-Caveat Lector-
Good job Jim. You've taken the time to research the subject and your
conclusions verify what many others are saying, which is, that these Clinton
polls showing him to be very popular are nonsense. After having read
"Votescam" by the Collier brothers (both are now dead) I'm in agreement with
you that the voting system in this country is totally compromised. What do you
think of the book? Gavin.
<< Hey, Jerry! Polling is a "discipline"??? A discipline in high risk, high
stakes deception maybe -- when practised by the Big 5 TV networks (FOX now
aboard in that elite group). Also, your assertion that "the American
people" "elected" Clinton twice is merely an act of faith on your part, as
it has been made illegal in every state but New Hampshire to exersize
citizen checks and balances on the computerized vote count. That's right,
just like in tin horn dictatorships, or Communist countries, any American
citizen who tries to double check the vote at the neighborhood precinct
will be met with police power and eventually arrested if they insist.
First to polling:
Who are these polling "practitioners" who know the "ins and outs"?? Please
read SuperPollsters: How They Measure and Manipulate Public Opinion in
America by David W. Moore, who himself has been a pollster for 26 years.
The book is endorsed by David Broder of the Washington Post, so it can
hardly be dismissed by people like yourself, who believe that the polls are
"scientific." Here is a sentence from the concluding paragraphs of the
book: "There is still a tendency for media polls to create the illusion of
public opinion, by asking forced-choice questions on some topics that are
unfamiliar to most people. And public opinion about most topics is not as
fully explored as it was for the Persian Gulf War, often resulting in
misleading conclusions about its stability and precision." end of quote.
And then the concluding sentence ends with, " . . . polling can, indeed,
provide a continuous monitoring of the elusive pulse of democracy. More or
less."
This is the polling industry speaking. I charge without doubt that the
polling by the 5 Big TV networks on Clinton is weighted and dishonest. Who
are they polling? Exactly how is the poll conducted? It's permissable to
question and scrutinize ANYTHING in the election process EXCEPT 1) How
polls are done and who is polled; 2) how the votes are "counted" by the
computer programs (I have yet to talk to one county official who signs
election results as "true" who can even name the person who programmed the
computer which counted the votes!!!) ---- and yet, we are supposed to run
our entire country based on these daily polls, and the computerized vote
counting, -- and also on that complete hoax known as "exit polling" !!!!
The ENTIRE argument of the sorry rabble of Clintonistes on the talk shows
is -- THE POLLS and the COMPUTERIZED VOTE COUNTS of the last two
Presidential elections. What a gullible nation we have become.
I'm sorry to have to refer to my own website, but www.networkamerica.org
contains much much more information on the unverifiable and riggable nature
of exit polls and computerized voting, as well as numerous referrals to
experts and articles (some in the establishment press) which back up the
position I have stated above. I list 4 or 5 of them below for those who
won't have time to do further research. Furthermore:
Howard Phillips of Conservative Caucus published that his wife was called
for a poll on Clinton, -- but the pollsters exited the phone call after she
answered to one of the "lead in" questions/comments by stating that she was
not "the lady head of the house", but her husband was head of the house. A
caller on WLW radio (50,000 watt clear channel voice, Cincinnati, Ohio) on
Saturday morning December 26 relayed that his sister in Georgia was called
for a poll about Clinton, but hung up on when she said she had not voted
for Clinton. These are anecdotal, but one would be stretching to dismiss
them out of hand.
Is any rational person supposed to believe that while 60% of the voting
public voted against Clinton, that 70% now support him even after he's
shown to be an adulterer, liar, perjurer . . .? Right. WHO ARE THE BIG
MEDIA-paid POLLSTERS POLLING? The Big Media really blew its cover when it
published on the day after the first wave of recent Iraq bombings -- that
70% of the people thought there was no connection between the imminent
impeachment vote and the sudden Iraq bombings!!!! Right. Who in hades are
these big media-paid pollsters polling?
And, you are on a conspiracy research list, and you're putting out the bunk
that Clinton is the one responsible for the economy????? He's giving the
Alan Greenspan crowd, The Ruling Elite, what they want, and Greenspan keeps
the interest rates down. Also, the economy is only great for the Vultures
on Wall Street, the average working man is groaning under unnecessary debt
artificially created by even the "low" interest rates we have, and the
ungodly tax burden.
Back to Polls, -- It's now come out that Congressional mail in most offices
is running 2 to 1 FOR impeachment/removal! Every "call in" poll from AOL to
talk show stations which I've heard about -- reports a 2 to 1 margin for
impeachment/removal. Oh, I forgot, these polls are "unscientific." I say
they are MORE scientific than the BIg Media Polls because at least they are
spontaneous and honest within their own stated parameters. Jerry, why do
YOU have such unlimited and credulous faith in the Big Media Polls and the
uncheckable computerized vote "counts" ??????
