Foxx news trying to disqualify their own poll

Source

I am so tired of all the media out there. They use the polls to justify their position and when they dont like the results they have to offer an explanation as to how the poll is possibly wrong. I didnt hear them mention that the poll may be wrong for rudy or any other candidate it's always about knocking Ron Paul. Watching parts of the debate it's really amusing when ron paul makes a statement how the onstage microphones pick up a laugh from another debater and the laughs always take on the tone of hahhahaha I cant believe he just said that. But in the end It's not the audience laughing but it's the audience applauding.


[edit on 6-9-2007 by photobug]

Now on another video of the debate I just found was recorded by someone other than fox news. The audience doesn't hear Rudys sarcastic laugh but the news definately pumped up the volume on his microphone so the millions of americans watching could hear it.

Compare the audio of this clip to the one broadcasted by fox news

This is just another manifestation of the Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf effect.

Don't get me wrong, some of Paul's stances I do find to be very attractive, but I'm certain that these non-scientific polls that repeatedly show him in the lead is due to manipulation rather than wide popularity.

[edit on 9/6/2007 by djohnsto77]

reply to post by photobug


Thanks for sharing this photobug The media and the way they are going about this makes me feel they are being pulled at every string they are attached too!! They are not going to lay down and just let him win..
Im being told over and over agin. Why bother? The vote, will it count?

We can only try!! And hope that if enough people are up for the work, to change things, this is our chance!

If you have some time, I added some video here
Ron Paul Media blackouts

reply to post by djohnsto77



You have a point in that statement for I saw an email urging people to text in for ron paul, However the main points I wish to make with this thread are ......

1. The media will spin an event to whatever they choose.
2. This is just another event in Ron Pauls campaign where he is being made to look like a freak.
3. The statement was unfair because there was no mention of the possibility of Rudy's poll numbers being skewed or any other candidate for that matter. Perhaps Rudy's entire family was texting in 1000's of votes for him. If they thought the poll was flawed then that should have been mentioned with impartiality.
4. The Clear evidence of sound editing or selective editing to enhance rudy's sarcastic laugh when Paul makes a comment. How many other times during the debate do you hear all the other candidates noises, gasps, comments etc. If the audio was correct then we should have heard the breathing, coughing and throat clearing of all other candidates during the whole debate.
5. What happened to true media reporting, In school I was taught that a reporter was nonbiased and should only report the who, what, when, and where, It was taught that it was unethical to insert a personal opinion into the matter. I suppose all those who went to journalism school with an unbiased attitude or those that refuse to report nothing but the truth are homeless and poor living under a bridge.

Just to set the record clear I like some of the things Ron paul has to say but I am not a die hard supporter, in fact I havn't made up my mind as far as who I am going to vote for it's just that everytime I turn around I see a media spin against him. This makes me think that there are some people afraid of what he has to say.

This is just another manifestation of the Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf effect.

I see where you are going.. But I dont agree with the point.. Unless I am misinformed about the Fox poll...

However the Fox poll would allow one vote. Per caller correct? or is that wrong information?


The Hank Effect after researching the deal is not the same..
Hank effect only would work if you can vote as many times as you want..

The poll was configured so that users could vote multiple times, by deleting a cookie given from the site. Many contestants had scripts written that would allow users to vote repeatedly.

My understanding is you had a small group of people to chose from, not who ever you want.. And the Hank poll was done online, not over the phones.

Ok, People magazine has made the mistake of letting you vote for anyone as a most beautiful person of '98

Thus the point you make is broken.. And sounds like another Fox like spin..
But agin, I understand it to be just a point, where you do find some of Ron Pauls stance good.. So just pointing out how I see it..

If I am wrong about the Fox poll please let me know..
That way I wont be misinformed..

You have a point in that statement for I saw an email urging people to text in for ron paul.

What is wrong with promoting to vote for the person you would like to see win the debate.. I think he should have won, hands down...

I dont understand how urging emails to people to vote is considered manipulation? I think its a good thing more people are getting off their butts and giving a say.. When it starts to work, some people start to get mad, and frustrated.. They will make sure this doesnt happen agin.. We may see.


[edit on 6-9-2007 by zysin5]

I see nothing wrong with urging people to vote, It's the american way. We are all suppose to get out there and vote. The point was taken and made. I like your arguments Zysin5. I must practice up on my debating skills if I am to be president in 2012.

i watched sean and hannity commenting on the debate afterwords and doing interviews with the debaters...and its clear there is an obvious biased going on...sean did everything he could to point out how ridiculous he thought it was that paul was favored by a large number in the polls...i must say im not a ron paul supporter i find him very interesting and think he has some good ideas but right now im leaning towards obama(not here to debate about obama or paul so please dont)anyways my point being im not really a ron paul"fan"and still it was and is still clear to me how fox tried to spin it to make dude look like a looney tune and a joke...even today on fox after he lead won in thier poll....still no mention of him aside from the jokes they made about the guy on fox and friends...its a sad state of affairs when the "news" cant be taken seriously these days...there are plenty from ats who would make better reporters then anybody i see on mainstrem media and that is lame....very lame

peace.

Main stream media is not about the truth and honesty, its about ratings, and entertainment!!!!!! Just the way the "Owners" of that media want it.

You sit there and watch the truth unfold before your very eyes, and still slurp up the Ashkenazi filth, lies, and gore. America, put your beer and sports DOWN, AND WAKE THE **** UP!!!!!!!

"And if you don't know what a ASHKENAZI" is, do a key word search on the net, before they take the net down!!!"

[edit on 7-9-2007 by All Seeing Eye]

reply to post by photobug


That video you linked to is old, that's from one of the first debates and was posted 9 Months ago.

