**UPDATE** CNN Removes Palin From Criminals List
Showing they have no sense of morality, no grasp of corruption and no understanding of what defines a criminal, CNN gives us another one of those ubiquitous year in review stories, this one titled "Politicians who fell from grace in 2008." In this one, CNN has decided to reveal for us their top eight politicians that found 2008 to be a "career-buster" because of their "crimes and misdemeanors" or their outrageous controversies.
CNN features corruption mired Rod Blagojevich, the sex crazed Elliot Spitzer and John Edwards, and the criminal bribe taker Ted Stevens among four others. Each of these men in the CNN list have either been convicted of criminal actions, are indicted for corruption, lost their positions, been drummed out of their party, or are soon to face jail time. Among these eight criminals, however, is a name that doesn't belong among this class of serial abuser of the public trust. It won't be shocking to note that among the worst sex criminals, bribe takers, liars and thieves in politics for 2008, CNN ridiculously included the name of Governor Sarah Palin.
Palin, however, has done nothing remotely like what these other political ner-do-wells have done. She did not take bribes, she did not indulge in sexual dalliances with co-workers or call girls, she did not get booted from her party or lose her job as Governor. She is not under indictment nor does she face jail time, yet CNN includes her in a list with Rob Blagojevich, John Edwards, Kwame Kilpatrick, Larry Langford, Tim Maloney, Elliot Spitzer and Ted Stevens.
This CNN slide show is based on the idea that these eight politicians have fallen from grace because of their criminal actions. Many of them have lost their political office either by being thrown out, voted out or having resigned. Some of them are about to go to jail and nearly all of them took bribes and illicit freebies and then made false statements to investigators as well as filing false tax statements. Seven of these politicians are criminals and right there, before our eyes, CNN has Sarah Palin among them.
Of course, there is no legitimate reason at all to lump Sarah Palin among these creeps as she has done nothing even remotely like what they have done. Each of the other seven at the very least have been disowned by their party. None of them could rally 10 people to their side should they try to make a public appeal. On the other hand, Palin has been an in demand participant in rallies all across the country as well as a sought after media guest.
Just this past December, for instance, Palin was asked to go to Georgia to rally voters to return Senator Saxby Chambliss to office in a runoff election. This request was fully a month after she lost her bid to become vice president on the McCain ticket, yet Chambliss has repeatedly said that he won the reelection in part because she rallied the voters to his side. If Palin had a "fall from grace" as CNN claims, how was this possible?
Palin is even supposedly an odds on favorite to be nominated president in 2012! How is that evidence of her being disgraced in 2008?
Now, let's have a quick review what the other seven have done:
- Rob Blagojevich (D-IL)- Caught in a criminal bribe taking pay-to-play scheme to sell Barack Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder
- John Edwards(D-NC)- Had an affair with an underling as his wife was dying of cancer, an affair he hid from public knowledge as he ran for president
- Kwame Kilpatrick (D-MI)- Sentenced to 4 months in jail for obstruction of justice for impeding a criminal investigation into his actions as Detroit's mayor
- Larry Langford (D-AL)- Birmingham, Alabama mayor arrested on charges of bribery, fraud, money laundering and filing a false income tax statement
- Tim Mahoney (D-FL)- Replaced sex crazed Rep. Mark Foley in Florida while hiding his own extra-marital affairs from the voters, then lost his bid for reelection once the truth came out
- Elliot Spitzer (D-NY)- Caught with a prostitute, lost his job as governor of New York
- Ted Stevens (R-AK)- Faces jail for bribery and making false statements to the feds
How does Sarah Palin fit in with these criminals and scum? Well, truth is, she does not. Yet CNN placed her among these criminals anyway and termed her a disgraced politician!
The only thing "exposed" here is CNN's hate for Palin, its leftist agenda to destroy her and its extreme bias.
**UPDATE** CNN Removes Palin From Criminals List - 1/5/09
So, wonder of wonders, I get an email from a reader that informs me that Governr Sarah Palin's name no longer appears on the CNN criminal politician list. They have removed her name as if they had never put it there at all!
Of course, we can claim victory over bias in this case. You may not like Sarah Palin -- in fact some even here hate her guts -- but to say she belongs grouped with criminals like Ted Stevens, Kwame Kilpatrick, Rod Blagojevich and Elliot Spitzer is just idiotic.
Perhaps enough negative feedback was received by CNN for this obvious case of bias in the media to be exposed?
(H/T conservathink.blogspot.com)
(Photo credit: Alaska state government website)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why...
January 4, 2009 - 07:37 ET by BillyHW...are journalists allowed to live?
The good thing
January 4, 2009 - 07:46 ET by Warner Todd HustonThe good thing about live journalists is that even the dumbest person has someone they can look down upon as inferior!
Touché
January 4, 2009 - 14:21 ET by BillyHW.
I got nuthin Mr. Huston, nuthin at all
January 4, 2009 - 07:47 ET by JWFI could occasionally figure out the liberal mind and then nail them with a snarky sarcastic really mean comment.
I am just as baffled as you sir.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Interesting that William
January 4, 2009 - 07:58 ET by MazziInteresting that William Jefferson (D) of LA did not make the cut. I guess that CNN needed the space to squeeze in some Republicans. Maybe embezzling $100k is just par for the course?
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
More interesting are the
January 4, 2009 - 09:19 ET by ThisnThatMore interesting are the CNN accusations agains Palin. Here's a summary from their link:
The RNC bought her clothes (which were afterwards given to charity or returned)
Accused of trying to get her brother-in-law fired (Alaska polititians then decided she violated ethics rules -- but this was overruled by the state personnel board - no ethics violations occured)
Sacked the public safety commissioner (lawmakers said she was perfectly within her rights to do this)
So, CNN couldn't even come up with a single issue against Palin -- yet, as you said, placed her as worse than Jefferson. I guess CNN doesn't think credibility is a marketable factor in the "news" business anymore -- or, they truly believe everyone takes their words at face value.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Sarah Palin’s problem ...
January 4, 2009 - 19:18 ET by needle...is that she has integrity; and that is a crime within the society of scumbags that make up the MSM. On the other hand, William “cool cash” Jefferson is cool by their standards, so he is not on the list of criminals.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Sarah Palin's "High Crimes"
January 4, 2009 - 19:25 ET by Free StinkerThese are capital crimes to the MSM.
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
don't forget
January 5, 2009 - 08:23 ET by AJBMuch better looking than Hillary... guess that's why she's a criminal.
Does anyone know if Palin's
January 5, 2009 - 13:01 ET by TailgunnerDoes anyone know if Palin's brother in law was ever fired? This is important.
If he's still working as a state trooper, even after all the political axe-grinding, this would undermine the left's claim that she abused her authority.
Palin's firing of the public safety commissioner then would have been upheld, as it eventually was, as a legitimate exercise of her authority as Governor.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Palin's only "crime" was
January 4, 2009 - 08:02 ET by NewsbusterbrownPalin's only "crime" was that she was at the bottom of the GOP ticket instead of at the top.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Amen to that comment
January 4, 2009 - 08:21 ET by tmullen20736I am part of the conservative party
I guess
January 4, 2009 - 09:00 ET by PopularTechIf you wanted to make it a landslide Obama win.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
UNPopularTech
January 4, 2009 - 09:34 ET by choselife3xWas unable to suppress the overwhelming urge to flatulate at the mention of Sarah Palin's name. Shall we look away or point and laugh?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Point and laugh
January 4, 2009 - 09:53 ET by BlondeThe Palin Derangement Syndrome on display is laughable.
Mitigating circumstances
January 4, 2009 - 10:01 ET by choselife3xIn all fairness, bongo bark hives are long lasting and quite painful. May have soured his disposition.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
PMS?
January 4, 2009 - 10:58 ET by PopularTechPalin Messiah Syndrome? As you can leave no comment alone in defense of your Messiah.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
*rolls eyes*
January 4, 2009 - 11:03 ET by BlondeYour continued hatred of things female, and women, is off the hook.
As is your insistence at putting words in people's comments which they never made.
Tiresome. Continue your flailing...no need for me argue with your continued spewing.
So the lies continue?
January 4, 2009 - 11:06 ET by PopularTechYour propaganda campaign to label me a woman hater is pathetic.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
UNPopularTech
January 4, 2009 - 11:18 ET by choselife3xSpins rapidly in clockwise circles and foams at the mouth in preparation to fly up his own arse.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
UNchosenlife3x
January 4, 2009 - 11:20 ET by PopularTechThat doesn't even make any sense.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
He gibbered
January 4, 2009 - 11:23 ET by choselife3xLMAO!
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
→ PMS
January 4, 2009 - 11:04 ET by Cool ArrowThat's Poptech Misogyny Syndrome.
Men cannot have PMS
January 4, 2009 - 11:07 ET by PopularTechI thought you knew that.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ Sure they can
January 4, 2009 - 11:12 ET by Cool ArrowInitials can stand for whatever their author intends.
But I wouldn't be so presumptuous of your intelligence as to think you knew that.
Wouldn't want to misoverestimate you.
No men cannot have PMS
January 4, 2009 - 11:15 ET by PopularTechThis is basic biology.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ Don't embarrass yourself
January 4, 2009 - 11:20 ET by Cool ArrowUh-oh, too late.
It was you who assigned new meaning to PMS. Remember "Palin Messiah Syndrome"
Now you're saying the letters "PMS" cannot be assigned alternate meaning?
You have contradicted yourself. You have embarrassed yourself.
Live with it.
Basic Biology
January 4, 2009 - 11:22 ET by PopularTechYou took Biology right?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
The question should be: Did
January 4, 2009 - 11:29 ET by thebutlerdiditThe question should be: Did pop tech take reading comprehension.
→ Not likely
January 4, 2009 - 11:35 ET by Cool ArrowFor certainly, sometime in his life, he would have read the following advice:
No I took Biology
January 4, 2009 - 11:44 ET by PopularTechI don't know about Cool though.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ Junior!!!
January 4, 2009 - 11:49 ET by Cool ArrowYou better go upstairs and tell the real PopTech you've been on his computer making a dunce out of him.
