They're probably pissed because the GOP is winning.

After the miserable partisanship displayed by MSNBC over the last two debates, I've ceased to take them seriously as a reputable news organization. They're just another Fox News albeit to a different degree.

are they still using DataUSA Inc to do the polls?

"managers at the company told employees to "talk to cats and dogs" when instructing them to fabricate the surveys."

Link (new window)

Shaggy_C: After the miserable partisanship displayed by MSNBC over the last two debates, I've ceased to take them seriously as a reputable news organization. They're just another Fox News albeit to a different degree.

They're not partisan. They just suck. 'Partisan' is not the same as 'bumbling'.

Gosling: Shaggy_C: After the miserable partisanship displayed by MSNBC over the last two debates, I've ceased to take them seriously as a reputable news organization. They're just another Fox News albeit to a different degree.

They're not partisan. They just suck. 'Partisan' is not the same as 'bumbling'.

Oh I don't know, Olbermann is pretty left leaning. I haven't seen most of the rest, but I'll wager they lean the same way. Then again they're not alone in douchebaggery, look at Fox News.

Gosling: 'Partisan' is not the same as 'bumbling'.

I don't call openly mocking and laughing at a candidate 'bumbling'. (new window)

godofusa.com: They're probably pissed because the GOP is winning.

On which plane of existence do you currently reside?

Shaggy_C: I don't call openly mocking and laughing at a candidate 'bumbling'.

You do know that Joe Scarsborough (the guy you are talking about) is a Republican, right? Like, a former GOP congressman and stuff. I wouldn't say "partisan" is the right word for MSNBC in general, either. "Anti-certain-candidates" possibly.

Also, McCain's speech was pretty bad.

Neeek: "Anti-certain-candidates" possibly.

They're not supposed to be 'anti' or 'pro' anything. They're supposed to be a NEWS network.

Shaggy_C:
They're not supposed to be 'anti' or 'pro' anything. They're supposed to be a NEWS network.

What has that got to do with ratings?

/ or the price of beans in Antarctica?

Like I said. Bumbling. They're not partisan. They treat both parties just as stupidly.

Shaggy_C: Neeek: "Anti-certain-candidates" possibly.

They're not supposed to be 'anti' or 'pro' anything. They're supposed to be a NEWS network.

What kind of communist talk is that? They are a business.

/The first sentence is sarcastic.
//The second sentence is factual.
///I have the feeling that an actual news network would last all of a month in the United States.

Shaggy_C: They're supposed to be a NEWS network.

According to who? MSNBC, unlike Fox News and CNN doesn't have the word "news" anywhere in their name (the "N" is for "National").

they need to poll some unattended computers if they wanna find out who's skewing the count...

// hillary hackgate
// coming soon

FarkFish 2008-01-17 10:32:59 PM
are they still using DataUSA Inc to do the polls?

"managers at the company told employees to "talk to cats and dogs" when instructing them to fabricate the surveys."

-------------------------------
// see what they get for disobeying instructions?
they're admitting they didn't talk to any cats or dogs
// obviously true..

I'd just like to point out that Mark Penn is a tremendously disgusting human being. You can almost see the slime in that picture.

Neeek: Shaggy_C: They're supposed to be a NEWS network.

According to who? MSNBC, unlike Fox News and CNN doesn't have the word "news" anywhere in their name (the "N" is for "National").

Fox News sued to preserve their legal right to knowingly lie in a news broadcast.

This was about a hormonal treatment for dairy cattle that was known to cause harmful side-effects in humans. Fox decided to claim the hormones were not harmful. Some employees blew the whistle, but then Fox sued to deny them whistle blower status. Fox showed in court that a news broadcaster has now legal obligation to tell the public the truth, that they do not form a binding contract with the viewer to provide honest news.

They merely promise to tell the truth, which makes it an unenforceable matter of morality.

""........This was about a hormonal treatment for dairy cattle that was known to cause harmful side-effects in humans. Fox decided to claim the hormones were not harmful. Some employees blew the whistle, but then Fox sued to deny them whistle blower status. Fox showed in court that a news broadcaster has now legal obligation to tell the public the truth, that they do not form a binding contract with the viewer to provide honest news.

They merely promise to tell the truth, which makes it an unenforceable matter of morality.""

--------------------------------
// change that & almost all of the news peddlers would fold...
// but, not Fark,
// the bastion of the real understory...
penetrating far beyond the furry, unshaven panderings of libtards,
plunging into the very nuggins of the tuna

JSTACAT: the very nuggins of the tuna

Dude...whatever drugs you're on, I want a lot of them.

Shaggy_C: Neeek: "Anti-certain-candidates" possibly.

They're not supposed to be 'anti' or 'pro' anything. They're supposed to be a NEWS network.

And the guys from your link are pundits, not reporters. They're paid to give their opinions.