More on phony Big Media polls designed to MANIPULATE and CONDITION public
opinion, rather than measure it:
I was in Dubuque, Iowa for the Buchanan-Dole primary race of 1996. CNN,
ABC, CBS, and NBC ran for a week that Dole was at 28%, Forbes 26% and
Buchanan 12%. Walking around in Dubuque, Dole was POSITIVELY despised by
everyone of the normal people. People would almost spit when his name came
up. This contradicted the Iowa's "3rd Senator" bilge put out by the Big
Media - but still it was clear the local party would get out some vote for
Dole. Forbes had no visible support. Buchanan bumper stickers were
everywhere and Buchanan drew 400 raucously enthusiastic supporters on a
night where 3 inches of snow had already fallen in the 6 previous hours.
The others who showed up all drew about 50 to 100 who were more like
curiosity seekers than supporters.
I started to ask myself, "Do the Big Networks know something we don't know?
Is there really a groundswell for Forbes that they can measure from New
York and D.C., but is not evident to anyone on the ground there in Dubuque?
AND GUESS WHAT!!!
On the Saturday before the Iowa Caucus (to be held two days later on
Monday, Feb 12, 1996, --- ALL FOUR OF THE SLEAZY BIG NETWORKS DROPPED THE
POLL NUMBERS THAT HAD BEEN RUNNING FOR THE LAST 10 days --- and suddenly
stated that, because of Forbes negative advertising, they would have to
abandon making any prediction for Monday's Caucus, because now 40% had
become undecided !!! Here's the real reason: All four networks were
conspiring to keep Buchanan's vote down and boost the ridiculous
establishment candidates, Forbes and Dole. You see, the Iowa Caucus could
not be messed with en masse, as could the computerized states such as Ohio,
Texas, California, etc., because it was not an unverifiable computerized
vote! It was a live caucus where people from each neighborhood met and
voted and counted the votes on the spot. So the final "official" result?
Dole 26%, Buchanan 23%, Forbes 12%. You see, if we believe the absurd Big
TV Network story, for the first time in history, the negative advertising
against Dole barely affected Dole, but it boomeranged on Forbes and drove
HIS numbers down from 26% to 12% -- what a bunch of malarkey. There is much
evidence that the State GOP, with the full cooperation of the 4 Big
networks, did much to inflate Dole's numbers and suppress Buchanan's even
at that; for instance, we PROVED by eye-witness evidence of Dole, Gramm,
Keyes, and Buchanan people on the scene in Dubuque -- that Voter News
Service (exit polling arm of all Big 4 TV stations, confirmed by FEC report
by Margaret Sims, 1994) and the Iowa GOP stole 13% of Buchanan's vote in
Dubuque by the time it hit the wire services the next morning. If they
stole only 4% statewide, then Buchanan, not Dole, who the Iowa Primary.
There was much more chicanery too, most of which is covered in the
"newspaper" at www.networkamerica.org.
I'll leave the computer-vote tallying info to a few referrals: The Dangers
of Computerized Voting by Ronnie Dugger, New Yorker, Nov. 7, 1988 at your
library. The book: Votescam: The Stealing of America by James & Kenneth
Collier: Pandora's Black Box: Did It Really Count Your Vote? -- Relevance
Magazine, Nov, 1996; two election reports put out by the Commerce
Department and supervised by Roy Saltman which catalogued dozens of
election situations which showed that to believe the computerized vote
tally is simply, "an act of faith."
Did you know, even with as bad/horrible/senile a candidate as Dole was,
that he won more counties than Clinton? That Clinton's victories came from
the overwhelming margins he "garnered" in the Big City computer counts? My
guess is that Clinton probably beat Dole, but it is much less certain that
he defeated Bush in 1992 (of course, all three men are absolutely horrible)
-- but my point is that it is an act of faith on your part or mine to
believe that Clinton won these elections. Sorry if this upsets so many
people commentary on current realities.
Also, we "Clijnton haters" hate his evil, EVIL agendas and thoroughly
transparant disgusting hypocrisy --- not him, as he is a pathetic figure by
any historical standard, and a pathetic puppet to students of the Ruling
Elite. Your use of "Clinton Hater" is an attempt to associate mental
imbalance due to over-charged emotions to those who see Clinton's evil. Or,
maybe, you are a "Hitler-Hater" out of overcharged emotion --- not based on
Hitler's evil, EVIL agendas, record and actions????? I give you more credit
than that, and I wish you would give those of us who oppose Clinton's
agenda, just as much credit.
Best Wishes to all, Jim Condit Jr. P.S. I think most of us on this list
would actually be friends if we met in restaurants in person -- because,
unlike so many in our society, we really care about these issues. My
pointed language and exclamation points are to make my points forcefully
and quickly -- and should not be viewed as personal enmity against any one
I'm in the process of disagreeing with. >>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