Not Possible
January 4, 2009 - 12:13 ET by PopularTechPassword Protected.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Unfortunately for UNPop
January 4, 2009 - 11:11 ET by choselife3xThe nervous anticipation of a whuppin only increases the odor and frequency of his embarrassing problem.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
UNchoselife
January 4, 2009 - 11:17 ET by PopularTechI am not the one with the embarrassing problem.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Everyone please
January 4, 2009 - 11:25 ET by choselife3xAvert your eyes. UNPop is attempting to be witty. No one should have to see that.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
hi C
January 4, 2009 - 11:29 ET by botghow are you this fine morning?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Brucie Baby
January 4, 2009 - 11:37 ET by choselife3xJust fine and dandy. You're looking quite handsome this morning. Is that a new red velvet smoking jacket?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
actually my dear departed
January 4, 2009 - 11:40 ET by botgactually my dear departed mother made it for me years ago
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I like it
January 4, 2009 - 11:46 ET by choselife3xMuch more becoming to your complexion than what you were wearing when we met.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Rest assured PT, the people
January 4, 2009 - 19:40 ET by needleRest assured PT, the people who support Palin would/should never accept the name of the Messiah to be abused in connection with Palin. Christians who strive to follow Christ know that they are certainly not Christ, or they are loons and do not know what they are talking about.
You may have bought the MSM line about Palin, but at this site at least please refrain from abusing the name of the Messiah, like some Obama supporters shamefully do.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
choselife-3
January 4, 2009 - 11:11 ET by PopularTechI'm not the one with gas.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Oh dear
January 4, 2009 - 11:28 ET by choselife3xUNPopularTech appears to be developing a stutter.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
A stutter?
January 4, 2009 - 11:32 ET by BlondeHope it's not like the one Sheryl had the other day!
I laughed so hard at that...and RD was right, it was a NB record....positively epic.
Silly servers.
cl3x
January 4, 2009 - 11:33 ET by sherylsimsHe is going to have to try a lot harder than that to qualify as a stutter every since MY stutter on Jan 1. Remember that? I went down in the history books! I was FAMOUS I tell ya!
Famous sheryl!
January 4, 2009 - 11:42 ET by BlondeYou are a NB icon (see above).
Really, you ought to put a link to that little episode in your bio...I've been here for quite a while, and have seen some wierd doubles, but that one was new to me.
Quite
January 4, 2009 - 11:50 ET by choselife3xI've never been complimented with such rapid fire enthusiasm. It was almost embarassing. *blushes modestly*
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Great idea Blonde
January 4, 2009 - 11:53 ET by sherylsimsIt is what I will be known for her years from now... people will say, "Ah yes, there was PopTech with his impressive links, and SHERYL with her impressive posts!!!" I was pretty mortified at the time, I have been trying to pass myself off here as NOT a moron, but that day the mask almost slipped a little. (Only I still maintain it wasn't me... it was my drunken computer)
See!!!!!
January 4, 2009 - 11:59 ET by BlondeWe can laugh at ourselves...it's why we're conservatives.
Maybe you should use the tagline "Don't make me repeat myself!"
P.S. A hint....keep the alcoholic beverages at least an arm's length from the computer. You can't tempt them that way.
Perfect tagline Blonde...
January 4, 2009 - 12:03 ET by sherylsims... now I just have to figure out how to do that (and link the post into it)
Sheryl...I'll pm you
January 4, 2009 - 12:06 ET by BlondeHey there BFF!
January 4, 2009 - 12:06 ET by choselife3xYou look like a million posts this morning! New haircut?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Bff
January 4, 2009 - 12:10 ET by sherylsimsWorking on looking like the rest of the "cool kids" who ALL have taglines!
DON'T make me repeat myself!
Not Me
January 4, 2009 - 11:48 ET by PopularTechI'm not the one who stuttered.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
UNPop
January 4, 2009 - 11:55 ET by choselife3xKept linking away desperately in a futile effort to get the attention of his true love, Blonde. Alas, she spurns his slavish devotion with contumely.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
NOlife
January 4, 2009 - 12:18 ET by PopularTechIs that why she follows me around? The truth comes out!
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
just monitoring the
January 4, 2009 - 12:24 ET by botgjust monitoring the spam
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Reading impaired as always
January 4, 2009 - 12:33 ET by BlondeThis is rich.
And what to my wondering eyes should appear as I logged onto NB this a.m.?
A request from PopTech (yet again) to add me to his buddy list.
As if.
As UNPop
January 4, 2009 - 12:44 ET by choselife3xTakes a break to look 'spurn' and 'contumely' up in the dictionary, let us pass the hat to cover his spamming management therapy.
With our love and support, he may be able to overcome his crippling Palin handicap and LIGHTEN UP.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
not to worry pt
January 4, 2009 - 12:41 ET by larry on LIjuan mcshame did a great job on that issue.
This proves again
January 4, 2009 - 08:02 ET by BobAnthonyABOUT PLACES LIKE CNN (Even Fox News) THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAINSTREAM MEDIA! Internet radio services ARE THE NEW MEDIA! NOT FED BY FOREIGN OIL MONEY AND PEOPLE LIKE SOROS, TURNER, AILES, ET AL.
The Constitution is NOT a conspiracy theory and the founding fathers are NOT conspiracy theorists!
Frightened.
January 4, 2009 - 08:11 ET by Red JeepI guess one conclusion regarding the way the MSM is treating Sarah Palin is she frightened the heck out of them, so much so, they think they have to destroy her public image so she never runs for national office again.
Partially Correct
January 4, 2009 - 08:18 ET by kdoliverRed--I think you are partially correct. She definitely scared them. However, there is a bigger force driving the libs when it comes to putting her on this list. They don't like her. As with any liberal group (read emotional, not logical) when you don't like something it has to be bad.
When you combine being scared of and then not liking it must be REALLY Bad.
http://thelazytriath...
Getting warmer...
January 4, 2009 - 08:54 ET by moderncommentaries83You are getting there. I agree with both of you that Palin scared the sh*t out of liberals, and that they really don't like her. But both of you forget to answer the question WHY don't they like her?
Liberals/Democrats think they own certain groups: women, minorities, gays, etc. and that members of these groups HAVE to vote the party line all the time because, well, liberals will protect and care for them more than those eeeeeevvvvvvillllll conservatives will!
When a member of one of these groups is or, worse yet, becomes a conservative/Republican after being a liberal, it makes them go crazy.
Liberals engaged quite frequently in what a good shrink would call projection: they accuse conservatives of harboring the negative qualities they actually possess. They tell us conservatives hate women, minorities, gays, etc., and that conservatives want to shred the Constitution, and that conservatives will take away all your freedoms and force you all to think alike.
When, in reality, it is liberals who hate women and minorities and gays (see any hate mail written to or blog posts about a female, black, or gay conservative), liberals who have no grasp of the Constitution (see all that "separation of church and state" blather), and liberals who want to take away your freedoms (in the name of environmentalism, peace, etc.) and force you to think alike (see their treatment of anyone who disagrees with them on any issue).
So they hate and are afraid of Sarah Palin because she's a woman who stepped outside their cozy little liberal farm. She has many children, one of whom has Downs, and works - something liberals always said they wanted for women, until a successful conservative comes along...then suddenly we're supposed to be stay-at-home mothers or we're bad parents. She doesn't think like they do. She has a belief in God, understands the Constitution, and understands freedom isn't free and our enemies won't forgive us if we're all singing Kumbaya.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
They hate her because she's
January 4, 2009 - 11:16 ET by GrannyGrump42They hate her because she's an apostate that doesn't worship the great god of Abortion, neither to rid herself of a "defective" baby nor to rid her teenage daughter of an unplanned offspring.
The one and only unforgivable sin to a Leftist is failure to embrace abortion. You can club baby harp seals, hunt gays for sport, deforest the Amazon, and dump a gazillion gallons of antifreeze into the city water supply, as long as you maintain your "prochoice" credentials.
I couldn't agree more, Granny.
January 4, 2009 - 14:12 ET by 5kidsnadogLiberal women were the most negative about Sarah. I think it's because she's not only pro-life, but she's walking the talk. Given that 90% or more Downs babies conceived are aborted, these women are given the choice of questioning their OWN choices, or criticizing Sarah's. They don't like the reminder of what they've done -- that baby needs to stay in their memory as just a collection of defective cells, and they don't want to think about it as anything else. Sarah's daughter's pregnancy also indicated a dedication to life despite the fact that an early abortion would have saved lots of criticism of her parenting. Interesting that many on the left, who advocate like crazy for teen sexual interaction saw it as a failure on Sarah's part. If Sarah's family had been Democrat, chances are no one would have been the wiser as the baby never would have made it past the eighth week.
→ Great post
January 4, 2009 - 14:17 ET by Cool ArrowThanks, I knew all the stuff you just said was true, but ain't no way I coulda' said it as good.
Bully or skank, you decide
January 4, 2009 - 08:29 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsIf you think of the various news organizations as the equivalent of a high school class, would CNN be the equivalent of the class bully or the class skank? After all, CNN will 'put out' for any Democrat and will 'beat up' any Republican.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
This is such crap! I live in
January 4, 2009 - 08:34 ET by thebutlerdiditThis is such crap! I live in Georgia, and I can attest to the fact that there were thousands of people at the rallys in GA that Palin came to, and it was a very cold day. I went to one, and people were screaming for her like a rock star. People had hundreds of signs, and very few said Chambliss on them, they were all for Palin. Saxby was smart enough to just speak for a few minutes, and then turned the whole thing over to her, you would think he was the one there supporting her, if you didn't know differently. Considering how tired people were of politics when the runoff came, most pols couldn't get very many people to come out, but she did, like her or not.
"...and people were screaming for her like a rock star"
January 4, 2009 - 09:06 ET by PopularTech...oh no
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Yeah, I know, PT. It did get
January 4, 2009 - 09:14 ET by thebutlerdiditYeah, I know, PT. It did get a little past weird. Like I have said umpteen times, I like her, but I don't freak at the sight of any pol or actor, or rock star.To me, the really strange part was the fact how many people came from other states to see her. It was our run-off election, not theirs.
Of course they had to make
January 4, 2009 - 08:43 ET by motherbeltOf course they had to make an attempt to "balance" Democrat vs. Republican, in order to show that "both sides" do it.
→ This is CNN
January 4, 2009 - 08:45 ET by Cool ArrowThe most busted name in news.
Is there one independent mind over there?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Wow, that is so desperate
January 4, 2009 - 08:48 ET by choselife3xIt's almost funny.
Do ya think all these loony libs are sleeping with the light on so Sarah won't get them?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
CNN is so clueless
January 4, 2009 - 08:57 ET by PopularTechThe money they spent on her for clothing and her "scandal" about her abusive ex-brother in law who used a taser on his 10-year old son did nothing negative for her. Nobody especially women cared. If anything if Palin came out and said she tried to get him fired because of this, more women would have voted for her. But seriously I don't know of any women who cared that she wore nice clothing either. This was just laughable.
Her issues are the same as before, her daughter being pregnant and her disasterous interviews. The public saw these and said no.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I agree w/you PT that
January 4, 2009 - 09:43 ET by SeashellI agree w/you PT that Palin's interviews were not so good, but the interview w/Couric you show here (I think) Palin probably answered in the best way she could. If she had said she read the Times or the Post, Couric would have grilled her on "which journalists" or "editorialists" she reads, or which articles she read in which paper , etc. It would have become a real gotch ya moment, and to her credit, she realized that and avoided it as best as she could.
