When does Political Information become partisan?

[JRK]

When does Political Information become partisan?

When it fails to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Amen

 

[JakeStarkey]

And this is often what JRK does: many of his postings fail "to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

 

[JRK]

And this is often what JRK does: many of his postings fail "to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Impress us Jake
Link to one that has failed
One Jake or shut up Jake

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have posted hundreds, some in this thread alone. Whatever I post, you will simply deny. That is what you do: deny. When you are really wrong, you deny more loudly.

That's what neo-cons do: lie and deny.

 

[JRK]

You have posted hundreds, some in this thread alone. Whatever I post, you will simply deny. That is what you do: deny. When you are really wrong, you deny more loudly.

That's what neo-cons do: lie and deny.

Jake, I feel sorry for you Jake
I really do
you have a belief in something that you do not know why you have this belief
You attack me every time all the time, say lies about me, and I have never even met you nor ever said one thing bad about you

I took you off of ignore and look at you, SOS

 

[nodoginnafight]

JRK - I see you opted to ignore the fact that your "Rassmussen Most aAccurate" link/blog was based on vote estimates and not vote totals and that raw numbers I provided as well as expert analysis disprove your claim completely.

Instead of addressing that, you opted to try to change the argument into something else. Even you realize that being "most accurate" includes more than "getting the final results right" (when very few of the results you cite were ever in any doubt) but polling accuracy is measured by accurately predicting the final numbers.

You opted to be dishonest. In your effort to save face - you lost credibility.

adios

 

[JRK]

JRK - I see you opted to ignore the fact that your "Rassmussen Most aAccurate" link/blog was based on vote estimates and not vote totals and that raw numbers I provided as well as expert analysis disprove your claim completely.

Instead of addressing that, you opted to try to change the argument into something else. Even you realize that being "most accurate" includes more than "getting the final results right" (when very few of the results you cite were ever in any doubt) but polling accuracy is measured by accurately predicting the final numbers.

You opted to be dishonest. In your effort to save face - you lost credibility.

adios

I do such thing. I rebutted it
It did not at no time claim the information was not accurate.
Look this message board is just for things exactly like this. The NY times claims were accurate I must assume.
The issue is does that really matter?

I mean all but 10 of those elections were toss ups, Rasmussen got 7 of those right out and all but 3 of the 60+ I looked at

Does it matter if the one wins by 20% and Rasmussen had them winning by 15%
Another item I found looking at the re search was Rasmussen did not poll the independents that were running

Out of the 60+ elections I reviewed, I found one I would call bias, The senate race with Harry Ried

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have posted hundreds, some in this thread alone. Whatever I post, you will simply deny. That is what you do: deny. When you are really wrong, you deny more loudly.

That's what neo-cons do: lie and deny.

Jake, I feel sorry for you Jake
I really do
you have a belief in something that you do not know why you have this belief
You attack me every time all the time, say lies about me, and I have never even met you nor ever said one thing bad about you

I took you off of ignore and look at you, SOS

Others and I have disproved your neo-con nonsense time after time after time.

We have a belief that you cannot critically think. You certainly can't critically post. You took nodoginafight's material and turned it into something that it is not. His material clearly and factually rebutted your assertion and evidence. You have lost the Rasmussen argument as clearly as you have the WMDs in Iraq argument. You are just a mess.

But I bet down there somewhere in your heart and soul you believe you are a good man, so I will give you that.

 

[JRK]

You have posted hundreds, some in this thread alone. Whatever I post, you will simply deny. That is what you do: deny. When you are really wrong, you deny more loudly.

That's what neo-cons do: lie and deny.

Jake, I feel sorry for you Jake
I really do
you have a belief in something that you do not know why you have this belief
You attack me every time all the time, say lies about me, and I have never even met you nor ever said one thing bad about you

I took you off of ignore and look at you, SOS

Others and I have disproved your neo-con nonsense time after time after time.

We have a belief that you cannot critically think. You certainly can't critically post. You took nodoginafight's material and turned it into something that it is not. His material clearly and factually rebutted your assertion and evidence. You have lost the Rasmussen argument as clearly as you have the WMDs in Iraq argument. You are just a mess.

But I bet down there somewhere in your heart and soul you believe you are a good man, so I will give you that.

Jake link to 1 thread were I have not been accurate.
Obama failing you is not my fault. The info I provide he supplied, not me