic apologist...

Good post, but I think "polemicist" is a better term. A polemicist is one who argues, attacks, or tries to refute. An apologist is one who defends against such attacks. We're the apologists, not Baron.

Depends on the Party convention, the candidates and the issues. In the 80's we protested Reagan, his policies and inaction during the AIDS epidemic.
Protested Clinton for support of Israel, US involvement in the Balkans and NAFTA. This round I'm going to Minneapolis to protest the REpublican convention. (A liberal very pro union city) I want a sign with Foley's picture and the words; "Do I make you a little horny?" Followed by; "Republican Family Values." And shout in their faces how many more soldiers they plan to kill in their war, etc.
Just a few examples.

What an active activist you are. :)

Sounds like fun. I like the idea for the sign. Good luck at the Repugs' convention. :m:

What an active activist you are. :)

Sounds like fun. I like the idea for the sign. Good luck at the Repugs' convention. :m:It feels sooo good after years of their high & mighty bs to get in their faces. I always wear conservative looking clothes so I don't get rounded up and put in the protest pens, out of sight of convention goers. If you saw me I could pass for an evangelical. Clean cut, short blond hair, etc. That got me front row at a Bush 1 appearance in St. Louis where I got to scream into some faces that weren't accustomed to being disagreed with. Of course no signs on those missions! But it does feel good. Then you can network with other activists and party like it's 1999 afterward!!! Only been arrested twice in 18 years of activism.:D

As a wannabe activist, I must say I look up to your activism, and I hope to emulate it. Keep it up. :)

Also these agencies depend on INDEPENDENCE, thus they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were messing with the numbers.

Yeah, and a war between pollsters would also shoot all of them in the foot. Then no one would believe any of the polls, so they'd ALL be out of work.

If one agency reports always favorable numbers contrary to the others' numbers they will lose credit...

Yep, exactly! Which is why they all try to stay fairly close to each other. A war between pollsters would be bad business for all of them.

It would something similar to MacDonalds coming out and claiming that BurgerKing hamburgers weren't good for you. What do you think BurgerKing would have to say about that? So ...in the interest of all of them making good money, none of them denigrate the other.

Follow the money ...who pays for the polls? Who pays for most of the polls?

Baron Max

Yep, exactly! Which is why they all try to stay fairly close to each other. A war between pollsters would be bad business for all of them.

Long live the great pollster conspiracy!!! Man, you are stupid....

I know, you are not going to be able to follow, but here is a logical reduction proving that the actual numbers are less favorable to the prez:

1. We established that there is no liberal bias in the media, because most media owned by big corporations.
2. You are actually right on following the money.

Thus:

3. If pollsters want to kiss their costumers (big corporation) butts, they report rosier picture than it is in reality.

Good post, but I think "polemicist" is a better term. A polemicist is one who argues, attacks, or tries to refute. An apologist is one who defends against such attacks. We're the apologists, not Baron.

I tend to disagree:

"Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist or an "apologete".

He has systematicly deffended his position that pollsters lie. No matter what evidence or logical argument you throw at him. Thus he is an apologist...

Whatever act it was that John (Quincy?) Adams and the fifth Congress enacted, forbidding people from speaking out against their country and such? I believe that was repealed when Adams left office. Am I wrong?

I'm talking about the 1918 Sedition Act, an amendment to the 1917 Espionage Act.