Beckisms

[tricky]

Originally Posted by PETA

You missed the point - shocking I know.

You asserted that FOX's high ratings were meaningless - actually worse - you implied that they reflected a large audience of fools.

Now you're pointing to the election results (ratings) with their 7% margin (a much lower margin than FNCs dominance of the airwaves) as evidence of wisdom of that 7% margin.

You can't have it both ways... unless you're going to tell me that a larger margin would be evidence that Obama's victory was a result of foolish voters... which you're not prepared to do.



You could argue that and the other foot to fall wouyld be that MSNBC, CNN et al are out of touch.

I pointed out how meaningless your fox news ratings comparison with presidential rating.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by tricky

I pointed out how meaningless your fox news ratings comparison with presidential rating.

How ya like those ratings now?
Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth

(p.s. for your information, the link above would be what educated people like to call a 'credible' source. You should try it sometime. Of course, you should do it after you actually research a topic that you are flaming about, because there are many, many more citations like this one. ~regardless of the short-term Nobel spike Obama is sinking like the Titanic)

[tricky]

so WSJ is credible and NY Times isn't ? That's also an opinion piece in a conservative newspaper...from MARCH.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

so WSJ is credible and NY Times isn't ? That's also an opinion piece in a conservative newspaper...from MARCH.

Pretty much. How many writers left WSJ in disgrace for ghosting their stories?

The NYT is losing readership because it lost its credibility - the WSJ hasn't.

Opinion is opinion but that doesn't necessarily invalidate it. Is the opinion substantiated and supported by credible facts or is it merely polemic and ad hominem?

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by tricky

so WSJ is credible and NY Times isn't ? That's also an opinion piece in a conservative newspaper...from MARCH.

Uh... Did you read it? The 'opinion piece' is talking about the POLL DATA. Disregarding the FACTS presented to you AGAIN!

You are friggin hilarious man!

Bwahhahahahahhahah

[tricky]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

Uh... Did you read it? The 'opinion piece' is talking about the POLL DATA. Disregarding the FACTS presented to you AGAIN!

You are friggin hilarious man!

Bwahhahahahahhahah

that poll data is from march asshat. try something relevant. numbers have been rather steady currently. they're still way higher than bush's if we're really gonna get into a pissing match over polling numbers.

[johnny861]

lol check it out, it's fair and balanced!

http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video...%3DDZnEtsylt1s

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by tricky

that poll data is from march asshat. try something relevant. numbers have been rather steady currently. they're still way higher than bush's if we're really gonna get into a pissing match over polling numbers.

The funniest thing is... YOU are the one continuously talking about BUSH.

Wake up douche.. very few conservatives are repeatedly discussing the virtues of G.W.Bush.. Why? because of the B.S. 'Big Government' spending during the last 2yrs of his Presidency.

So, guess what? It's time for you to suck it up and move on. This is about YOUR guy's eff'ed up system now.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by tricky

that poll data is from march asshat. try something relevant. numbers have been rather steady currently.

For once in your life Tricky Dick... you are correct. I linked the wrong poll data... So here you go... and to make up for it, I added several more:

July2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124890178435291341.html
September 2009
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...Zklm1KoxTV1phK
October 2009
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll
Yesterday
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ma-poll-shows/