Who is Chuck?

[fossten]

Hmm...

 

[Calabrio]

What does the prove again?
Frank Luntz is lazy, or there aren't that many undecided Republicans in New Hampshire that want to go on camera?

Or is it a Fox News conspiracy to suppress the voice of Ron Paul? Because, if they hadn't planted Chuck to make his silly statement, Ron Paul's support would have shot like a bullet right from 4% right up to 6%?

I guess all of this conspiracy and paranoia have to be expected when a candidate is courting Alex Jones listeners, 9/11 Truthers, and other lunatics for campaign dollars.

 

[fossten]

To quote Shakespeare, you are "protesting too much."

But to answer your question, it proves that Luntz isn't playing it straight, for some reason. It goes against the credibility of Fox, period. I made no inferences, I made no accusations. I didn't say a word. I simply posted a video link that I thought people would find interesting.

Look at you exploding with furious protests in wild, crazy directions. You are becoming a real caricature of yourself, you know that? And you called ME a kook?

 

[MonsterMark]

I'm not in favor of heard mentality focus groups. Easily manipulated.

Look, 50% of this country is going to put up the least qualified individual to ever run for office in Obama.

The fact that he is a Muslim disguised as a Christian and shows no respect for the flag or pledge of allegiance won't hold people back from supporting him.

If Obama gets elected, I will have lost all faith in America and her future.

 

[MonsterMark]

Face it Fossten, Ron Paul's foreign policy is a losing proposition. Period. End of story. Nothing else matters when the guy gets the biggest challenge of our lifetimes wrong. There it is in a nutshell for you.

 

[fossten]

Face it Fossten, Ron Paul's foreign policy is a losing proposition. Period. End of story. Nothing else matters when the guy gets the biggest challenge of our lifetimes wrong. There it is in a nutshell for you.

Off topic, Bryan. I never mentioned Ron Paul in this thread. Neither does the video.

So if you're just taking an opportunity to attempt to lecture me (which you should know is a waste of time anyway), then you're either trolling or harassing. Take your pick.

 

[Calabrio]

To quote Shakespeare, you are "protesting too much."

But to answer your question, it proves that Luntz isn't playing it straight, for some reason. It goes against the credibility of Fox, period. I made no inferences, I made no accusations. I didn't say a word. I simply posted a video link that I thought people would find interesting.

Look at you exploding with furious protests in wild, crazy directions. You are becoming a real caricature of yourself, you know that? And you called ME a kook?

I asked your opinion of the video you posted.
Do you think it's because Luntz is lazy or because there aren't many undecided Republican voters in New Hampshire.

Or are you alluding to some kind of conspiracy.

Does having this "Chuck" guy have some kind of significance? Did he so eloquently make a case that he influence the outcome of the election, and if so, for who?

And is the fact that a guy was called twice for a televised focus group in a state that is overwhelmingly Democrat, really indicate some kind of ulterior motive?

I don't mind interesting movies, but you're trying to make a point. I just don't know what the point is. I'd call it sloppy and lazy on Luntz's part, but I can't even say that it is. Is there even something wrong with using the same guy twice if he was chosen at random?

Fact of the matter is, this video doesn't demonstrate anything.

 

[fossten]

I asked your opinion of the video you posted.
Do you think it's because Luntz is lazy or because there aren't many undecided Republican voters in New Hampshire.

No, you didn't. You accused me of what-have-you, wild, crazy statements that I didn't make, all in the form of a question. Don't insult my intelligence, Mr. Moderator.

Or are you alluding to some kind of conspiracy.

I'm not alluding to anything. I posted a video that I thought was interesting.

Does having this "Chuck" guy have some kind of significance? Did he so eloquently make a case that he influence the outcome of the election, and if so, for who?

That's for viewers to decide. I thought it was interesting that Fox used the same guy for 2 different "random" focus groups. Do you NOT think it's interesting?

And is the fact that a guy was called twice for a televised focus group in a state that is overwhelmingly Democrat, really indicate some kind of ulterior motive?

He was "called?" How do you know this? Luntz has promoted these focus groups as random. Why are you being so defensive?

I don't mind interesting movies, but you're trying to make a point. I just don't know what the point is. I'd call it sloppy and lazy on Luntz's part, but I can't even say that it is. Is there even something wrong with using the same guy twice if he was chosen at random?

Your opinion has been noted. However, your wild, uncontrolled explosion, bringing up Ron Paul and truthers, was off topic and, frankly, immature. And how can you say it was merely lazy, when Luntz called Chuck by his first name? That's a stupid conclusion to come to.

Fact of the matter is, this video doesn't demonstrate anything.

And yet, you still found time and energy to blindly stab in all directions over it.

Well, there's a man in denial if I've ever seen one. But you keep stomping your little foot, youngster.

The most interesting thing in this thread is the way you furiously, wildly overreacted.

Here's a question for you: Will you ever stop trolling in my threads?

 

[Calabrio]

No, you didn't. You accused me of what-have-you, wild, crazy statements that I didn't make, all in the form of a question. Don't insult my intelligence, Mr. Moderator.

I did no such thing. But when I viewed the video on Youtube, the comment section was FULL of Paulestinians ranting about Fox News and drawing some irrational conclusions.

That's for viewers to decide. I thought it was interesting that Fox used the same guy for 2 different "random" focus groups. Do you NOT think it's interesting?

Not really. Unless something was misrepresented. The producer of that video doesn't include much information, for example the location of the focus groups, in his video, which makes me suspect of his motivation. I had to research the clip myself to learn that the focus group was located in New Hampshire on both occassions. That's an important distinction.

Clearly, had one group been in Florida and the other New Hampshire, "Chuck" would have been a red flag. But, since they're drawing from the same tiny population, it's not so interesting.

 

[fossten]

Looks like Michelle Malkin and Newsbusters have strong opinions of this as well.

Calabrio, once again on the wrong side of conservatives.

 

[Calabrio]

Looks like Michelle Malkin and Newsbusters have strong opinions of this as well.

Calabrio, once again on the wrong side of conservatives.

I guess that's because that I'm not a victim of group think as you so often are.

Do you actually read those links, or are you did you just find them on one of the silly, group think websites you frequent, where your silly posts are unchallenged and applauded? What "strong opinion" did they present?

If you actually read the links you posted, you'd actually notice that Malkin and Newbuster both had responses that were similar to mine. They saw the video, they don't jump to wild conclusions, but they are curious to know if the the problem is with Luntz (not a Network conspiracy) and think that some transparency would be wise. I agree fully. It just looks lazy and sloppy for that kind of thing to happen. An explanation would be wise.

I put in a call to Luntz's company to see what they have to say about this. They're supposed to call me back so let's wait and see.

Soon enough we'll have an explanation. Hopefully the outraged lunatics posting all over the web about this story will sit on ice in the meantime.