Best way she could?
January 4, 2009 - 11:05 ET by PopularTechNot even close. If she actually read it she could have answered The Wall Street Journal. Questions do not come any easier than this.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
UNPop
January 4, 2009 - 10:05 ET by choselife3xRips another one and sighs with relief.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
60 million said Yes
January 4, 2009 - 10:54 ET by CobraMan"The public saw these and said no."
I hate to burst your bubble, Pop, but almost 60 million people said YES! That's not a number that can be easily dismissed.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
As much as John Kerry Got?
January 4, 2009 - 11:02 ET by PopularTechAmazing
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
It IS amasing
January 4, 2009 - 11:21 ET by CobraManIt's 10 million more than Al Gore received, and even more than Reagan received. That's VERY amazing, don't you agree?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Amazing?
January 4, 2009 - 11:24 ET by PopularTechNo I don't find getting less than the votes John Kerry got 4 years ago amazing.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
You just don't like Palin
January 4, 2009 - 11:36 ET by CobraManThen put it this way: it's only two million less votes than President BUSH received.
Face the facts, Pop. Palin is far more popular than you admit, or even accept.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
So is John Kerry
January 4, 2009 - 12:11 ET by PopularTechPalin is less popular than John Kerry
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ Shoulda' known
January 4, 2009 - 13:27 ET by Cool ArrowI shoulda' known "popular" would be your determinant for fitness to lead.
Does this impress you?
January 4, 2009 - 11:47 ET by CobraManDoes this impress you?
"Following the presidential election, 69% of Republicans felt Palin had helped John McCain's bid, while 20% felt Palin hurt. In the same poll, 71% of Republicans stated Palin had been the right choice."
Source
Note that the source cites the post-election Rasmussen poll results.
It looks like you're in the minority here, Pop.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Palin cost McCain the Election
January 4, 2009 - 12:08 ET by PopularTechPoll: Sarah Palin Caused John McCain To Lose Election
- 82% of viewers believed Sarah Palin Caused John McCain To Lose Election
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
The falling economy caused McCain to lose..
January 4, 2009 - 12:14 ET by upcountrywaterFREEDOM
(D)
UNPopularTech
January 4, 2009 - 12:16 ET by choselife3xCombated his raging insomnia by counting stupid sheeple until it drove him bonkers. He now sleeps peacefully every night after the orderly forces meds down his throat.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
DON'T make me repeat repeat
January 4, 2009 - 12:36 ET by sherylsimsDON'T make me repeat repeat myself myself!
LOVE IT!!!!
January 4, 2009 - 13:00 ET by choselife3xIn order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Perfect!
January 4, 2009 - 13:05 ET by Blondeyourself yourself.
LOL.
Perfect!
January 4, 2009 - 13:06 ET by RukusThat's a perfect tag Sheryl! The funniest part was you managed to get in your ":Ooops....double post" just before the last two repeats! Hilarious!
Gary
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
sheryl
January 4, 2009 - 13:10 ET by botgthat's marboulous, just marboulous
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Uh
January 4, 2009 - 13:14 ET by Warner Todd HustonAlright already!
Warner
January 4, 2009 - 13:17 ET by botgjust appropos en re the Sheryl link
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
This is definitily on topic
January 4, 2009 - 13:42 ET by PopularTechUnlike my original comments which were all on topic, this sort nonsense is perfectly acceptable. I take it all personal attacks against me are perfectly acceptable too?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
yes of course PDS is always
January 4, 2009 - 13:45 ET by botgyes of course PDS is always on topic
Lighten up Francis
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Nonsense? DON'T
January 5, 2009 - 10:02 ET by sherylsimsNonsense?
DON'T make me repeat repeat myself myself!
Time to change your tag, botg
January 4, 2009 - 13:14 ET by Blonde"Don't make sheryl repeat me"
B, yeah, someones deleting
January 4, 2009 - 13:19 ET by botgB, yeah, someones deleting me........
i'm melting...
i'm meeellltting
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
A CNN Poll? Please.
January 4, 2009 - 12:16 ET by fitzfongA CNN Poll? Please. Consider the source.
Much as you detest Sarah Palin (...not voting with my pants, blah, blah, blah), she is the only reason that corpse McCain didn't lose in a 50 state landslide. Had he chosen another RINO like he wanted to, a significant portion of Republicans would have stayed away from the polls. McCain cost McCain the election.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Quite fitz
January 4, 2009 - 12:25 ET by BlondeAnother RINO...or his other choice, the "independent" Joe Lieberman.
I truly admire Joe for his sticking by his friends (and his principles on Iraq)....but I think he'd have been a horrible choice as V.P. for McCain, which was a real possibility, I think.
"that corpse"....LOL.
59% of voters say Palin is not qualified
January 4, 2009 - 12:29 ET by PopularTech- 59% of voters say Palin is not qualified (Source)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Second Most Admired Woman
January 4, 2009 - 12:33 ET by CobraManGallop Poll shows Sarah Palin is the second most admired woman of 2008.
Source
Humm, How can that be if, according to you, she's not very popular?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Pop
January 4, 2009 - 12:37 ET by Noel SheppardPop,
After citing a CNN viewer poll, you reference an NYT/CBS poll?
All together now: PDS! PDS! PDS! PDS! :-) ns
Professional?
January 4, 2009 - 12:39 ET by PopularTechCarbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Psychotic?
January 4, 2009 - 12:48 ET by Noel SheppardPsychotic?
Pseudo-Intellectual
January 4, 2009 - 12:53 ET by CobraManMore likely pseudo-intellectual.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CM
January 4, 2009 - 13:03 ET by Noel SheppardCM,
Maybe, but Derangement Syndromes impact the intelligent as well as the addle-minded. What we saw in the past five-plus years with BDS, once afflicted, the patient loses all control of rational thought pertaining to the subject, and ignores facts that undermine his/her beliefs.
The same is true now for PDS, as once someone has it, there's really no reason to bother presenting facts for they will be ignored.
These Derangement Syndromes are pernicious and mentally debilitating. It's very sad. ns
Professionalism
January 4, 2009 - 13:33 ET by PopularTechLack of Professionalism to accept someone else opinion instead of personally attacking them seems to affect many here, including the staff.
Saying I ignore facts is laughable beyond belief.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Ignore? Maybe
January 5, 2009 - 13:53 ET by TailgunnerIgnore? Maybe not.
Manipulate? Fabricate?
Yes.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Really?
January 4, 2009 - 13:28 ET by PopularTechPlease explain which one of my comments was "Psychotic" and please don't forget to read the nice replies I received.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
UNPopularTech
January 4, 2009 - 12:58 ET by choselife3xThe tiny bantam cockerel fluttered desperately on the ground as the other members of the flock surrounded him and pecked him savagely. Finally the dominant rooster strutted over to finish off the little upstart.
That'll teach UNPop to pick fights in the barnyard.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
HA Ha Ha HA!
January 4, 2009 - 12:25 ET by CobraManYou're citing a CNN viewer poll! Ha Ha Ha HA! This is the same CNN who lumps Palin in with discredited and criminal politicians! Ha Ha Ha HA! You're just as bad as CNN!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Pop
January 4, 2009 - 12:35 ET by Noel SheppardPop,
You're citing a CNN viewer poll? Are you serious? And you think you're NOT suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome? Wow! ns
Palin gets destroyed in the Polls
January 4, 2009 - 13:27 ET by PopularTechPoll - 82% of believed Sarah Palin Caused John McCain To Lose Election (Source)
Poll - 80% of women voters believe McCain picked Palin for Political Reasons not Qualifications (Source)
Poll - 72% of voters say that McCain's choice of Palin did not make them inclined to vote Republican (Source)
Poll - 61% do not believe Sarah Palin is ready to serve as President (Source)
Poll - 60% of women under 50 have an unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin (Source)
Poll - 59% of voters say Sarah Palin is not qualified (Source)
Poll - 55% of voters say Sarah Palin is unqualified (Source)
Poll - 52% of women voters say Sarah Palin is not qualified (Source)
Poll - 51% view Sarah Palin unfavorably (Source)
Ouch
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
For the love of Obama
January 4, 2009 - 13:40 ET by choselife3xSomeone open the windows and turn on the fan!
UNPop's debilitating social problem grows ever more intense.....
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Personal Attack response to factual information
January 4, 2009 - 13:47 ET by PopularTechI rest my case.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Don't forget where you put it
January 4, 2009 - 14:01 ET by choselife3xSomething that minuscule is hard to see.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
CNN? CBS/NYT? ABC?
January 4, 2009 - 13:47 ET by fitzfongCNN? CBS/NYT? ABC? MSNBC? San Francisco Chronicle? EMILY's LIST?!?!?!?!?!?
Why didn't you include the NARAL poll? Did you forget the Al Jazeera poll? Didn't the Communist Party do a poll that suggested that American voters saw Palin as unfit? For someone who decries junk science as often as you do, you should be ashamed of the pathetic sourcing you've done here. Are you Giles Winterburne in disguise?
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Actually... Poll Sources
January 4, 2009 - 14:03 ET by PopularTechIt is...
CNN
Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group
San Francisco Chronicle
USA Today
The Pew Research Center
New York Times / CBS News
NBC News / Wall Street Journal
Quinnipiac University / Wall Street Journal
ABC News / Washington Post
I use all these sources in AGW Debates.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Garin-Hart-Yang Research
January 4, 2009 - 14:10 ET by fitzfongGarin-Hart-Yang Research Group
On behalf of EMILY's List. Yeah, I'll bet there were no sampling shenanigans in that poll. Never mind CNN, ABC/WaPo, CBS/NYT or USA Today...
Did you forget the poll conducted on deceased residents of Chicago? After all, at least they would qualify as "Likely Voters".
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Evidence?
January 5, 2009 - 10:56 ET by PopularTechAllegations but no evidence.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Your reference to
January 5, 2009 - 11:21 ET by fitzfongYour reference to Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group on the post without reference to EMILY's List underwriting the survey is evidence of deception on your part.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
LMAO - Deception?
January 5, 2009 - 12:24 ET by PopularTechEmily's List did not perform the survey. I will try to stop "deceiving" you by linking DIRECTLY to the sources.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
If Rathergate taught us
January 5, 2009 - 12:54 ET by fitzfongIf Rathergate taught us anything, it is that you consider the source of the information provided before accepting the assertions made as unvarnished truth. The survey was conducted ON BEHALF OF EMILY's List. It says so on your link. Do you honestly believe that EMILY's List would have commissioned a poll to be taken that contradicts their POV? And if it turned out that the poll they commissioned ellicited results that were at odds with their POV, do you think that they would have published the results? You're employing junk science to support your increasingly weak position.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
No Evidence
January 5, 2009 - 13:41 ET by PopularTechTo support any of your allegations.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I've just cornered you and
January 5, 2009 - 13:50 ET by fitzfongI've just cornered you and this is the best "defense" you can come up with? Have your cut man throw in the towel. You're finished.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Cornered?
