Rightness is far better then... Wrongness.
But to say that the GOP has went more right, would be to say that the libs, have not gone more left.
IMO the thing that is being pushed is, that the center is more left, when its not... and the GOP is where it has always been.
Hell, right now, what would the people of 1906 think of us?
Ya, Marxist's....
Merry Christmas.
All you hojies (lovers) too!
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Thanks! Have a nice day too
Oops. You overlooked everything BUT banner ads. Again! You numbskull...as if I need to be told about banner ad technology...I've been purchasing them since before you had a high-school diploma.
And you did make my point very well for me. Right-leaning advertisers prefer the sites that right-leaning consumers frequent. Just as the right-leaning "content providers" also find you and your ilk there, and feed you what you wanna see. Net result? RIGHT-BIASED SITE! Yes! yes! FINALLY you understand! wheee!
Have a nicer day by just drilling down to any of the "news"stories they also host. Or any of the links. Or ANY of the site! It's ALL rightoric, all presented in ways that make righties smile and say "damn right"!
And you actually thought this was a non-biased site? Bwahahaha...don't make me pull ITS pants down and spank IT in front of everyone too.
You won't like watching that
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, December 28, 2009 2:43 PM
Oh, by the way...some have asked what my current sig means. If it shows a dog screwing a man's face:
The man is an ultra-loyal right wing supporter who eagerly and hungrily consumes such biased "news" and "polls".
The dog is those "news" and "polls".
OK, so you are older than you act. It was a fair guess
Oh well, you know what's coming next...
Are you then ready to watch in horror as I disassemble your preferred Poll (lol!) site, and reveal it as yet another right-wing tool of the trade?
You try to misdirect the conversation again. No surprises there. But before I embarrass you, let's get back on track....
The point I am making, and that you will have to admit you are contesting before I will continue with my Expose of Rasmussen, is that it's a biased, right-heavy site.
Do you agree that this is the point I am making, and that you are contesting?
Attention ho wrote:You try to misdirect the conversation again. No surprises there. But before I embarrass you, let's get back on track....
The point I am making, and that you will have to admit you are contesting before I will continue with my Expose of Rasmussen, is that it's a biased, right-heavy site.
Do you agree that this is the point I am making, and that you are contesting?
Bill, you're going to lose this one. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you. As Quik has pointed out, Rasmussen would have appeared to have a liberal-bias just a couple years ago.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
How it looked a couple of years ago is immaterial to today's discussion.
Today, it leans hard right, and I'll demonstrate it as surely as I tore up that hack extremist Hoff's "articles" about Jennings! But first, Quik needs to verify the task at hand.
Attention ho wrote:How it looked a couple of years ago is immaterial to today's discussion.
I don't see how it could have changed, unless you know of a major overhaul in personnel at Ras...
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Yes. Let's first recap, to clear your weak attempts at obfuscation.
You presented links to a site I found laughably biased, and I said:
Attention ho wrote:Meh. More of the dependably presented rightwing rhetoric. "Polls", lol. "Polls" presented in a decidedly biased light, from a who-knows-how scientific cross-section of respondents. Is this the latest tactic, to present propaganda as "polls"?
Apparently the right has determined that the people they are trying (too hard!) to impress are stupid and/or under-informed. I think this insultory approach could backfire. It's not working on me, for one.
Show me one president that was ushered in on a platform of dizzy, euphoric change whose numbers didn't worsen in the first year. Then I can actually take some of this rightoric to heart. Until then, all one need do, as usual...is consider the source.
You whined that it isn't right-wing, and I countered:
Attention ho wrote:Kee-rist. Yer blind. That Rasmussen site is plastered with rightieness...ads, links, U - NAME - IT.
I guess ya can't see what ya can't undertand. No shame in that...just a little embarrassment
You then whined about banner ads, and I patiently nudged you again:
Attention ho wrote:Thanks! Have a nice day too
Oops. You overlooked everything BUT banner ads. Again! You numbskull...as if I need to be told about banner ad technology...I've been purchasing them since before you had a high-school diploma.
And you did make my point very well for me. Right-leaning advertisers prefer the sites that right-leaning consumers frequent. Just as the right-leaning "content providers" also find you and your ilk there, and feed you what you wanna see. Net result? RIGHT-BIASED SITE! Yes! yes! FINALLY you understand! wheee!
Have a nicer day by just drilling down to any of the "news"stories they also host. Or any of the links. Or ANY of the site! It's ALL rightoric, all presented in ways that make righties smile and say "damn right"!
And you actually thought this was a non-biased site? Bwahahaha...don't make me pull ITS pants down and spank IT in front of everyone too.
You won't like watching that
To which you side-tripped on a reference to your real age, which would have put me placing banner ads on the Web in apparently 1989, which did indeed fall a few years short of my company's start on the web (1994, were you out of college yet?), but I still didn't let you obscure the point with that lame tangent:
Attention ho wrote:OK, so you are older than you act. It was a fair guess
Oh well, you know what's coming next...
Are you then ready to watch in horror as I disassemble your preferred Poll (lol!) site, and reveal it as yet another right-wing tool of the trade?
Which brings us to...Now. And away we go! You being the man in the sig, your rightie-sites the dog. Let this inquisition BEGIN!
you've stated in 5+ posts that you were gonna "spank" the Rasmussen poll. just @!#$ do it already then.
seems to me that somebody is tiptoeing around his claims.
Check out my build thread!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
We'll start by clicking on the link above. The following were today's Top Stories, 12-29-09:
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll:
Every single point made in this poll's accompanying text is anti-Obama. Yep. Every...single...point.