JSTACAT: ""........This was about a hormonal treatment for dairy cattle that was known to cause harmful side-effects in humans. Fox decided to claim the hormones were not harmful. Some employees blew the whistle, but then Fox sued to deny them whistle blower status. Fox showed in court that a news broadcaster has now legal obligation to tell the public the truth, that they do not form a binding contract with the viewer to provide honest news.

They merely promise to tell the truth, which makes it an unenforceable matter of morality.""

--------------------------------
// change that & almost all of the news peddlers would fold...
// but, not Fark,
// the bastion of the real understory...
penetrating far beyond the furry, unshaven panderings of libtards,
plunging into the very nuggins of the tuna

http://news.propeller.com/story/2006/10/10/fox-news-sued-for-the-right-to-lie-a n d-won/

Oh. Snap.

Go hit the meth pipe again.

http://news.propeller.com/story/2006/10/10/fox-news-sued-for-the-right-to-lie-an d-won/

Correct link

Ugh Link (new window)

RocsFlight: Shaggy_C: Neeek: "Anti-certain-candidates" possibly.

They're not supposed to be 'anti' or 'pro' anything. They're supposed to be a NEWS network.

What kind of communist talk is that? They are a business.

/The first sentence is sarcastic.
//The second sentence is factual.
///I have the feeling that an actual news network would last all of cost five dollars a month in the United States.

Farked that for ya

A lot of people have cell phones, which aren't necessarily tied to a landline location, and aren't publicly listed, as far as I know.

Telephone polls have slipped back to the time of "Dewey Defeats Truman". Those with landlines are bound to be older and probably more conservative, while younger generations are unaccounted for.

Presidents really aren't "elected" any more, they are given a series of tests by the prominent political engineers of this society. The people may give their token approval through the voting process, but anyone who isn't aware that Presidents are made, not picked from the rabble.

And it's very likely that Romney is looking to be that pick, by the way, none of the Democrats are talking what needs to be done as far as protecting this country. Our enemies are awaiting this transition of power with bated breath, I assure you.

There really isn't going to be too much of a deviation from present policy, sorry liberals, if that's what you were hoping.

Bored Horde: Fox News sued to preserve their legal right to knowingly lie in a news broadcast.

Most MSM is corporate by nature and more in the business of shaping public opinion than reflecting it. Faux News is a special case (Think Olympics) in that they are bald faced liars and out and out propagandists for one specific party. Shaping opinion in regular MSM is done by many means, some more subtle than others. The amount of time dedicated to any one candidate over the other is a means. Also whether one runs good pictures of a pol or pics that show a pol in a bad light is an oldy but goody both in newspapers and on teevee. You'll notice, on CNN for instance, the fact that they have a propensity, when showing a montage of the candidates in the background, to have Clinton shown first before Obama. Considering the number of people once associated with the Clinton campaigns and/or candidacy it's no wonder some folks have started calling them the Clinton News Network.

Polls are a special case. The exact wording of the questions and the methodology used to determine the results are rarely examined or explained when the results are read.

// hillary hackgate
// coming soon

The NH polls being right on for the right and achieving massive FAIL for the left is a horse of another color entirely.

The OptiScan units used to determine the result of the voting in NH are suspect as they were Diebold/ Premier machines. Link 80% of the NH votes were thus tabulated.

"It's not the people who vote that counts.
It's the people who count the votes"

~Joe Stalin

Shaggy_C Quote 2008-01-17 10:53:18 PM
Gosling: 'Partisan' is not the same as 'bumbling'.

I don't call openly mocking and laughing at a candidate 'bumbling'. (new window)

Since you are posting a clip of a right-winger laughing at a candidate on MSNBC, I take it you are claiming MSNBC is partisan for the Republicans, like Fox News?

i would assume that farkers represent an ample sample of voters, and i see what looks like a giant margin in favor of Obama.

// i haven't seen a single post that likes anything about HC
not even her crooked rump!

in Kenya, there were riots because it was so obvious.
i'm gonna laugh if Obama is actually the winner in NH after all.
[hope..hope]
there will be tears with severe recriminations...

heck, in Nevada, HC is trying to keep some citizens from voting altogether. its the thought that coonts, even if it turned out to be a hoof in mouth.

skookum: Presidents really aren't "elected" any more, they are given a series of tests by the prominent political engineers of this society. The people may give their token approval through the voting process, but anyone who isn't aware that Presidents are made, not picked from the rabble.

And it's very likely that Romney is looking to be that pick, by the way, none of the Democrats are talking what needs to be done as far as protecting this country. Our enemies are awaiting this transition of power with bated breath, I assure you.

There really isn't going to be too much of a deviation from present policy, sorry liberals, if that's what you were hoping.