January 5, 2009 - 14:58 ET by PopularTechIn your own mind. There is nothing to defend because none of your allegations are supported by anything.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
None of your allegations
January 5, 2009 - 16:09 ET by fitzfongNone of your allegations are supported by anything substantive, PopTech. The fact that you have cherry-picked some polls that you believe lend credence to your argument does not make your position correct...especially when you try to hide who is underwriting one of the surveys. Cherry-picked opinion polls do not constitute evidence of fact (they are small statistical samples subject to all forms of data corruption)...especially when the outfit commissioning the poll is a special interest group with dubious claims of objectivity. Garbage in, garbage out.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
16 Sources = My position
January 5, 2009 - 16:21 ET by PopularTechYour opinion = yours.
Obviously I have taken the polling questions I found relevant to my point, that is called supporting your position.
Over and over again lying that I did not link to the source is getting tiring.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Your 16 "sources" =
January 5, 2009 - 16:54 ET by fitzfongYour 16 "sources" = nothing. A handful of questionable polls conducted by organizations with agendas that benefit from producing the results that they did does not constitute evidence of support for your claim. Garbage in, garbage out. But since you seem to believe otherwise, perhaps I'll have to reconsider my position that the consensus "climate change" reports the UN routinely produces in support of its Global Warming claims are legitimate after all.
Over and over again lying that I did not link to the source is getting tiring.
Now you're just being boorish and dishonest. I did not say that you didn't link to the source...and you know it. I said that you have conveniently hidden the fact that a certain poll you used in "support" of your position was taken ON BEHALF OF EMILY's List. It is now obvious that you intended to deceive us all by claiming that the poll was conducted by some polling organization and then hoping that we did not follow the link to discover who was actually behind the poll. That's pathetic.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Again No evidence
January 5, 2009 - 17:16 ET by PopularTechTo support you allegations and repeating them does not make them any less unsupported.
I didn't hide anything, I linked directly to it. Your assertion is beyond laughable. Right I really waste time linking to things in hopes you don't read the sources - makes sense to me!
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
What "evidence" are you
January 5, 2009 - 18:44 ET by fitzfongWhat "evidence" are you looking for? By the way, here's a tip: copying and pasting dubious opinion polling data is not a substitute for reasoned analysis. Your weak position is not supported by any factual information, just unreliable polls. Your house is built on sand.
You did attempt to bury the fact that EMILY's List was behind that survey, and you know it. But repeat your lie often enough, and at least you may start to believe it.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Again no evidence
January 6, 2009 - 12:29 ET by PopularTechYour statements are not evidence of anything. No evidence that the polls are unreliable. My house is built on facts.
Your obsession with Emily's List is because it is a Pro-Choice group but your claim that I tried to hide something by linking directly to it is laughable. Since the abortion topic is so polarizing and causes some to not think objectively I am not surprised by your obsession with it. Regardless they did not perform the poll as any polarizing political group would do if they wanted the results to be taken seriously. If I wanted to hide something from you I would definitely not link directly to the website. So please get over it because I really don't care if you don't like the group you have yet to prove the data invalid. Keep lying.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Your statements and your
January 6, 2009 - 14:50 ET by fitzfongYour statements and your phony polls are evidence of nothing but a sad obsession with Sarah Palin. You have no evidence that the polls are reliable. Tell ya what...perhaps I'll take a poll of NB Members and ask them the same questions that EMILY's List asked their "sample"...the result would likely be the total opposite of the result that survey provided...and guess what, it would be just as accurate and just as scientific. You're presenting junk science as fact, and I have no doubt that you would deny the crediblity of these polling organizations on just about any other subject but this one...the one that suits you. This is known as situational ethics.
I have no obsession with EMILY's List. The reason I have focused on that point is because it is a glaring example of how I've blown your deception wide open for all to see.
Regardless they did not perform the poll as any polarizing political group would do if they wanted the results to be taken seriously. If I wanted to hide something from you I would definitely not link directly to the website. So please get over it because I really don't care if you don't like the group you have yet to prove the data invalid. Keep lying.
That is the stupidest, most wilfully ignorant statement you've made yet (and that's saying something). EMILY's List is interested only in promoting its own agenda...the suggestion that the organization is somehow concerned that issue might be taken with the objectivity of its polling methods is ridiculous on its face. In all likelihood, they'd take the PopTech approach..."uh, our polling methods and the results are accurate because we say they are and it's up to you to prove otherwise". They would present a built-in, rehearsed, boilerplate justification like you do. You have yet to prove that the data is valid...and they are not valid just because you say they are. Garbage in, garbage out. The only liar here is you. But keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
UNPop contradicts himself
January 4, 2009 - 13:53 ET by choselife3x"CNN is so clueless"
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Note that this time PT did
January 5, 2009 - 13:49 ET by TailgunnerNote that this time PT did NOT include the source (CNN) in his post.
He knew we would ignore it because CNN has NO credibility.
PopTech, I'm beginning to realize for myself what every other NB poster has probably known all along...that you are an annoyance and a waste of time.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Note I included ALL 16 of them
January 5, 2009 - 15:03 ET by PopularTechI provided a second source this time but included ALL 16 of them here, including CNN.
CNN may have no credibility to you but it is still a legitimate source.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Your mistake (or maybe
January 5, 2009 - 19:01 ET by TailgunnerYour mistake (or maybe not) in citing CNN, NYT, LAT, et al, is in believing these sources are interested in producing objective journalism rather than blatant liberal propaganda. It should be clear to any long-term visitor to NB that this is assuredly not the case.
Is al-Jazeera a 'legitimate' source? How about 'DPRK (North Korean) News'? The 'National Enquirer'? Would you 'link' to them as 'sources'?
I would hope not...but look who we're talking about here. Obviously, to you, anything on paper is a 'legitimate source'.
CNN has no credibility period. I wouldn't believe them if they told me my @ss was on fire.
And the one source that has any credibility, Fox News, published nothing that supports your highly misleading claim that '68% of voters are uncomfortable' with Governor Palin assuming the Presidency.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Mind Your D's and R's
January 4, 2009 - 09:01 ET by flyingmonkeyHey Warner, this looks like a MSM story. How about putting in some D's and R's to show just how unfair and unbalanced CNN is. With the exception of Stevens, the list reads like a Democratic convention program.
OK, can do. But, this one
January 4, 2009 - 09:14 ET by Warner Todd HustonOK, can do. But, this one wasn't really about party politics.
Mahoney
January 4, 2009 - 10:35 ET by okiehawk44WTH: It's Mahoney not Maloney and he's a DEMOCRAT who did not live in the district he represented -- sound familiar?
Ooops. fixed.
January 4, 2009 - 10:39 ET by Warner Todd HustonOoops. fixed.
I wonder if they are afraid
January 4, 2009 - 09:16 ET by thebutlerdiditI wonder if they are afraid she will come into their houses and steal their birth control and burn their books??
This is CNN
January 4, 2009 - 10:02 ET by sccSusan
This is CNN, the most BIASED name in news. Anyone who is so much hated by the MSM has to be doing something right. She does not even have to run for office. She will continue to be an itch that will never go away.
There comes a point
January 4, 2009 - 10:31 ET by sam.i.amwhere this level of bias ceases to be amusing. We are way past that point now.
Give a dog enough....
January 4, 2009 - 10:37 ET by jackie3Give a dog enough rope and they will hang themselves. Palin is the rope and the media is the dog. The more these idiots try to bash Palin the better she looks.
Palin certainly scares the crap out of the media. One would expect the media to simply not report anything about her. But the bias reporting is so lopsided people become curious about Palin and start to look at her as the underdog. Great big midea giants are roaring over this little tiny woman from Alaska. People wonder why?
The more they report, even if the story is negative, the more people hear the Palin name. In 4 more years Palin will be a household term at this rate.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
jackie3
January 4, 2009 - 10:47 ET by sherylsimsI think they are emboldened by the past 8 years their ability to make practically everyone in the country think that Bush is a moron simply by hammering it over and over. They focused on every little mistake and misspeak. They constantly reported everything he did from a negative standpoint, and it has worked. I fear that is what their agenda is where Sarah Palin is concerned. They do still have power over the idiotic masses. Unfortunately our school system hasn't done a very good job of teaching students to THINK.
CNN dead....
January 4, 2009 - 10:51 ET by ScrapironCNN is dead as a news organization. If the insane asylum's blocked them they would lose 50%+ of their viewers. Airport have CNN on all of the time so the passengers will be scared of something besides the coming flight. I'll say CNN has not been on in my home more than 5 minutes (by accident) in the past 5 years and the 'V' chip (to protect children from X rated sleeze and slime) is set to assure they are never on.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Does anybody actually watch CNN anymore?
January 4, 2009 - 11:10 ET by c5thenI thought they had changed their format to be strictly emtertainment related, sort of like E!
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
Her crime is failure to
January 4, 2009 - 11:12 ET by GrannyGrump42Her crime is failure to embrace abortion. That's the one Unforgivable Sin to the Left.
(Notice that the same people who embrace Planned Parenthood are calling Bristol Palin a slut. These are the people who want to force you to give your 12-year-old daughter the HPV vaccine because it's common knowledge that ALL girls past puberty have multiple STD-ridden sex partners. So exactly what qualifies Bristol as a slut? Evidently the only real sexual sin is failure to abort, or perhaps sticking with just one guy permanently.)
Nice one, Granny
January 4, 2009 - 11:17 ET by BlondeThat's good. Very good.
Doncha just love that leaping liberal illogic? You betcha!
If CNN was a legitimate
January 4, 2009 - 11:14 ET by fitzfongIf CNN was a legitimate news organization, they would have replaced Palin with William Jefferson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Al Bore or the biggest loser of all...Her Thighness.
This time last year she was effectively President-Elect Hillary Clinton (they probably already had an office of the President-Elect set up for her), but following an overconfident early primary campaign featuring crocodile tears, a failure to put away a rookie by Super Tuesday, massive debt, petty infighting among personnel, a disgraceful lie about landing under "sniper fire" and an inability to overcome the early caucus jump despite likely winning more primary voters than Obama, Hillary Rotten has been reduced to temporary seat warmer for Caroline Kennedy. How the "mighty" have fallen. Nevertheless, this is the Clinton "News" Network, so all honesty goes out the window.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Apology to Elitists
January 4, 2009 - 11:44 ET by Retired GeekElitism is a state of mind NOT privilege and wealth. Many wealthy people are not elitists and many elitists are not wealthy.