Expectations Soar for Passage of Health Care Plan, But Most Still Oppose It:
In this article, it reads as a "talking points" set from the RNC. Try to tell me it does not, and I'll laugh in your face.
For First Time, Plurality Believes Stimulus Plan Hurt the Economy
Well, here we go...a chance to perhaps show something OTHER than the right-wing perception of the stimulus.
Did they take this chance? LOL, of course not. More RNC talking points.
What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls
And what did our hand-picked polls tell us? Yep. Right-wing perspectives, crowing about right-wing "victories." Nothing more.
Presidential Approval Index: Bush -30
I'm at a loss on this one, honestly...it's a news story almost a year old. A Top Story...today?
Voters Frown on Health Plan Details - Abortion, Proof of Citizenship, Public Option
General derision on the Dems here, just more of the same. Not neutral, not left, just right.
Two Economies: Government Workers Optimistic, Private Sector Not
Entertaining. Why are we even presenting a "poll" such as this one? Well, simple, duh! It paints the current administration in a poor light as guardians of the state job dole. More anti-"socialist" paranoia poking.
GOP Lead Slips to Five on Generic Ballot
What's trumpeted here? Why, the ongoing slip of the Dem's apparent stranglehold on the voters' sensibilities, of course! No stone left unturned in taking these "statistics" and spinning them to favor RNC platforms and candidates. Equal time? Hell no, who needs equal time, we gots STATISTICS!
79% Say Another Terror Attack Likely Within Year
Let's trot out those faithful Right Wing targets, folks! Every...single...point is one of them:
Napolitano takes a drubbing.
People are forgetting the importance of 9/11.
Rail on the Fort Hood shooting as a "terrorist act" (after all, it was a Muslim, wasn't it? lol)
Make more Muslims rat out their comrades!
Guantanamo!
Cyber attacks by Terrorists!
Consumer confidence down compared to when Bush whomped up on Iraq!
55% View Michelle Obama Favorably
Well golly, even good ol Mrs. Obama is slipping in the "polls", but of course we MUST point out that
"it's not NEARLY as much as her husband is slipping!"
So. There we have it. Of all the "Top Stories", every one is right-sack-swinging, except for one that, for some reason, is a year old but now a Top Story again. And I bet we know why they included that one if we get our thinking Right...
I don't really see any need to keep exposing Rasmussen for what it is: a right-wing primer for the grumbling masses, selectively filtering alleged "poll" results to show only right-wing points. But if you want more of your face rubbed in it, just squirm some more, and I'll be glad to bring even more pain. There's still a helluva lot I have not addressed in this biased mess of a site.
RuggedZ wrote:you've stated in 5+ posts that you were gonna "spank" the Rasmussen poll. just @!#$ do it already then.
seems to me that somebody is tiptoeing around his claims.
Patience, my man. Good work takes time. Don't forget, I am the one who looks beyond the headlines to rat out the rhetoric. Quality posts like the one above are the result.
Plus, I like buliding anticipation...it makes Quik get hinky, and that's just fun!
All in good time. What say we instead stay on topic, at least for the moment.
I'm still awaiting your reply to my efficient dismantling of Rasmussen as a rightie site. First things first, my man
You're welcome! Thank you too for bringing me that Rasmussen site for hilarious dissection. It was almost as much fun as tearing to little bitty pieces that right-wing extremist's smear on Jennings. I won't tease you too much about the fact that it took you three weeks to reply to my post...nor that you only finally did so because I had to rub your nose in it to force you to reply. As for your (expectedly) weak response (sorry for not letting you change the subject and wiggling off the hook!)...well, we'll just let everyone who reads this wonder why you were afraid to reply. It certainly wasn't because you were working from a strong position
Yes, now that you've been sufficiently chastised for that bit of right-wrongness, I will be a good chap and reply to your latest post without requiring provocation. After all, someone has to raise the bar, and it is usually me. After all, I'd not want you to think that I could let it lay for weeks and just wish it would go away. That would be most cowardly
Just to show you how much I value your participation, I will even give my reply a post of its own, to follow this one.
Misinformation Peddler wrote:So Bill, I'm highly curious to read your explaination of Brown taking down Coakley in a very liberal state, spending 1/3 of the money in advertising that she did.
It's been a while since I stirred this pot, and I could use a good laugh.
I applaud the fact that the GOP scored a win despite the Chicken Little approach their most vocal pundits have employed as of late, ad nauseum. If you take the time to review some of the earlier posts in this thread, you'll have no choice but to acknowledge two things:
1. I am not against the GOP; in fact, I wish for them to continue to move away from fearmongering tactics and more towards an effective position, for if we lose the GOP, we lose all.
2. The election in question was indeed swung by independent and, yes,
Moderate voters, as per my predictions and preference. Thank God more middle-roaders were pulled into the fold. There may yet be hope for the GOP.
There is indeed life beyond doddering septugenarian rich men who can't even recall HOW many houses they own, accompanied by the vapid VP I'd like to fcuk. I await with great anticipation the more viable GOP candidates for 2012.
To continue the discussion...does anyone have a finger on who might be in the running for the GOP presidential ticket in '12?
Anyone is better then osoma.
Like my Black Lab.
(Ya, billy will read in to that one a bit....but I did rescue him from Katrina.)
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Palin running would be the complete admission of defeat. I don't think they are that stupid; I'm suprprised to learn you might be. Do you really think she's a viable candidate to right a capsized party?