Facts, oooooooooh, thatâ€™s aÂ frightening and castrating word, especially in the plural, for the village idiot viewers of MSNBC who are of the unyielding faith that its word is sacrosanct and watch what they see as My So Not Biased Channel, andÂ its Left version of Ann Coulter, Rachel Maddow, with child-like, wide-eyed trust in her every word. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Rachel, she is a minority as a Gay woman so that gives her carte blanche credibility with the Left without even uttering a word. The reason Iâ€™m telling you this is because you have to realize that theyâ€™re already on the cusp of orgasm before she even opens her mouth, so when she interviews someone who could be the Mayor of the Village Idiots like Francis (Frank)Â Shaeffer, theyâ€™re salivating like a pack of starving dogs tethered to chains that donâ€™t quite reach their open view of a packed meat locker.
Here is the video from the Rachel Maddow interview with the former Presbyterian pastor, where the ever so gifted poster who canâ€™t even spell repercussions or beseech so open-mindedly, and with no explanation for her attribution, dons Shaeffer â€œa sensible man.â€Â Â Read some facts: (good time for a Viagra commercial)
- This was not a poll of Evangelicals as another post no longer visible on Gather stated.
- This was a poll of Conservatives in one state, namely New Jersey. (Although not a fact, let me interject that this is a state where if they polled Liberals asking the one person theyâ€™d most like to replace Corzine as their governor, theyâ€™d most probably and overwhelmingly choose Tony Soprano.)
- Frank Schaeffer is credited with being an activist who helped found the Religious Right, the very group of people he refers to in this video as â€œvillage idiots.â€ (So this, albeit unwitting, self-proclaimed idiot credited with starting the whole movement, and who was himself a major idiot according to his own unconscious assessment, has suddenly transformed into some kind of credible genius merely by denouncing everything for which heâ€™s stood, talked about, and written about for most of his life. Hey, if Rachel thinks so, itâ€™s good enough toÂ gobbleÂ upÂ on My So Not Biased Channel and regurgitate on Gather.)
- Public Policy Polling is the organization that conducted this poll. If you look at this blog they created, in the margin you will see that The Wall Street Journal cites them asÂ â€œone of the top swing voter state pollstersâ€¦â€ Swing states are vital to elections. Â Beneath that is an ad with an e-mail address and telephone number if you have aâ€™ projectâ€™ you would like to discuss. This means that just about anyone with the money necessary to pay for them to conduct a poll can do so.
- Letâ€™s look at this site, 20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results. When you want to know whether or not a poll has derivedÂ legitimate results, these factors are important considerations. Knowing who paid for the poll is of most importance if you are seeking truth of results. Â Do you know who paid for this poll? I said I was just going to report the facts, but I can pretty much assure you that the so called Conservatives polled did not pay for it.
- We only see the results of this poll, and we do not know the number of Conservatives polled so we do not even know whether this poll was a sample large enough to draw the conclusions they contend are valid. Â The linked site states, â€œThe important issue for you as a journalist is whether the motive for doing the poll creates such serious doubts about the validity of the results that the numbers should not be publicized.â€ Did Rachel Maddow do this?Â
- This poll was notÂ only a subgroup, namely Conservatives, but a subgroup ofÂ a subgroup, that being Conservatives in only one state. The linked article also states, "One of the easiest ways to misrepresent the results of a poll is to report the answers of only a subgroup."
- Push polls are designed and written to elicit responses from those interviewed by setting up the questions with ambiguous information to elicit an answer that is an altered view of what the respondent may really think. Do you know the questions that were asked in this poll? Do we know that the actual question they asked might not have been something like, "Do you think there is any possibility that President Obama might be the anti-Christ?" TheÂ results did state that the respondents they polled said that heÂ might be the anti-Christ, so this could very well have been the way the question was posed. Since no one knows who will be or who is, anyone might be.
- The Gather post linked above asked in its title, â€œThis Should Put an End to the Crazies, but will it?â€ It sure doesnâ€™t put an end to the idiots who postÂ that tripe, does it?
- If you watch Rachel Maddow and take her word as gospel after the facts Iâ€™ve cited, youâ€™re an idiot, and thatâ€™s a fact.