Liberal Elitists expect us to recognize their “superiority” and give them the special treatment they so richly deserve – not because of skill or what they have accomplished – but because of whom they are.
Everyone has known an elitist, they name drop and have pictures of themselves with some celebrity. They often live well above their means and own pretentious homes and cars. They pay to be listed in 'Who's Who' and have all sort of certificates hanging on their walls.
Elite feminists scream, Sarah Palin doesn't represent 'The American Woman', she didn't even allow her young to die in a dirty hospital utility room alone.
The Elitists 'real' problems with Sarah Palin are threefold - religion, her role as wife and mother and her 'commoness' in intellect.
We 'common folk' are truly sorry we embarrass you Elitists, maybe you can keep enlightening us.
Sarah Palin and us 'Commoners' embodies the things you detest most.
Nothing new in the world of CNN
January 4, 2009 - 11:53 ET by JimcinscI find it of no surprise whatsoever that one of the networks so deeply in the tank for Obama would relegate Sarah Palin to the ranks of the disgraced simply because she was on the losing ticket with McCain, who, if memory serves, was also CNN's darling during the Republican primaries.
I have not watched, nor will I watch CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, or ABC for news for quite a few years now. The 2008 presidential campaign showed up all of those networks as being nothing but loudspeakers for Democrat (read socialist) propaganda.
Fear
January 4, 2009 - 11:56 ET by rammingspeedFear drives CNN and the entire left to both keep Sarah Palin in the news and to condemn her. If she were nothing - a dead issue, no future threat - she'd be as gone as yesterday's garbage. The left knows she can hurt them bad - she did it in Georgia when the left was counting on getting 60 seats in the US senate - and they know she'll at least be a big time fund raiser for the GOP, if not a candidate who could actually win the presidency.
CNN is trying to "Dan Quale" Sarah Palin, and they're frustrated becasue they can't do it.
Wow.
January 4, 2009 - 12:17 ET by centurion2674I'm a recent new member of NB, but I've been reading the blogs & comments here for a while. I don't ever recall seeing such petty bickering before. Maybe I've missed it if it's happened, but today I thought I was on a LIBERAL blog for a minute. The people here a supposed to be informed, backup thier comments with facts, and hold a higher standard than the cheap one-liners and personal insults. Obviously I don't mean everybody, but you know who you are.
My Apologies
January 4, 2009 - 12:37 ET by PopularTechUnfortunately this is a typical reaction to my posts from certain members on this issue. I personally prefer facts.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Like this fact?
January 4, 2009 - 12:49 ET by CobraManLike that fact that Sarah Palin is the second most admired woman of 2008? Sarah Palin is second only to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary has been in the public eye for decades, far longer than Sarah.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
I like facts, always have
January 4, 2009 - 13:34 ET by PopularTechPoll - 82% of believed Sarah Palin Caused John McCain To Lose Election (Source)
Poll - 80% of women voters believe McCain picked Palin for Political Reasons not Qualifications (Source)
Poll - 72% of voters say that McCain's choice of Palin did not make them inclined to vote Republican (Source)
Poll - 61% do not believe Sarah Palin is ready to serve as President (Source)
Poll - 60% of women under 50 have an unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin (Source)
Poll - 59% of voters say Sarah Palin is not qualified (Source)
Poll - 55% of voters say Sarah Palin is unqualified (Source)
Poll - 52% of women voters say Sarah Palin is not qualified (Source)
Poll - 51% view Sarah Palin unfavorably (Source)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
LMAO!
January 4, 2009 - 13:46 ET by choselife3xIn order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Sorry, didn't have time
January 4, 2009 - 13:56 ET by 5kidsnadogto go through all of your polls, but it kind of cracked me up that the first three were CNN, Emily's list, and SFgate. Ummm, why don't you go to HuffPo if you really want unbiased polls of Republican nominees (or maybe that was further down the list?). Come on, you can't possibly believe that an Emily's list poll would be unbiased??? Baby snatchers in particular were the MOST offended by Palin as a nominee because it reminds many of them of the bad choices they've made....
Actual Sources
January 4, 2009 - 14:05 ET by PopularTechEmily's list didn't do any polls
Actual Sources:
CNN
Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group
San Francisco Chronicle
USA Today
The Pew Research Center
New York Times / CBS News
NBC News / Wall Street Journal
Quinnipiac University / Wall Street Journal
ABC News / Washington Post
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Every day on NB we read
January 4, 2009 - 16:45 ET by TailgunnerEvery day on NB we read examples of some of the most outrageously biased and dishonest leftwing garbage put out by CNN, WaPo, NYT, NBC, ABC, et al, and you come on here and ask us to accept their anti-Palin 'polls' as credible?
Give us a break, sir.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Polls are different from Editorial Bias
January 5, 2009 - 07:02 ET by PopularTechThose are not anti-Palin polls but ones that include questions about her that have results you wish did not exist.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Garbage in, garbage out
January 5, 2009 - 09:04 ET by fitzfongPolls are different from Editorial Bias
That is the dumbest, most naive statement I have read on this site in some time. If the coverage of the 2003 Recall Election taught us anything, it is that media organizations use polls to inject political bias as "objective news". In other words, the press uses polls to enable editorials to appear on the front page as "news". The LA Times got caught trying to affect the election with fraudulent polls oversampling Democrats to create the impression that Gray Davis was gaining ground. The only reason anyone noticed was because the Times results were so at odds with other polls at the time. If anything, the media learned that polls are a powerful weapon in determining electoral outcomes. Ever since then, news organizations like CNN have used phony polls with skewed data sets and misleading questions to induce the results they wish to report...and if the results don't satisfy, they bury the polls. Garbage in, garbage out. The polls you cite are unreliable. Deal with it.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
These 16 Polls I cite are reliable
January 5, 2009 - 09:26 ET by PopularTechYes polls can be worded to affect results but these questions are pretty straight forward. It is the results you don't like. The Polls were right about the election and so are these
Poll - 82% believed Sarah Palin caused John McCain to lose the election (CNN)
Poll - 81% of Independent Voters said they were less likely to vote for McCain because of Palin (Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg)
Poll - 80% of women voters believe McCain picked Palin for Political Reasons not Qualifications (Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group)
Poll - 79% of uncommitted voters did not believe Palin won the VP Debate (CBS News / Knowledge Networks)
Poll - 75% of likely voters did not believe Palin has the right experience to be president (AP / GfK)
Poll - 72% of voters say that McCain's choice of Palin did not make them inclined to vote Republican (San Francisco Chronicle)
Poll - 68% of voters said they were not very comfortable with Palin as President (FOX News / Opinion Dynamics)
Poll - 61% of voters did not believe Sarah Palin is ready to serve as President (USA Today / Gallup)
Poll - 60% of women under 50 have an unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin (The Pew Research Center)
Poll - 59% of voters said Sarah Palin is not qualified (New York Times / CBS News)
Poll - 57% of likely voters said Palin does not have the personal qualities a president should have (CNN / Opinion Research)
Poll - 56% of registered women voters trust Hillary Clinton more than Sarah Palin (Blum & Weprin Associates)
Poll - 55% of registered voters did not believe Palin is qualified to step in as president (Newsweek / Princeton Survey Research Associates)
Poll - 55% of voters said Sarah Palin is unqualified (NBC News / Wall Street Journal)
Poll - 52% of women voters said Sarah Palin is not qualified (Quinnipiac University / Wall Street Journal)
Poll - 51% of likely voters view Sarah Palin unfavorably (ABC News / Washington Post)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Beleaguered by Saksgate . . .
January 5, 2009 - 09:39 ET by Free StinkerMy personal favorite is the Poll that begins with "Beleaguered by Saksgate . . . "
And still, you see no bias.
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
And Reverend Wrong, Rezko,
January 5, 2009 - 09:55 ET by choselife3xAnd Reverend Wrong, Rezko, Ayers/Dorhn, Kalidi, Blago, Richardson, etc., are "distractions" and no reflection on Obama, while Palin's daughter's fiancee's mother's petty drug arrest is evidence that PALIN is 'common'. Huh. So much for 'there is no guilt by association' drumbeat.
Purblind morons.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Not a Poll question
January 5, 2009 - 10:14 ET by PopularTechThat was the editorial write up to the poll. Yes I already said bias comes from editorial control.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
The people answering those polls also believe in AGW
January 5, 2009 - 09:45 ET by choselife3xFunny how those poll results mirror the exact phraseology of the MSM propaganda against Palin.
Stupid sheeple are easily told what to think by the talking heads on their TVs.
But you already know that.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
cl
January 5, 2009 - 09:51 ET by Noel Sheppardcl,
Exactly. The people in these polls responding negatively to Palin probably disagree with virtually EVERYTHING PopTech believes and stands for. BUT, BECAUSE they agree with him about Palin, that somehow means their opinions are important.
Convenient, dontcha think? ns
I can't get over
January 5, 2009 - 10:08 ET by choselife3xThe gap in his logic.
He seems to be quite intelligent otherwise. She must've turned him down for a date or sumpin. :)
I had stopped debating issues with him, but I couldn't resist one last shot. *laughing*
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Evidence of this claim?
January 5, 2009 - 10:16 ET by PopularTechI found none.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Pop
January 5, 2009 - 11:02 ET by Noel SheppardPop,
Evidenced by the fact that you're linking to them here. Doesn't that mean you agree the opinion of the folks in these polls is valid? If not, why are you wasting our time and bandwidth posting them?
Honestly, Pop, your PDS at this point is so totally encompassing that you're losing any ability to think logically. Would you please cease and desist from this before the entire membership here loses what's left of the respect they might still have for you? Please!!! ns
No Evidence the people taking these polls support AGW
January 5, 2009 - 12:30 ET by PopularTechThat allegation is unsupported. I agree that the polls are valid. I am posting the polls in response to the same polls Cobraman keeps posting (which I never asked for). He thought it would somehow make his case, I just proved him wrong.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
UNPop
January 5, 2009 - 13:16 ET by choselife3xWE never asked for YOUR polls.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Noel
January 5, 2009 - 10:22 ET by choselife3xYou and Free are my witnesses. I tried reasoning with him. Waste of bandwidth.
I'm going back to mocking him now.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Please explain
January 5, 2009 - 10:32 ET by PopularTechYour "reasoning" - missed all of this among your offtopic rantings.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
ROFLMAO! Please don't
January 5, 2009 - 09:52 ET by Free StinkerROFLMAO!
