Never doubt me. Read the previous blog article. Then realize that THIS is the SECOND featrued (on my AT&T/Yahoo 'News" "welcome' page), the day after polls were AGAIN DISCREDITED in this election season by the election results yesterday:
Poll: Obama leads all GOP candidates in head-to-head contests"
No, it is a MEANINGLESS and EVIL thing to give ANY meaning to an alleged opiniinon poll NOW, as to what will hapen in November. In November, Obama may win by 10 percentage points, or he may lose by ten percentage poins. What is not in doubt is that a poll NOW does not telly you ANYTING about which it will be. I this eleciton season, polls have not meant anything as to two WEEKS, or even ONE WEEK, in the future. How incompetnet do you have to be to FEATURE a POLL as "news' the day after this was again P:ROVEN trrue? It is just impossible to be more incompetent and dishonest than this.
Notice that the mainstream media CHOSE the poll they would "feature" today. The poll they chose, by the way, makes a mockery of the ROMNEY attempt to use pols to 'prove" he will be better able to defeat Obama. That is one of the things that makes this particular poll, as to a matc-up not even set yet, so very meaningless. If you are a Romney supporter (or a Santourm supporter), when you are asked to give an "opinion" NOW between Obama and the candidate you do NOT support, what are you going to say? If you have any intelligence at all, lyou are going to say: OBAMA (because that helps your cnadidate in the nomination contest). I, of curse, routinely LIE to pollsters anyway, or do not cooperatgte with them. You should do the same, and forget aobut trying to USE polls as some sort of evil, partisan weapon (as the incompetetn, dishonest media attempts to use them). I digress (sort of). The pont here is there are OTHER polls ut there that suggest that BOTH Romney and Santroum might be able to beat Obama if the electoin were to be held today (a flat-out LIE in the reporting of polls, since the relevant pont is that the elecitn will NOT be held today). Rush Limbaugh PICKS the poll results that HE likes. The equally partisan mainstream media, including Yahoo "News" (and I am not bothering to "report" which mainstream media source the despicable Yahoo chose to "feature" here, because they are all the same), then choose to feature the polls THEY LIKE (ignoring the others). Limbuagh gets to GlOAT over one set of polls. The mainstream media gets to GLOAT over anoteher se t of polls. And it is only ME telling you that ALL of the polls are meaningless, evil thigns (especially as to what will happen more than a few days in advance).
The Orwellian Bil Lie here is that ANY poll is "news". This coninued media reliance by the media on polls as the MAIN way they "report" an election continues to prove t hat "modern "jurnalists" deserve nothing but total CONTEMPT. You should pay NO attentin to htem, as I am pretty confident most of you do not. Fewer people "respect" "journalists" every single day, and even fewer believe them. In the history of man, there may have never been a more INCOMPETENT professin that that of modern "journalism". That is the main problem with Rush Lbimaguh calling that Georgetown law student (an extreme partisan herself) a "whore" (besides defl,ecting away from the maiin issue of FREEDOPM rather than "contraception"). One of this blog's favorite headlines, used basically every time I "surf" Andrea Mitchell's program on MSNBC, is; "Andrea Mitchell Is a Whore." Now I always make clear, as Limbaugh did not, that I am talking FIGURATIVELY, in the sense that basically all modern "journalists" are whores. But I do one other thing that Limbuagh did not immediately do (although he should have). I always APOLOGIZE TO WHORES for insulting them by comparing them with "journalists". An honest whore (maybe difficutlt to find) si so much better than a modern "journalist" that they are not even in the same league. I think that is true of a comparison of that Georgetown law student with an honest whore, as well. Her probleml is not that she is literally a whore, but that she is trying to help destory freedom in this country. Modern "journalists" are trying to destroy "truth" in this country.
CONTEMPT is all you should ever feel toward a modern "journalist". There MAY be exceptins, but you can count them on one hand. This whole reporting of polls is a prime example, as this blog has informed you for almost a decade (even as this blog has been consistent: trashing polls I "like" (that is, which support what I think people SHOULD think)), and polls I don't like. None of them (polls) are "news", and the WAY in which polls are "reported" is ALWAYS A LIE (again, whether the poll agrees with me or not).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). But see the P.S. in the previus article as to who can really SEE here. I STROGLY recommend that you either LIE to pollsters, or not cooperate with them at all. You will be doing your country a service if we get rid of polls FOREVER (as we CAN, simply be enough people refusing to cooperatte). No, you are being short-sighted if you are so partisan as to want to "help" your candidate by participainng in a poll, or telling the truth. As this blog has shown it is an EVIL thing to suggest (as the media implicitly does) that poll results should have ANY effect on how people vote. Beyond that, you are ddeluded if you think you can really "help" your candidate this way. You can, however, HELP THE COUNTRY by jelping destory polls forever. Thiink of how GREAT it would be if both candidates and media people had nO DIEA (other than jusdgment) how any electin would turn out as we went into electin day. Candidates might actually have to CAMPAIGN in all states. Again, except for JUDGMENT, we would not even know what the GATTLEGOUOUND statates would be. There is nothing that would help this country more than to wake up some day and see a SURPRISSE that a GOP canddiate had won California or that a Democrat canddiate had won Texas (on the Presidential level). Notice that if you DESTROY polls, you do so BOTH for the media and for the candidates. If people do not cooperagte with ANY POLL, then the candidates will have NO idea (beyyond a judgment they don't have) what the people "think". They will not be able to "tailor" their '"meassage" to polls and focus groups. Yep. I am tellng you not tto be innvolved in focus groups as well, trying to get yourselves noticed. If you have to participate in a focus group to get yourself "nooticed", then you are more PATHETIC--haiing less of a life--than I am. Now those of you who read this blog may think it proves this not to be true, and that nobody is more patheticc than I am (wasiting time on a blog that not many read, partly because most cannot stand the gaarbled typing and lack of proofreading). Nevertheless, I acknowledge I am a HERMIIT, with almost no "life" at all. If you are even in a positon whhere you MIGHT be compared with me unfavorably, then you are pathetic. That is how I view people who participate in focus groups, or who are anxious to give their "opinions" in polls.