Yeah, but we can’t overlook the fact that the sheeple buy into these manipulated polls. They stare at Katie on their boobs on the tube and take it all in.

fogw on February 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM

This rewrite might better reflect your idea.

Wow WND found more than the NYT. lol Oh, Stenny we know you hate Mav and have stated so numeorous times. Capt’n articles is just more bad news for you because you’ve been saying he can’t win. Guess what? All EVIDENCE contradicts you, your really starting to get nervous and are piecing together a collage of innuendo and maybees. lol Can’t wait to logon the day after the election to see you poopoo that the results must be fixed. lol

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 26, 2008 at 12:11 PM

You know what Mr. One, you won’t hear me crying the day after the election if mcCain wins. I HOPE TO GOD YOU ARE RIGHT. You are missing my point, I just think there were much better candidates. He will suck against Osama.

If you’re right, I’ll buy you a steak dinner. OK? It’s early, way too early, to be counting on the polls.

I’ve told you what McCain has to do to get my vote… I’ll keep my promise. Now relax… we really ARE onn the same side, we just see it differently.

According to this website:

Sitting on the Commission of Chicago Landmarks board, Michelle knew of a permit, waiting for review and approval to sell, for a designated Historical Georgian revival home built in 1910…

There follows a lot of details about how the property was subdivided so the Obamas could afford to buy it, all the permits needed, and so forth.

It goes on to say:

All that needed to be done, in the name of the doctor, on the Kenwood property was completed by March 2005, and the house was finally listed. Michelle Obama resigned her seat on the Chicago Commission on Landmarks at the same time.

But according to the Chicago Tribune, Barack Obama has a different, albeit fuzzy, explanation of how they heard of the property:

In the past, the two lots had been sold as a single estate. But in 2005, the owners listed the two parcels for sale separately.

Obama said his family’s real estate broker brought the house to his wife’s attention. He said he discussed the house with Rezko but isn’t sure how Rezko began pursuing the adjacent lot. But Obama raised the possibility that he was the first to bring the lot to Rezko’s attention.

“I don’t recall exactly what our conversations were or where I first learned, and I am not clear what the circumstances were where he made a decision that he was interested in the property,” Obama said.

“I may have mentioned to him the name of [a developer and] he may at that point have contacted that person. I’m not clear about that,” Obama said.

Riiiiighht. (Makes me think of Rush’s parody of Hillary where she says she can’t remember because her mind is jello).

Note also that Rezko agreed to pay for the fence around Obama’s house, but the company who built the fence was never paid because Rezko was indicted shortly thereafter.

One would think that Obama, who peddles the audacity of hope, would step in and pay the guy for his work on his property, who is no doubt hoping to be paid.

Wow WND found more than the NYT. lol Oh, Stenny we know you hate Mav and have stated so numeorous times. Capt’n articles is just more bad news for you because you’ve been saying he can’t win. Guess what? All EVIDENCE contradicts you, your really starting to get nervous and are piecing together a collage of innuendo and maybees. lol Can’t wait to logon the day after the election to see you poopoo that the results must be fixed. lol

Yeah, but we can’t overlook the fact that the sheeple buy into these manipulated polls. They stare at Katie on their boob tube and take it all in.

And since that is the reason CBS and the NYT manufacture this biased data, they are winning.

Informed voters: 15% of the public
Dumba$$ voters: 85% of the public

Therein lies the problem.

fogw on February 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Unfortunately true. And they will only watch sound bites of debates that the media wishes to play. It is a big problem.

stenwin, another “lifelong conservative” for Obama.

I wish I could say I called him out first, but it was Limerick or somebody.

funky chicken on February 26, 2008 at 11:59 AM

And you are SO wrong. I just don’t think McCain is a good candidate against Osama. I will vote for McCain when he gets rid of JUAN HERNANDEZ, says he will pardon Ramos & Compeon, and puts a conservative on the ticket.

Just what will all of you do when this story (or future stories) about McCain and his antics turn out to be true? Cause they’re out there. THen it will be too late to get a GOOD candidate.

Just remember that not every one agrees with you (or me) and just because they do not agree with you, it doesn’t make them any less a conservative. I certainly don’t question your party affiliation or conservative values just because we don’t agree on John McCain. I think we agreed on Fred Thompson, though.

And since that is the reason CBS and the NYT manufacture this biased data, they are winning.

Informed voters: 15% of the public
Dumba$$ voters: 85% of the public

Therein lies the problem.

I wish I could say I called him out first, but it was Limerick or somebody.

From WND:
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee for president, has been linked by documents and testimony to another alleged case of what critics are calling influence peddling, this time involving a minority broadcaster in Pittsburgh.

The New York Times last week published a major, controversial expose that insinuated McCain had a romantic relationship with telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman, whose clients had a large stake in decisions made by the Senate Commerce Committeee McCain headed. The report, however, was denied by McCain and widely discredited for lack of evidence.

According to his own testimony, it wasn’t until he decided to give $4,000 in personal donations to Sen. John McCain, who at the time was chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee, and another $40,000 to a then 30-year-old Iseman, that anything happened…..
McCain has legislated in favor of several other Iseman clients on issues dealing primarily with minority broadcast ownership. Here is the full list of her clients, who have contributed close to $100,000 to his campaigns, gleaned from Senate lobbying disclosure reports she and her firm have filed:

* Hispanic Broadcasting Inc.

* Telemundo Network Group Total Living Network Tulare County, Calif. * Univision Communications[snip]

In addition, Iseman has acquired a number of major Hispanic-owned businesses as clients. McCain sponsored a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill that would grant amnesty to millions of Hispanic immigrants living illegally in the U.S., even though Republicans in his border state of Arizona strenuously opposed the measure…..

—————————————–

The story is growing legs, MY FRIENDS.

I always say that if you torture the numbers enough, they’ll confess to anything.

I really need to get more of my friends to read Hot Air. The gloomy Republican mood will ensure our defeat, and the truth is that it is entirely manufactured by the MSM.

(Made modestly famous in the William Gibson sci-fi novel “Pattern Recognition”.)

Maybe CBS is tallying on these antique devices?

These results are completely useless, and once again CBS and the New York Times report more on their own credibility than on the mood of the electorate.

Even if CBS and the NYT were objective news outlets and they didn’t skew the numbers…… Aren’t these polls useless anyway?

We are eight months away from the general election. The running mates will matter to a degree (Obama’s to add gravitas to his lack of experience, McCain’s to add some charisma and youth to the AARP ticket). So too will world events including whatever happens in the GWOT. Obama’s greatest strength lies in domestic policies but one terrorist event could well put him in a double digit deficit with the adults. Conversely, if all continues to go well in the GWOT, McCain’s achilles heel among conservatives is his far-left domestic positions including amnesty, higher taxes, and bigger government.

So, what value do these early polls really have in the outcome of the general election?

In 2004 they were called on it, and their (ridiculous) response? They claim their polling was accurate, but there is a consistant last minute swing- sometimes in the space of a day- towards Republicans. Yet they still refused to release their methodology. Absolutely shameful.