Please don't expose PT to facts or logic so early in the morning. My ribs hurt from laughing too hard! ;-)
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
All I have are facts and logic
January 5, 2009 - 10:28 ET by PopularTechSo I don't know how you can expose me to this.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
'All I have are facts and logic'
January 5, 2009 - 10:40 ET by choselife3xYou have no logic where Palin is concerned. You going to try to assert that all those 'independent' sheeple in the polls you cite are going to go against the AGW MSM mass deception while swallowing anti-Palin rhetoric whole?
Wait, what am I doing? I'm trying to reason with an unreasonable person. Hm.
How's that bongo bark rash coming along?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Do you have any remote evidence for anything?
January 5, 2009 - 10:43 ET by PopularTechI am not asserting things I do no have evidence for like you are trying in a desparate attempt to deny the obvious.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I HAVE AN IDEA, NOEL
January 5, 2009 - 11:05 ET by choselife3xLet's do an NB poll on the subject of AGW/Palin propaganda.
I certainly believe that people who mindlessly follow the MSM drumbeat about Palin are also swallowing AGW. I don't think I'm alone on that. Let's give PT some poll results to chew on.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
LMAO these polls have nothing to do with AGW
January 5, 2009 - 10:05 ET by PopularTechThey are political polls where people are asked questions about the candidates.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
~
January 5, 2009 - 10:07 ET by Free Stinker~
WOW
January 5, 2009 - 10:16 ET by choselife3xHe really IS that obtuse!!!!
LMAO!!!
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Chose
January 5, 2009 - 10:23 ET by Free StinkerROFL ! ;-)
Polls are Polls
January 5, 2009 - 10:08 ET by PopularTechThe questions were straight forward and so were the answers.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
~
January 5, 2009 - 10:09 ET by Free Stinker~
Don't come on here with
January 5, 2009 - 13:42 ET by TailgunnerDon't come on here with that BS.
You know damn well that polls can be and are manipulated in many different ways...the sampling, the questions, the phraseology, and the way certain people manipulate the resulting data.
Your previous claim, for example, "Poll - 68% of voters said they were not very comfortable with Palin as President" was anything but 'straightforward'.
Then the media gets its hands on it and cherrypicks the results to fabricate a headline which suits its agenda.
Do you think we are stupid?
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
There is no evidence of you claims regarding my sources
January 5, 2009 - 15:44 ET by PopularTechThere is no evidence of you claims regarding my sources.
All the polls are linked and sourced. If only 32% of people polled feel very comfortable with Palin as president I would think that would be news worthy.
I think you don't like that this evidence exists.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
You, sir, are the one
January 5, 2009 - 18:24 ET by TailgunnerYou, sir, are the one making the claim that '68%' of voters are 'uncomfortable' with Governor Palin as President.
Neither Fox nor anyone else is claiming that. Fox says 32% are 'comfortable' with Governor Palin as President.
There is no breakdown of how the remaining 68% responded. They may have answered 'neutral', 'uncomfortable', 'strongly uncomfortable', or 'no opinion', among other possible choices.
But that doesn't stop you from assuming, with no evidence, that the remaining 68% were 'uncomfortable' with Governor Palin assuming the Presidency.
Until you explain to me exactly how that question was answered, I'm going to assume that you are being deceptive.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
holy moley
January 5, 2009 - 18:37 ET by botgPT, you're still at it?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
No, they're not
January 5, 2009 - 10:35 ET by fitzfongYes polls can be worded to affect results but these questions are pretty straight forward. It is the results you don't like. The Polls were right about the election and so are these
Recycle all you want. The polls you're using as support are from garbage sources. You may judge the questions to be "straight forward", but that doesn't make them so. Besides, there's more to the accuracy of a poll than what questions are asked...a more important determination is who is asked the questions. A word or two within a question can be phrased in such a way as to make the whole question misleading...and when a polling organization deliberately oversamples certain population segments to ellicit particular responses, well that pretty much blows the credibility of the poll out of the water, doesn't it? And, my God, PopTech, some of the polls you are highlighting are frankly sad. An LA Times poll questioning "Independents"? Last I checked, McCain had to win over Conservatives. Burying the fact that one of the surveys is an EMILY's List poll by only naming the organization they hired to conduct the poll? Garbage in, garbage out.
And as for your suggestion that the election results somehow legitimize the accuracy claims of the polls...NO THEY DON'T. The media used push techniques in their polling in the hopes of making an Obama election a self-fulfilling prophecy. After the election was over, it suited the media and McCain's purposes to portray Palin and conservatism as the cause of the defeat. Bottom line: McCain lost because he was a lousy candidate and an economic illiterate who botched the campaign by grandstanding (for the wrong side) during the bailout crisis. Palin merely saved McCain from making George McGovern 1972 look like Al Gore 2000.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Really they are not?
January 5, 2009 - 10:40 ET by PopularTechSo they are lying about the obvious questions that were asked and you have evidence that they asked misleading questions in a misleading way?
You have no evidence for any of your accusations.
A Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg poll. I have polls from 16 different sources including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.
On what planet did you hear McCain had to win over conservatives when his opponent was Obama? LMAO!
How could I bury anything by linking directly to it? Emily's List did not conduct that poll.
All the evidence shows that Palin hurt McCain in the election. Then of course against this we have your opinion. I stick with the facts.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
So they are lying about the
January 5, 2009 - 11:15 ET by fitzfongSo they are lying about the obvious questions that were asked and you have evidence that they asked misleading questions in a misleading way?
The first part of your question is unintelligible. As for the second part, I have no more or less evidence that they asked misleading questions in a misleading way than you have evidence that the questions were "pretty straightforward".
On what planet did you hear McCain had to win over conservatives when his opponent was Obama? LMAO!
Ever heard of "voter turnout"? A sure-fire way to keep the base of the Republican Party away from the polls would have been for McCain to pick a RINO or "Independent" as a running mate.
How could I bury anything by linking directly to it? Emily's List did not conduct that poll.
Oh, please. Nice spin, PopTech. If you're actually stating the case that you were providing full disclosure of the involvement of EMILY's List in that survey, why didn't you offer it in the body of your post rather than burying it in a link? Were you hoping I didn't click on the link? Emily's List paid for the poll...then reported the results. Your feeble attempts to split hairs over who "conducted" the poll (not to mention the fact that your hiding of EMILY's List within a link was deceptive) only make your claims that the surveys are legitimate less credible.
All the evidence shows that Palin hurt McCain in the election. Then of course against this we have your opinion. I stick with the facts.
You don't have evidence. You have no facts. You have polls. These polls are not based on facts, they are based on opinions...and they are subject to the biases of the subjects and the conductors. You have junk science.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Straightforward
January 5, 2009 - 12:40 ET by PopularTechAre they lying about the questions that they asked? The burden of proof is on you. I sourced the polls with the questions which supports my position. Your accusations are unfounded.
If Obama did not get people to turn out nothing would. Palin is a social conservative and not a true fiscal conservative. So you seem confused about who she was attracting. Independents were the swing vote and they effectively laughed at Palin.
I don't know how much more I could "hide" something by linking directly to it, this doesn't change the fact that they did no perform the polling. You have no evidence that the poll is less credible based on your allegations.
My evidence clearly shows people's opinions (which is how people vote) on Palin. Then of course we have the FACT that Obama won the election. I know in social conservative fantasy land blaming McCain makes people "feel" better but the evidence says otherwise.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
The burden of proof is on
January 5, 2009 - 14:08 ET by fitzfongThe burden of proof is on you.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of "burden of proof", so please allow me to educate you. You are the one who asserted as objective fact that Sarah Palin cost John McCain the election. You used a litany of questionable polls to support your claim. I am simply disputing your assertion and positing my opinion that it was McCain, and only McCain, who cost McCain the Presidential Election. As the one making the original "factual" claim, the burden of proof rests with you.
Palin is a social conservative and not a true fiscal conservative.
I understand that Palin is a social conservative, and I won't argue that she is a true fiscal conservative. Nevertheless, she is unquestionably more fiscally conservative than McCain is. She is also more fiscally conservative than anyone else McCain was inclined to choose as a running mate...and more fiscally conservative than the "Independents" McCain was hoping to appeal to (you know, the ones who ended up voting for a socialist instead). And Palin's relative fiscal conservatism attracted more than enough conservative Republicans to offset the "Independents" who fled to a socialist several times over. If McCain picked a RINO, Lieberman or an "Independent" (name a fiscally conservative RINO or "Independent", by the way), the marginal gains he might have made with "Independents" would have been dwarfed by the losses he would have sustained with conservative Republicans staying home.
I don't know how much more I could "hide" something by linking directly to it, this doesn't change the fact that they did no perform the polling. You have no evidence that the poll is less credible based on your allegations.
The poll was conducted ON BEHALF OF EMILY's List. It says so on the link. If you were being honest, you would have acknowledged on your post that EMILY's List was behind the survey. But you chose to highlight the name of the outfit EMILY's LIST commissioned to conduct the poll without mentioning who paid for the research. Sorry, that's deceptive, and I think you know that. If you actually believe that a poll commissioned by an organization whose primary mission is to protect abortion rights is objectively credible, you have problems.
My evidence clearly shows people's opinions (which is how people vote) on Palin. Then of course we have the FACT that Obama won the election. I know in social conservative fantasy land blaming McCain makes people "feel" better but the evidence says otherwise.
Again, nice spin, PT. Your "evidence" is framed so as to ellicit the most favorable interpretation of the facts to support your theory. Garbage in, garbage out. Obama defeated McCain. He did not defeat Palin. So, yes, I am blaming the guy who lost for losing. By the way, it's really precious of you to suggest that I'm a social conservative because I rightly believe that McCain (you know "Open Borders", "Close Gitmo", "Cap and Trade", "Oppose Bush Tax Cuts", "Campaign Finance Reform", "John Kerry's Running Mate Wannabe", "Government Bailout", economic illiterate John McCain) cost McCain the election. Not that I owe you the courtesy, but I'm not a social conservative.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
I have supported my original statement
January 5, 2009 - 15:35 ET by PopularTechYou have yet to support one of your allegations against my data.
Socially Conservative Republicans would have never stayed home with McCain since he supports their important positions = Pro-Life and Anti-Gay Marriage. No Fiscal Conservative is going to vote for Obama and McCain is still better than Obama on fiscal issues. National Defense Conservatives all voted for McCain.
Palin didn't offset anything because Obama won.
I am honest which is why I linked directly to the source and listed the organization that conducted the poll. Emily's list did not poll anyone. If you have evidence (not opinions) of something wrong with the poll please present it.
Palin ran with McCain and there is clear polling data to support that she hurt McCain. Obviously McCain lost but clearly based on the polling data Palin helped him lose not the other way around. Otherwise you would have seen high numbers for her and low ones for McCain, you saw the opposite.
