lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Calm down ferries, I was just pointing out different sources saying different things, get some Vagisil, change you socks and quit getting so offended. I have some Diflucan if the irritation of your vagina persist.
Obama Poll Numbers
- Thread starter MonsterMark
- Start date
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
I challenge you gals to show me a source of news that isn't bias. Every story has two sides, some see the glass as half full, others see it as half empty.
P.S Foss this has nothing to do with race.
P.S Foss this has nothing to do with race.
Scorpio1118_2000
Dedicated LVC Member
Bush had 8 years to screw things up, the republicans wont even give Obama 8 months. They were patient when bush messed everything up but now a democrat is in offcie now there is a need to rush things give it a rest, grow up and let the man do his job. We are all broke and facing hard times, dont add to the madness.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
The only person talking about bias here is you. We are not, nor do we usually focus solely on bias as a means of discrediting a source. The fact is that we have long ago accepted you point; that all sources are bias. But bias doesn't mean nonobjective or dishonest. bias can lead to those, but it doesn't always lead to those. If that bias makes the source prejudice, that is usually evident in their being dishonest and/or deceitful in some way (usually through fallacious arguments, etc.). Michael Moore doesn't lack credibility because he is extremely liberal; Michael Moore lacks credibility because he is habitually dishonest and deceitful.
The source you cite is being dishonest and deceitful by passing off a flawed survey (due to large systematic error) as representative of the truth. CNN in general tends to hurt it's credibility when they claim to be nonbias because their reporting clearly bias. MSNBC is even worse.
See. When you start making assumptions about an opposing point of view instead of having the decency and courtesy to take the time and understand it, you stick your foot in your mouth and look like a fool.
Are you saying we should just sit back and let this man mess up? That is exceedingly naive! Obama is pushing through things that will at the very least alter this country for a long time and take a long time to recover from. Some things, like universal healthcare are next to impossible to reverse. Only a fool would consider letting things like this happen and then trying to correct the mistakes afterward.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
The only person talking about bias here is you. We are not, nor do we usually focus solely on bias as a means of discrediting a source. The fact is that we have long ago accepted you point; that all sources are bias. But bias doesn't mean nonobjective or dishonest. bias can lead to those, but it doesn't always lead to those. If that bias makes the source prejudice, that is usually evident in their being dishonest and/or deceitful in some way (usually through fallacious arguments, etc.). Michael Moore doesn't lack credibility because he is extremely liberal; Michael Moore lacks credibility because he is habitually dishonest and deceitful.
The source you cite is being dishonest and deceitful by passing off a flawed survey (due to large systematic error) as representative of the truth. CNN in general tends to hurt it's credibility when they claim to be nonbias because their reporting clearly bias. MSNBC is even worse.
See. When you start making assumptions about an opposing point of view instead of having the decency and courtesy to take the time and understand it, you stick your foot in your mouth and look like a fool.
Princess, what are you talking about, I stated that ALL news sources are bias, CNN, FOX, MSNBC...etc... There isn't a single dependable source, this "Rasmussen" source is conservative, and CNN is liberal. So what assumptions were being made again?
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Sorry!
Baby killer, you are running on the assumption that we view "bias" as meaning "not dependable" (as apparently you do). We don't. A source can have a bias and still be dependable. Only when a source is dishonest and/or deceitful are then not dependable.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Princess, name a source that is 100% accurate.
This source isn't accurate because they did not survey 100% of U.S citizens.
Baby killer, you are moving the goalposts. As is typical of you, you are being deceptive. No source is 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean that they are all equally unreliable. Some have more credibility then others. But you would actually have to be honest to acknowledge that.
More ignorance from the baby killer. Survey's can be considered reasonably accurate if the same is representative of the whole. However, systematic error, which is in all studies to some degree, can add to the degree of uncertainty to the point were the study is worthless. The amount of systematic error is this study due to the unrealistically large sample of Democrats and unrealistically small sample of Republicans and independents is obvious and easy to remove, but it was left in. Something like that can be caught by anyone who has taken a basic poli-sci stats class, let alone the statisticians they hire to conduct these surveys. It is highly unlikely that this survey was anything other then rigged to produce a certain result.
Let me first ask you, specifically what did Bush do that "screwed things up." This is a serious question. Also, at what time during his Presidency did he have a majority in the Congress strong enough to push his agenda through with out debate or discourse on the matter?
I'd also be interested in knowing what policies did Bush pass that were destructive or "screwed things up" that weren't with bipartisan support.
And why would you expect people to sit by when they can see Obama screwing things up EVEN MORE in the past 100 days? To those of us who were actually listening, reading, and engaged during the election, WE KNOW what he intends to do. And everyday he does more and more to confirm precisely who he is and where he is governing from.
Unfortunately, a fair number of the people who voted for his slogan, or voted in an effort to make themselves feel good about themselves for voting for a black guy, or the McCain protest votes, bought the spin that Obama was some kind of bi-partisan, pragmatic centrist- and not the deeply convicted ideologue that his entire history and background would indicate him to be.
