 |
|
Drachasor
|
|
Are those the people averaging together other polls?
That's a pretty bad way to get polling data, because it makes a lot of bad assumptions (all the other polls have biases that cancel out, that they all have the same margin of error, etc).
I'd take the Gallup Poll over that. Gallop has always done a good job about doing polls well historically.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Heres a good example of how responsible Blogging actually works.
Suppostion of data, put out for millions to credit/discredit, claim appropriate mea culpa and/or victory
as opposed to CBS which followed Supposition of data, put out for millions to credit/discredit, defend til their dieing breath, walk away in total disgrace.
quote:
Open source journalism changes everything about MSM's approach, which is rarely if ever intentionally collaborative across corporate structures. Valuing the "scoop" as opposed to the truth increases vulnerability to bias and even disastrous meltdowns like the CBS-Rather-Mapes fiasco. Had CBS published the docs on the web with an open source request for commentary on their authenticity, no erroneous claim would have been made. CBS valued the "scoop" more than the accuracy of the story, which gives the lie to a lot of high-minded speeches about the role of the press as watchdog. A genuine watchdog would not hesitate to share out stories in the quest for accuracy. A watchdog interested primarily in its status as biggest watchdog in the neighborhood barks first and loudly, all the time. The actual ordinal mission is forgotten, as CBS forgot its own, as have most news organization in a hunt for ratings.
An example: Powerline has brought attention to a claim of new documents about Saddam-WMD-Al Qaeda being made by CybercastNewsService. If these docs are legit and the translations accurate, they are hugely important. If they are forgeries, they need to be exposed as such, and CNS will take a huge hit on its credibility. So how many of MSM's elite have rushed reporters to CSN's headquarters to assess the docs? I am still waiting for a MSM report on the claim being asserted, which seems like indifference because it isn't a MSM story. Please send me any link to a MSM story on the docs.
|
reference the Powerline story
quote:
Iraqi Documents Said to Detail WMD and Terrorist Connections
Cybercast News Service says that it has obtained copies of 42 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents from a "A senior government official who is not a political appointee." CNS has had the documents translated; here is how it describes them:
Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.
One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.
Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.
Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists.
CNS says further that it submitted the documents to Laurie Mylroie, retired CIA counter-terror specialist Bruce Tefft, and a former UNSCOM inspector to check their authenticity.
The CNS account provides a great deal of detail about the documents and has links to partial translations of the documents and other material.
The government official who gave the documents to CNS says he thinks it unlikely that the Bush administration is even aware of their existence, given the large volume of intelligence-related documents waiting to be translated.
Thanks to several readers who alerted us to this story.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:22
|
|
Bush still leads by 5% after the debate...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...4-2004Oct4.html
"The proportion of likely voters with a favorable view of Kerry grew from 39 percent immediately before the date to 47 percent in the latest poll. At the same time, the proportion of voters with an unfavorable of him dropped by 3 points to 42 percent. However, Bush still remains slightly more popular, with 53 percent of all likely voters saying they had a favorable impression of him."
Just a little tid bit I was looking at... Bush's unfavorable rating actually dropped after the debate.
Edit: Election? I mean debate.
Last edited by Giancarlo on 05-10-2004 at 02:43
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Docfeelgood
|
 |
Homeless in Texas.
Aug 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
The Pro-Kerry spin doctors have been screaming their lungs at you and you have taken the bait. |
Actually I don't like either one of them
Go back and look to see if Bush broke his campain promises about attacking another country.
"I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.
think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. "
October 3, 2000
The First Gore-Bush Presidential Debate
BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.
MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?
BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.
October 11, 2000
The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate
Last edited by Docfeelgood on 06-10-2004 at 04:57
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-10-2004 00:31
Attachment: 
|