Fair enough you are not a social conservative.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I have supported my
January 5, 2009 - 16:35 ET by fitzfongI have supported my original statement
Really? With what? A handful of dubious opinion polls? I understand that you believe Sarah Palin cost McCain the election. But you seem to be taking the position that these cherry-picked surveys conducted by some pretty unreliable and biased sources make your opinion a fact. They do not. The exact kind of junk science you rail against when debating global warming is what you are hanging your hat on here. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Socially Conservative Republicans would have never stayed home with McCain since he supports their important positions = Pro-Life and Anti-Gay Marriage. No Fiscal Conservative is going to vote for Obama and McCain is still better than Obama on fiscal issues. National Defense Conservatives all voted for McCain.
The hell they wouldn't stay home. If McCain had picked a pro-choice running mate to go with his "reaching across the aisle" conceit, Socially Conservative Republicans would see the choice as a signal of McCain's intent to nominate squishy "moderate" judges...especially with both Houses of Congress tipping heavily towards Democrats who would neutralize any attempt to put a social Conservative on the Federal Bench. Fiscal Conservatives like myself would have stayed home because we would have figured that if the country's already going to go to hell with all the new taxes and cap and trade restrictions, it may as well be on the Democrat's watch...at least then the Party could "go bankrupt" and reorganize under new, competent, fiscally conservative leadership. Anecdotal? Maybe. But so are your polls. Meanwhile, the National Defense Conservatives would have voted for McCain regardless of who was on the ticket with him. That's a wash, and therefore not worth introducing into the argument.
Palin ran with McCain and there is clear polling data to support that she hurt McCain. Obviously McCain lost but clearly based on the polling data Palin helped him lose not the other way around. Otherwise you would have seen high numbers for her and low ones for McCain, you saw the opposite.
Once again, I am saying "consider the source". The polls you speak of have been provided by the likes of CNN, CBS/NYT, USA Today, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Los Angeles Times (and no, Bloomberg does not add credibility to the poll), MSNBC, ABC/WaPo and EMILY's List...organizations with agendas that benefit from presenting such results. That's not evidence. That's junk science.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Poll - 68% of voters said
January 5, 2009 - 13:33 ET by TailgunnerPoll - 68% of voters said they were not very comfortable with Palin as President (FOX News / Opinion Dynamics)
This was the only link that I thought had any credibility, so I looked into it.
I read the story and looked into the actual poll results. I was trying to find the above statement in either the story or the results.
I did not find it. This means that you have manipulated the poll results to reach that figure then tried to pass it off as a settled fact.
I'm not good at statistics. It's possible that you have done this correctly and that figure is logical.
So I'm sure that you could demonstrate for all of us the method by which you arrived at that '68%' figure.
And, also, since this is really the point of the thread, what did Governor Palin do to be included by CNN on a list of criminals?
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Basic Math
January 5, 2009 - 13:45 ET by PopularTech"Similarly, when the question asks what if it were necessary for the vice president to step in and serve as president: 44 percent would be "extremely" or "very" comfortable with Biden as president, and 32 percent with Palin."
100% - 32% = 68%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Then 100%-44%=56% say
January 5, 2009 - 14:31 ET by TailgunnerThen 100%-44%=56% say they'd be uncomfortable with Joe Biden as President.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of Joe 'the Mouth' Biden.
Based on the figures in the poll, perhaps a quarter of the respondents may not have responded to that question.
So you cannot conclude that just because they did not support Governor Palin that they actively opposed her.
But you are making this exact, misleading claim.
I find it difficult to believe that you lack the intelligence to understand what you are reading. This means that you are deliberately being deceptive in your posts.
You might want to check the help wanted ads. Pravda might be hiring.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
More people were comfortable with Joe Biden as President
January 5, 2009 - 15:21 ET by PopularTech...than Palin, thanks for proving my point.
No only 3% didn't know and they all participated which is not an endorsement either.
I love how deceptive I am by linking directly to the sources.
"Similarly, when the question asks what if it were
necessary for the vice president to step in and serve as president: 44
percent would be "extremely" or "very" comfortable with Biden as
president, and 32 percent with Palin."
LMAO!
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
'No opinion' or 'don't
January 5, 2009 - 18:15 ET by Tailgunner'No opinion' or 'don't know' is not 'participating'. It would be unusual to have a poll question to which some people had no response.
I'm willing to bet that you really have no idea what percentage of respondents had no opinion on Governor Palin's 'taking over' the Presidency. If you did you could guide me through the .pdf attachment to the exact question and explain the breakdown for us.
Are you 'reaching' again, sir?
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Another ridiculous and
January 5, 2009 - 14:10 ET by TailgunnerAnother ridiculous and unsupportable statement.
Another insult to our intelligence.
Polls in the hands of MSM hacks are pure editorial bias.
The lack of any consistent polling standards, asymmetrical sampling, 'loaded' and inflammatory questions, and cherrypicking and misuse of the data to reach predetermined ideological conclusions makes nearly any poll suspect.
Some of us spend quite a bit of time on NB. If there's anyone who's going to swallow your claims that the MSM has any credibility at all...you probably won't find them here.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
PT, I don't get it . . .
January 5, 2009 - 00:21 ET by centurion2674I realize you are citing real polls, and they are fact, but what's the point at a site where most of those sources have been proven untrustworthy? The NYT? Despite all the sources you have posted, I still don't know why YOU dislike Sarah Palin. It's fine if you don't like her, but the facts in this blog are sound also, and they point out the media's blatant bias and hatred towards her, and that's the whole point.
The media is definitely biased
January 5, 2009 - 06:59 ET by PopularTechThat is not my point, these polls were in direct response to the poll I was presented with. I don't dislike her, I believe she is inexperience, unqualified and on the wrong side of important issues to be President.
People are confusing my legitimate issues with the media's ridiculous ones.
NB does an excellent job exposing liberal media bias as I commented with my first post in this topic.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
correction
January 4, 2009 - 12:53 ET by botgto your spam Poppy
it would seem the slope on your learning curve is a fraction.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
What are you talking about
January 4, 2009 - 13:48 ET by PopularTechYou don't even understand what the word Spam means. It does not mean any post you do not agree with.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
o'rly?? you're
January 4, 2009 - 13:55 ET by botgo'rly??
you're continuing repeated solicitations of the PDS viewpoint aren't spam? perhaps you're trolling then?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Try commenting
January 4, 2009 - 14:11 ET by PopularTechUnlike you guys I don't follow you aroung to reply to your comments. Trolling would be the replies I received.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
i don't reply!! .... he
January 4, 2009 - 14:15 ET by botgi don't reply!! .... he replied
gonna hold your breath next?? maybe stamp your feet?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
UNPopularTech
January 4, 2009 - 14:26 ET by choselife3xStruts across the barnyard, crowing shrilly. He seems determined to remain humourless and terminally unlikable.
What a shame.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
It's really all due...
January 4, 2009 - 12:58 ET by Warner Todd HustonIt's really all due to one poster, Pop Tech. I am recommending he be banned at this point. He has been warned about his incessant and irrational Palin bashing and he has been temporarily banned in the past.
Personally, I find him humorless, mean-spirited, repetitive, and rather boring.
But it is up to the staff here. We'll see.
No it is due to the same posters you let personally attack me
January 4, 2009 - 13:37 ET by PopularTechPlease go read my comments and then the replies I got. Interesting how someone can be recommended to be banned for having a difference of opinion, instead of lying that I am Palin "bashing". Giving my opinion that doesn't agree with yours is not "bashing" anything.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Conradictions collapse
January 4, 2009 - 22:28 ET by UnsaneA poster who personally attacks people as his modus operandi whining about being personally attacked?
Wow. Talk about contradictions collapsing...
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
LMAO
January 4, 2009 - 22:33 ET by shawn228Talk about paranoia"me". When I saw the subject line and saw it was on this thread, Your the only one that uses that line, so I thought for sure it was meant for me ;-)
He had my vote
Warner, Just because one
January 4, 2009 - 14:00 ET by fitzfongWarner,
Just because one sensitive poster expresses discomfort with the tone of exchanges on this thread doesn't mean that PopTech should be banned. I think the suggestion is rather an overreaction. I like Sarah Palin, and I believe PopTech is carrying an irrational grudge against her...to the point of using disreputable sources to support his "argument". But given the overall resistance on this site to the re-application of the "Fairness Doctrine", don't you think banning PopTech is a bit rash? Anyone ever heard of changing the channel? Fast forwarding?
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
To bad we can't just
January 4, 2009 - 15:10 ET by Scuba DudeTo bad we can't just individually block a poster, that way a person can post but you can decide if you want to see their posts.
That way PT can post to his hearts content about his PDS but we will not have to see the drivel that he posts.
Welcome centurion2674
January 4, 2009 - 13:28 ET by shawn228Before Palin got the nomination Pop Tech was mostly well liked and nobody complained when his spammed his anti-Global warming, anti pot smoking links.
Now that the object of his affection is Palin, posters are finally seeing this spam artist for what he is.
He had my vote
I've never spammed anything
January 4, 2009 - 13:38 ET by PopularTechAll posts were on topic or in reply to someone else. You don't even understand what the definition of spamming is.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
CNN has become irrelevant
January 4, 2009 - 12:28 ET by d1carterCNN has become irrelevant in the News business, they are nothing more than a propaganda machine...yes journalism died and was buried in 2008, but they are digging deeper in 2009.
Even creepy commenters should not be banned
January 4, 2009 - 13:09 ET by StarAZI can't get arrested on Fluffpo--my bon mots never post. I don't like see anyone banned...can we just ignore if we don't agree?
Star
January 4, 2009 - 13:12 ET by botgof course we can though not all agree with you
;^ )
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Who listens to CNN?
January 4, 2009 - 15:01 ET by SmorgasbordMost of the people who listen to CNN are conservative web bloggers. They listen to it just to find out what CNN is saying, then condemn them for saying it. Without them there wouldn't be much of an audience. So what if 2-3 thousand liberals listen to it? Let them enjoy their propaganda media.
This reminds me of when I was a COMMISSIONED salesperson at Montgomery Ward. The top salesperson was always telling how Montgomery Ward was going to go out of business, and I had better find something else. This got on my nerves until I realized I was doing almost as good as he was. The more we sell, the more we make. The more sales he can take from me, the more he makes. He was trying to get me to quit because I could outsell him at times. If I left, a new person would take a while to get in the groove, and the veteran salesperson would be selling more stuff in the meantime. After I realized that, each time he started in on me I took it as a compliment that I was doing a great job!!!