Do you know how much damage a President with a Congressional majority like Pelosi's can do in 8 months? I don't think you even realize the damage they've done in just 3!
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
That is not why it is inaccurate. If you'd taken college statistics, you'd understand that. The source is grossly inaccurate, outside the margins of error, because it took an unrepresentative sample.
Princess.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
You stick with college, I will stick with the Military. you guys have proven my point, no source is accurate! Any poll can be swayed!
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
You have just "hit the nail on the head"' no source is 100%, every poll has this "systematic error" including Rasmussen's, can we agree on that princess?
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
A prime Example, I got to work this Am and opened my outlook, I got a message that read this: Send this e-mail to all those that you can. Our President needs our help. His 100 day mark is approaching fast.
MSNBC has a poll up about the President's job so far for the first 100 days. Republicans are flooding it with "F" votes. Pass this address on and go to it to vote:
MSNBC has a poll up about the President's job so far for the first 100 days. Republicans are flooding it with "F" votes. Pass this address on and go to it to vote:
But many sources are mostly accurate, and are more accurate in some areas then others. Just because both sources are no 100% accurate doesn't mean that the source that is 99% accurate lacks credibility like the source that is only 30% accurate. You point is sophomoric at best, and, frankly, irrelevant. All it does is serves as a means to obfuscate; which is all an ignorant jerk like you can do, anyway. You have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about, but instead of having any honesty and humbleness in admitting that, you have to find a way to justify that; in this case by trying to dishonestly discredit any other point. Baby killer.
More foolishness and ignorance leading to irrelevance from the baby killing jerk. If you knew anything, you would know that those polls are a different type from the poll you cite by CNN, or that Rasmussen reports. Those type of polls are always reported as "unscientific online polls" and the sources always make sure to make that abundantly clear if they use them in a report. Therefore, per the source conducting the poll, the poll is not given much weight. Do you even have any interest in any of this, or are you just out to frustrate any discussion here?
How is Fox News on polling?
FOX News Poll: Obama's First 100 Days
April 24, 2009
(Note - this is just a small part - the first 3 paragraphs - the poll is quite long and includes a lot of interesting stats... you might want to check out the whole article, it does get into party breakdown and comparisons to GWB - which are actually pretty similar)
As Barack Obama closes in on his first 100 days as president, majorities of Americans approve of the job he is doing, are satisfied with what he has accomplished so far and think he is keeping his promises, according to a FOX News poll released Friday.
Obama's job approval rating comes in at 62 percent, down just three points from the 65 percent approval he received after his first week in office. Twenty-nine percent of Americans disapprove.
In addition, most people say Obama is doing a better job than they expected (26 percent) or meeting expectations (56 percent). Few say he is doing worse than expected (16 percent).
FOX News Poll: Obama's First 100 Days
April 24, 2009
(Note - this is just a small part - the first 3 paragraphs - the poll is quite long and includes a lot of interesting stats... you might want to check out the whole article, it does get into party breakdown and comparisons to GWB - which are actually pretty similar)
As Barack Obama closes in on his first 100 days as president, majorities of Americans approve of the job he is doing, are satisfied with what he has accomplished so far and think he is keeping his promises, according to a FOX News poll released Friday.
Obama's job approval rating comes in at 62 percent, down just three points from the 65 percent approval he received after his first week in office. Twenty-nine percent of Americans disapprove.
In addition, most people say Obama is doing a better job than they expected (26 percent) or meeting expectations (56 percent). Few say he is doing worse than expected (16 percent).
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
How is a different type of poll when they are asking the same question? CNN probably asked if they approved of Obama on my side of town, and Rass. probably asked on your side of town, therefore you have two different outcomes! The "babykiller" stuff is getting old!
After reading what you wrote, you are saying the exact same thing I have been saying, you just seem far more upset. Breath........Breath.......if this gets you upset, I hate to see you under stress.
Because the method used introduces too much systematic error to be at all scientific. In scientific surveys, the people are screened and can only respond once. In these online survey's there are not controls to insure that some people are not voting more then once or to insure that the sample is somehow representative of the whole.
No, you are just to ignorant to understand the distinctions I am making.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
lincolnx2, quit whining about name calling when you're doing it. It's hypocritical.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Guy, I was just asking him to change it up, "babykiller" was getting old, haven't I told you "I dont get offended unless you are shooting mortar rounds at me, not that pisses me off.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Deaf in one ear, that i may be, but ingorant, never! Rass. is so scientific, I am sure all the people they called were from both sides of the house! Yeah Right!
Further proof of your deliberate ignorance. If you read about the methodology of their polls, then they do call people on both sides of the isle; that is what is necessary to have a scientific poll. But apparently that doesn't matter to someone like you who will ignore facts and the truth in favor of his own assumptions based in prejudice and bigotry.