Son, if you think Mitt Romney is going to win this election, you are in for a sad, sad Election Day. Of all eight serious contenders, he has the worst shot out of all eight of winning it all. I haven't seen a single indicator, poll or otherwise, all election cycle that doesn't show him getting his head blown clean off his shoulders in a head-to-head, regardless of his opponent. He's nominated, he gets Mondaled. That simple.

Shaggy_C Quote 2008-01-17 11:14:18 PM
Neeek: "Anti-certain-candidates" possibly.

They're not supposed to be 'anti' or 'pro' anything. They're supposed to be a NEWS network.



Regardless of what kind of network it is, that clip right there is SUPPOSED to be a group of PUNDITS giving their opinions and thoughts on the primaries. They are SUPPOSED to state pro and anti opinions, dude.

It is like reading an editorial in a newspaper. You don't get mad at editorials and claim it means the paper shouldn't count as a news source or sometihng, do you?

This wasn't someone reading the daily headlines or reporting netrually. It was a panel of political pundits.

Think of it like a cicle of music critics on a TV show. YOu wouldn't get mad if those critics expressed "pro or anti views" about Ja Rule, would you? (Or even if they laughed at him). You'd want that really.

They take politicians as seriously as they take everyone else, and that's the way our system should work. Politicians should be called out more, not coddled. Maybe then we'd get some rid of some of them.

Agreed.

And hell, that WAS a horrible speech and McCain DID read it straight form the paper with no enthusiasim or anything. They were right to laugh at it.

Son, if you think Mitt Romney is going to win this election, you are in for a sad, sad Election Day. Of all eight serious contenders, he has the worst shot out of all eight of winning it all. I haven't seen a single indicator, poll or otherwise, all election cycle that doesn't show him getting his head blown clean off his shoulders in a head-to-head, regardless of his opponent. He's nominated, he gets Mondaled. That simple.

Agreed with the caveat that 9/11 and Huckabee would probably do even worse.

But out of McCain, Thompson, Edwards, Clinton and Obama... he would get the least votes.

skookum 2008-01-18 12:33:37 AM
Presidents really aren't "elected" any more, they are given a series of tests by the prominent political engineers of this society. The people may give their token approval through the voting process, but anyone who isn't aware that Presidents are made, not picked from the rabble.

And it's very likely that Romney is looking to be that pick, by the way, none of the Democrats are talking what needs to be done as far as protecting this country. Our enemies are awaiting this transition of power with bated breath, I assure you.

There really isn't going to be too much of a deviation from present policy, sorry liberals, if that's what you were hoping..

-------------------------totally agree with your win think
//Im not totally sure, but i think Mr. Obama trumped that question by being the first demo. to say
"i admit, that we will be in iraq after i am in office" or some similar thing
then HC slavishly copying the idea.

HC is 9.5 on the lie scale..

i think everyone is milling around & realising Bre'er Rabbit is really totally stuck to the tar baby, no one is gonna pull him off there, farmer with shotgun coming or not.
we are stuck
// next issue pls?

Gosling: Son, if you think Mitt Romney is going to win this election, you are in for a sad, sad Election Day.

My point being that we will continue existing policy with a Republican in office, it really doesn't have to be Romney.

And he could win quite easier than you think, the mistake liberals make is that they think there are a lot of them here in the US, when the majority of America is actually much more comfortable with a Bush administration mindset. Some of us are quite grateful they have kept the enemy away in some other country instead of our own streets and neighborhoods.

skookum: the majority of America is actually much more comfortable with a Bush administration mindset

I was worried for a minute, but this is more like the skookum I know and love

Shaggy_C: JSTACAT: the very nuggins of the tuna

Dude...whatever drugs you're on, I want a lot of them.

THIS!

posted in another thred..

a tough one to swallow

There's no way in hell a republican is going to take the oath of office when the dust settles on this election. People are fed up with the status queue and are eager to expel Bush from the Whitehouse.

The only way a republican would have a snowballs chance in hell of darkening the door to the Whitehouse would be if there were rampant and obvious voter fraud. The ballot-stuffing gimmick isn't going to work this time because the election isn't going to boil down to merely one contested state.

This is going to be a landslide victory for whoever the democratic nominee is. If you need proof just look at the midterm elections and see the absolute repudiation the republicans suffered. That sentiment is alive and well and if anything has grown since then. It's obvious by the voter activity during these primaries thus far that the motivation is clear to put a democrat any democrat in office.

Jennifer

Except... that the Democrats who won in that landslide.. haven't actually... well, done anything to change anything. I'm no fan of Bush (who is a republican only in name, not in action), but the Dems.. just seem, well... utterly worthless and ineffective.

I think I'm one of a growing group who is willing to vote for a true leader, not just another political figurehead.

waiting4godot:

I think I'm one of a growing group who is willing to vote for a true leader, not just another political figurehead.

Lemme guess, you're going to vote for Ron Paul?

Polls only matter when they say what you want to hear.