CNBC's message to Paul supporters.

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Brokor, Oct 12, 2007.


  1. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    LINK: http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

    (If you can't handle internet polling, then don't put it up on the internet in the first place)

    Remarkable.
     
  2. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    "But you also ruined the purpose of the poll."

    Yea the purpose of the poll was to promote one of the fine NWO puppets. Shame on all of you that want to have freedom and a Constitutional government. :mad:[LMAO][LMAO][LMAO][own2]

    OGM
     
  3. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    ...and my response I sent to him....


    Sir, regarding your stance that the poll was mislead by those voteing for Dr. Paul, I would have to disagree. A devoted few can do the same at the polling booth for the election, not through any form of 'cheating the system' but rather by the fact that those who are dedicated to their candidate will show up. I would wager that if there were major winter storms on election day MANY of the other candidates supporters would not venture out due to lack of dedication to their candidates (lets face it most of politics these days is voteing against the worst by supporting the least appauling candidate) but those who have heard Ron Pauls mesage in spite of the near media blackout on his campaign are deveoted to getting him into office, and not just to keep others out.

    As far as the 'legitemate' polls not showing any where close to these numbers, I believe the greatest reason for this is NOT that they are more accurate but rather the fact that they ask the wrong chosen sample of people and their questions are biased. Those who I have spoken to who have been polled have mentioned that in order to vote for Dr Paul in pols such as the Gallop polls they had to choose 'other' and only then did they find he was even listed. They were basicly told to choose A or B or no opinion so many picked between A and B when their opinion was in fact D. Then there is the fact that the polls like these contact people chosen from lists of those who voted and voted Republican in the last election (or for some polls only supervoters who have voted in at least the last 3 elections of the type). Dr Paul has a VERY large portion of his supporters who felt disenfranchised and had given up on the system and quit voteing but now have hope and intend to vote inorder to vote for him, these people would not be shown in these polls. He also has a large number of supporters who have been registered Demicrats but are now changeing their registrations to vote for him, these people are not represented on these polls. He also has the support of a majority of the 3rd party voters from the Libretarian and Constitution parties who intend to vote for him and strongly campaign on his behalf, these people are not represented in these polls.

    Is it really any suprise that when you create a poll where the unrepresented supporters of a candidate can be heard that their numbers sho far higher than when a large portion of them are ommited? Is it any wonder their numbers are increased exponentialy when the poll ALSO shows devotion in that those polled have to go to the poll (kind of like election day) rather than the poll comeing to them? If the supporters of the other candidates didnt even care enouph about their views on candidates to hit a few keys and go take your poll what makes you think they will bother to go to the polls several miles for many from home?

    There was also another poll that claimed to have also been 'tampered with' by Ron Paul supporters. It was a text message poll, what they didnt admit when they claimed this was that it was also set to only allow 1 vote from a given phone number so tampering was impossible except at their end by hideing the results.

    I submit that this was indeed a 'show of hands', Ron Paul supporters bear no responsibility for it if supporters of other candidates didnt care enouph about the matter to raise their hands while his supporters found it 'worth the effort'.

    Sincerly, XXXX XXXXXXX
     
  4. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    What a bunch of ****ing idiots.
     
  5. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Here's MY letter to the editor. One of only three in my lifetime.


    Sir:
    You, of all people, should be aware of the affect that the media can have on the population. If not, the recent response to your airing of the Republican debate should have made it abundantly clear. I get the sense that you think the ballot box was stuffed, so to say, with the poll that followed. I’d point out the obvious, and say that polls with limited choices can be interpreted similarly, let’s call that anti-stuffing, shall we?

    Have you considered that Ron Paul supporters really are wide spread and numerous? Did you check the IP addresses to see if maybe there were duplicates, or is it possible that the straw, unscientific, random poll drew out some that care rather than ho-hum people with nothing better to do? You might well have gotten the show of hands you asked for, and obviously did not expect.

    I would argue that your definition of a “legit” poll varies a bit from mine. I like chocolate chip mint ice cream, but if the poll wants me to respond to “Do you prefer vanilla or raspberry?” you’ll get “other” from me, if I bother at all with it. You can see where this is going, don’t you? If Congressman Paul is not a choice --.

    You state that the poll was taken down because it “was either hacked or the target of a campaign.” You don’t offer a third choice, that it might be real and was flooding your counting machinery. You closed it without considering other possibilities.

    Have you checked the Ron Paul chat sites to see just how many members there are versus the <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Clinton</st1:place></st1:city> chat sites? The Obama chat sites? How can you draw the conclusion that there is a conspiracy to muddy the water with polling numbers? (However, here I might agree, things can be skewed that way. I wonder if one of the other camps stoop so low, too.)

    You say, “But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" “ I submit that you got what you asked for, at least within the constraints of unscientific, essentially meaningless polling. Structure the polls to eliminate skewing, and you’ll get better numbers. Even the big pollsters are careful, most of the time, to put controls in place to avoid contaminating data. When a political party commissions a poll, the candidates will make financial decisions based on the results. They will not tolerate skewed data, hence the need for controls and focused questions. You might do the same if your income depended on it. This poll was clearly a waste of time to construct and issue. However, you got your story, and face it, any publicity is good publicity.

    You say, “-- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.” It may not have been your intention to set up a platform, but it did, and there is part of your story. To that extent, it served your purpose (and your readers) rather well. All the candidates got exposure that they desired, the end result simply did not fit the expected cookie cutter shape.

    No, I’m not a rabid Paulist. Yet.

    Regards,
     
  6. ChemicalGal

    ChemicalGal Monkey+++

    Ghrit & Monkeyman

    Great letters. You made great points in both of them but I seriously doubt that they really care....as ghrit says "doesn't fit the cookie cutter shape"

    Ghrit....maybe you should write more of them. It is proactive.
    cya
    CG
     
  7. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    GEEZ, zou guys write lengthy letters. Mine was short and sweet.

    Subject: Ron Paul "fans"...

    Message:
    Are Patriots.

    If you don't like the results of internet polling, then please consider not making any in the first place. The Ron Paul supporters are patriotic, informed individuals who take responsibility for their actions. The question is, do you?

    Sincerely,
    Me.
     
  8. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    That is more of my type of letter short, sweet and to the point. [beer]

    OGM
     
  9. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    They DON'T care, that is part of the message I was trying to get across to our esteemed representative of the 5th estate. Selective reporting is by definition biased. I would just roll over in ecstacy if the mainstream press got the idea that selective reporting belongs on the editorial pages, not the front page. Dolts, nearly all the so-called reporters, and most of the talking heads. Especially those that insist on using words ending in -ly to increase their column inches. [booze]
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7