Not to say this detracts from the point your making, just thought I would point it out that the video you are linking is old.

Now with all this said, it's still happening, however, it doesn't seem to have any impact on Ron Pauls campaign

reply to post by zysin5


Yes, you could only vote once from each cell phone number. So, unless ron paul's "30 supporters" each own 1,000 different cell phones, there's no way for them to manipulate the results in any meaningful way.

RON PAUL WON!!!!

reply to post by promomag


Yes I realized that this morning after I had a few hours sleep. It's amazing how quickly ou miss a detail or two when your mind is trying to disapear in to lala land. Thanks though I appeciate your keeping it into perspective, the main points and arguments of the post are still valid.

reply to post by photobug

Ron Paul's support isn't based on his persona, history or perceived power. What support he has comes because of his views. As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background. They should stop giggling, and engage in a serious way.

That quote is from Peggy Noonan in her Opinion Journal article Sept. 7, 2007.

Reading that today you could have knocked me over with a feather. From my vista north of the border, I see Ron Paul as the only hope the USA has to maintain a Constitutional Republic in the face of the Federal Empire which has been carefully crafted thus far by George HW Bush, Wm. Jefferson Clinton, and Geo. W. Bush among others.

I like Ron Paul too, but a couple of things he said during the last debate turned me off. Such as when he was debating with Huckabee and blurted out something about Republicans "losing votes", ("we're losing votes") using that as the basis one of his arguments.

And when he said; "that's one of the reasons..." they [the terrorists] are at war with us. Siting what the terrorists want as the reason why he would not have us create bases on Islamic territory.

I undertand what he's saying, but he shouldn't make it appear as if he would (if president) be so influenced by what these murderers want. (I think we should get out of all those places, but don't make it seem like we're doing so because terrorists scared us.

He comes across as a bit of a nut, not to say he is. But a more intelligent person would present himself and his ideas better. He doesn't effectively convey his ideas during a debate. I like most of his ideas, it's a shame he can't really debate them without looking like a nut.

reply to post by Electro38



It's clearly established that 9-11 is considered to be blowback. They attacked us because we pissed them off. If you want to stop future terrorist attacks, don't make them angry. You dont go up to some guy and kick him in the nuts, then wonder why all of his friends jump you, right?

We instigated it, PERIOD!

[edit on 9/7/2007 by sp00n1]

It's too bad Ron Paul is being dubbed out by his own party. If he was the Presidential candidate, I would vote for him.

But it's too bad we are only left with a two party system.

What can you say about FOX? This should not be surprising to anyone now-a-days how the media mind control works.

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by Electro38

 

It's clearly established that 9-11 is considered to be blowback. They attacked us because we pissed them off. If you want to stop future terrorist attacks, don't make them angry. You dont go up to some guy and kick him in the nuts, then wonder why all of his friends jump you, right?

We instigated it, PERIOD!

[edit on 9/7/2007 by sp00n1]

I completely agree, that's why I like Ron Paul's ideas. However, my argument was that he shouldn't announce that he would do anything because it would appease the terrorists.

It's also, however not just that we have bases on Islamic land but also that we are not Muslim. So when Paul's president would he think we should all convert to Islam so we're not attacked again?
(Bin Laden said it today in his new video. We should all convert to Islam if we don't want to get blown up).

The terrorists also hate and want to kill not only Americans (because we have bases on their land) but all other countries that are not Islamic.

See my point? We should do the right thing and get ou of their land, mind our business, but a pres candidate is nuts if he is going to announce he will do what the terrorists want.

And, "it's clearly established"? By who? You? (I'd like to know who "clearly established" that).

I understabd what you're saying and agree with it, but that was not "clearly established".

[edit on 7-9-2007 by Electro38]

FOX is flat out lying. The way the poll was set up, your phone number was recorded when you call or text in to vote. So a person could only vote ONE time unless he used multiple phones. So for FOX to say anything about the accuracy of the votes is nothing more than a lie.

I do not agree with some of what Ron Paul says. I certainly do not agree with his stance on the issue of abortion for one. However, I agree with him on the really important issues such as immigration, foreign policy, and a large part of his domestic policies. I love the fact that he looks to the CONSTITUTION for answers.

to announce he will do what the terrorists want.

You can spin it like that if you want... But the way I see it here.. ITs what the PEOPLE want!! See many mistake compassion for weakness, sure thats true.. But the people of the USA didnt want a WAR!! And we sertinly dont want more bloodshead!!

Alot of people are under this mind control still...
They ask me.. Why do you hate America? Why do you hate our troops?

Why will you do what the terroist want you to do??

More spin IMO...

This nation was suppose to be build upon what is best for the PEOPLE..
Not what is best for Federal Banks, and big Governments..

reply to post by Electro38


Thank you for your interesting reading of what Ron Paul said. I came to a completely different conclusion. I found him spot on, at times electrifying, and I was deeply impressed that he would continue to stand against the neo-conservative tide and insist that in dealing with one's enemies one must come to understand why they are one's enemy. Ron Paul's unflinching willingness to look at the actions of his country and leading the US public to realise that it takes two sides to create an intractable problem -- well, that remains the most refreshing thing I have heard from a US politician in ages. Whether he can be successful against the endless programming of US citizens via the elite-owned media remains to be seen.

I found Mike Huckabee to be absolutely frightening, and his use of "honour" to border on the obscene. For a politician to pretend that votes don't matter whilst waving the flag of 'honour' is evidence of an incredible George Orwellian 1984 mindset whose pathology should scare the hell out of everyone.

[edit on 7/9/07 by Pellevoisin]