The propaganda media is doing the same thing with Sara Palin. They know she can outsell the propaganda media many times over, so they are trying to get her to quit, or have the Republican party quit on her. I think she is smart enough to know the harder they try to get rid of her, the more the Republican party should want her.
Who listens to CNN?
January 4, 2009 - 15:01 ET by SmorgasbordMost of the people who listen to CNN are conservative web bloggers. They listen to it just to find out what CNN is saying, then condemn them for saying it. Without them there wouldn't be much of an audience. So what if 2-3 thousand liberals listen to it? Let them enjoy their propaganda media.
This reminds me of when I was a COMMISSIONED salesperson at Montgomery Ward. The top salesperson was always telling how Montgomery Ward was going to go out of business, and I had better find something else. This got on my nerves until I realized I was doing almost as good as he was. The more we sell, the more we make. The more sales he can take from me, the more he makes. He was trying to get me to quit because I could outsell him at times. If I left, a new person would take a while to get in the groove, and the veteran salesperson would be selling more stuff in the meantime. After I realized that, each time he started in on me I took it as a compliment that I was doing a great job!!!
The propaganda media is doing the same thing with Sara Palin. They know she can outsell the propaganda media many times over, so they are trying to get her to quit, or have the Republican party quit on her. I think she is smart enough to know the harder they try to get rid of her, the more the Republican party should want her.
Palin As Crook
January 4, 2009 - 15:33 ET by nancyvideoGreat article.
Campbell Brown's Dad Was a Corrupt Politician
January 4, 2009 - 16:10 ET by BW222Campbell Brown's dad, Jim, is a former Louisiana Democratic elected official who spent six months in prison after being convicted of lying to the FBI.
CNN could have included him.
By the way, Jack Cafferty plead guilty to hit and run driving a few years back. Rich Sanchez also was involved in a hit and run (the victim eventually died as a result of his injuries). Both Sanchez and the victim were drunk following a Dolphins game.
Both Sanchez and Cafferty gtot off with a slap on the wrist.
BW222
→ BW22
January 4, 2009 - 16:18 ET by Cool ArrowWasn't there a CNN reporter caught with Methamphetamine and some kind of sex toy chained to his privates?
→ CNN Reporter
January 4, 2009 - 17:19 ET by Cool ArrowWasn't hard to run that story down.
Dick Quest of CNN arrested in Central Park.
Didn't he star in an
January 7, 2009 - 07:55 ET by TailgunnerDidn't he star in an adult film with Peter North? ;)
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Well tailgunner
January 7, 2009 - 08:26 ET by shawn228If that is the case, I'm sure he a had loads of fun.
He had my vote
(gulp) Touche.
January 7, 2009 - 16:27 ET by Tailgunner(gulp) Touche. ;)
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Meth Chained Where???
January 4, 2009 - 22:51 ET by CGattonLet me see now.... I can kind of understand the sex toy part, but why would someone want to chain meth to their...ahhh...privates?
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
News of Palin's political "death" is somewhat premature
January 4, 2009 - 19:28 ET by nkviking75CNN, like most of the MSM, is trying to declare Palin politically dead and bury her now, before anyone notices her "corpse" is still breathing. They're deathly afraid she'll make a comeback. PopTech may not like it, but she energizes the base, and she now has time to prepare for any political ambitions she might hold. Other politicians have come back from worse baggage than Sarah Palin carries.
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!
Has anyone tried to contact CNN
January 4, 2009 - 19:56 ET by lumpyto ask why they left Jefferson off the list? It is such a blatant oversight. I would love to see them try to answer the question of why they left a crook off the list but included Palin. How in the hell would they ever justify that?
Popular Tech...not really
January 4, 2009 - 21:02 ET by CapeCodScottYou are right, what you are posting is not Spam, it's just annoying.
I'm sorry some of the answers to the 63 questions on the Obama Job Application proved to be a problem for you in getting that JOB(is that a 3 or 4 letter word, I'll ask Joe The V.P. elect) in the BHO-SHOW. Some free advice, a little more ice & a little more mixer in that cocktail your drinking and life will get better.
www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
We can take some solice, in
January 4, 2009 - 21:14 ET by SvenWe can take some solice, in that CNN and many hard print rags like the NYT's, Boston Globe, McClatchy News Service etc. continue a ratings death-spiral. :-)
PT, I'll give you that,
January 5, 2009 - 09:45 ET by centurion2674Most polls are pointless, and we could debate different sides of the issues all day. But I believe experience is irrelevant in Washington. Look what experience has gotten us so far. Regarding Sarah Palin, nobody talks about her judgement, and her record of, and ability to stand up to corruption, starting in her own party. She took on the Republicans in her own state and became the most popular governor in the country. That's what the people are starving for. Washington needs to be freed from the "experience" which has been governing us. I say we need some more politically inexperienced people in there. I'll bet they would have more common sense.
Same Talking Points - I talk about her Record
January 5, 2009 - 10:24 ET by PopularTechEveryone just repeats Palin talking points without doing any research into her actual record and position on issues.
Bailout:
Sarah Palin: Bailout or Great Depression. Choose. (U.S. News and World Report)
Bridge to Nowhere:
Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans (Reuters)
Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop (Anchorage Daily News)
ADN: "Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?"
PALIN: "Yes." - (Anchorage Daily News, 2006)
Earmarks:
Alaska 1st, Ariz. last in pork spending (USA Today)
Palin used system she now opposes (Los Angeles Times)
Palin's Project List Totals $453 Million (The Wall Street Journal)
Palin's earmark requests: more per person than any other state (The Seattle Times)
Fiscal Policy:
Spending rose in Palin's Alaska administrations (USA Today)
- In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. (ADN)
- As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. (ADN)
- Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of Wasilla. (POLITICO)
Global Warming:
Biden, Palin in complete agreement: Carbon caps are coming and clean coal? (The Industry Standard)
MODERATOR: "...do you support capping carbon emissions?"
PALIN: "I do. I do." (Transcript)
Greed:
Palin denounces Wall Street "greed" to big money donors (FOX News)
Illegal Immigrations:
Palin: I support a path to citizenship for illegals (Hot Air)
School Spending:
Gov. Sarah Palin aims to boost spending on schools (Anchorage Daily News)
Yearly school spending $1 billion in Palin plan (Anchorage Daily News)
Taxes:
Palin offers oil tax plan for session in Juneau (Anchorage Daily News, September 5, 2007)
Alaska Raises Tax On Oil Profits To 25% (CBS News, November 17, 2007)
Alaska Gov. Palin signs bill to hike oil tax (Reuters, December 19, 2007)
Ted Stevens:
Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Stevens's 527 Group (The Washington Post)
Sen. Stevens Indicted On 7 Corruption Counts (The Washington Post)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Weak. The bridge to
January 5, 2009 - 10:33 ET by Free StinkerWeak.
The bridge to "nowhere"? She points out that a place with 50 people objects to being called "nowhere" and you dislike her for that? And she did finally cancel that bridge.
We've been over these other points too, such as her "raising" taxes on the Oil Companies. Forget already that the fix was in with the previsou administartion to lower the Oil company taxes? And how *you* ignore the fact that Palin opened the new tax bill up to public scrutiny ?
Illegal Immigration: "those who are here legally should be first in line for services being
provided and those opportunities that this great country provides." From your article. Do you even read that stuff ?
This is why people dont read your links anymore. We find stuff in your own links that you ignore.
Free...
January 5, 2009 - 10:40 ET by sherylsimsWhat? are you saying we don't HAVE to read all those links??? Oh goodie! How will I spend all this extra time I now have? Maybe I will get a dog or plant a garden or cook a meal... Ohh the possibilities.
DON'T make me repeat repeat myself myself!
Again things you cannot back up
January 5, 2009 - 10:50 ET by PopularTechPalin campaigned on the bridge = Fact and switched positions when it was politically convenient.
What fix? Lower taxes? What? Please explain. Palin raised taxes on oil companies = fact.
Q: Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?
Palin: No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. (so only partial amnesty) LMAO!
Q: To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
Palin: I do
LMAO! She is as bad as John McCain
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PopTech
January 5, 2009 - 21:49 ET by Free StinkerFrom the article YOU linked to:
Illegal Immigration: "those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides."
Again, this is from the article you linked to. Do you even read that stuff ? (That was rhetorical. I realize the answer is "no".)
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
That 'path to citizenship'
January 5, 2009 - 12:51 ET by TailgunnerThat 'path to citizenship' stuff could have come straight from McCain.
Palin, as McCain's running mate, would have felt constrained to support him even if she may not have agreed with him.
And liberals applauded McCain when he stated it.
Why are McCain's words, spoken by Palin, now being used to attack her?
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Excuses
January 5, 2009 - 15:05 ET by PopularTechPalin's spoken words are being used against her correct.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Let me rephrase
January 7, 2009 - 16:42 ET by TailgunnerLet me rephrase that.
McCain's spoken words are being used against Governor Palin, correct.
Fixed.
And liberals (like you) are quite comfortable with the hypocrisy of condemning Governor Palin for words they have long praised McCain for saying.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
We seem to be straying from
January 5, 2009 - 13:14 ET by TailgunnerWe seem to be straying from the point. This isn't a discussion of Governor Palin's policy positions.
What did Governor Palin do to be included on a list of genuine political criminals? Nothing.
And what does that say about a major news organization that it's willing to risk its credibility (none) to associate Governor Palin's name with Democratic political criminals (and only one Republican) in the minds of millions?
Someone said recently that the Soviet Union needed secret police and gulags to force the state media to print socialist propaganda.
But in America the major media eagerly does it for free.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Congratulations, Warner!
January 5, 2009 - 11:47 ET by CobraManCongratulations, Warner! This topic has generated the most comments that I have seen on a single thread! I'm not sure if it the largest comment count of all time, but it is the largest that I have witnessed to date. Keep up the good work!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Another Palin thread
January 5, 2009 - 12:29 ET by Rukuson Dec. 30 was well over 300!
Gary
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
That thread was
January 5, 2009 - 13:08 ET by choselife3xSO MUCH FUN. I've got my favorite UNPop zinger on that one.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I also succeeded in having
January 6, 2009 - 00:40 ET by Warner Todd HustonI also succeeded in having Palin REMOVED from the criminal politician list that CNN came up with. Today her name is no longer on the web page with the other 7!
I have observed CNN watchers
January 5, 2009 - 19:04 ET by 10ksnooker... and noticed they live in their own fairy tale world. You want to leave the room as quietly and quickly as possible. It's really weird how screwed up these people have become.
It's as if they have switched their minds off.
For the record, CNN should
January 7, 2009 - 04:24 ET by BigSky1970For the record, CNN should remove Blago from that list too. Being an embattled governor is one thing, but he's not guilty of any crime. The only "wrongdoing" he's guilty of at this juncture is saying something stupid.