-Caveat Lector- Forwarded from the New Paradigms Discussion List: http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html -----Original Message----- From: Jim Condit Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Conspiracy Theory Research List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 2:37 AM Subject: [prj] RE: [CTRL] Polls Exercise Your Health Freedom in the Teeth of FDA Tyranny Through the Life Extension Foundation Click: http://www.lef.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi?id=214<< END 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. On Monday, December 28, 1998 11:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > -Caveat Lector- > > In a message dated 12/28/98 4:18:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > > << When are you Clinton haters going to stop weaseling about Clinton's > popularity > and face the fact that the voters have elected him twice, think he is > terrific > for the economy and conducts foreign policy much better than his recent > predecessors? All your awkward rationalizing does not persuade. Polling has > become an important statistical discipline, the practitioners know the ins > and > outs. You simply don't want to know the facts but the Republicans will pay > the price in 2000. > > Jerry >> > > Well, I'm sure we will all agree that Clinton is a popular man and he was > elected to office twice, and I must say I have heard more than one person say > that they hated him because he lied but if they could they would vote him back > into office yet again because they "like" him so much and he has done so much > good for our country. We will all agree to this if you Clinton suck up > sycophants will just admit that he is a traitor, that he has committed > treason, that he is a slime, that he is a greedy bastard who sold out his > country's national security to the Chinese for a little bit of money, that he > is or was involved in drug smuggling out of Mena, that he was in bed with Bush > at least for a while, that he sold out labor with his great support for GATT > and NAFTA, and that much of everything else that he did is just a smokescreen > for 6 years of not a lot. Let's not forget the great respect that our foreign > policy garners around the world, Madeline Albright is such a good example of > US international expertise isn't she? William Christopher another great > example of US foreign policy know how, right? > MIND YOU I'm NOT saying that I prefer Bush or any of his ilk either because he > is much MORE of a rat and weasel than Clinton, and was able to get away with > it all to boot, which makes me "hate" him more for it. > Your sycophantic support is just as sickening as anything you attribute to the > "horrible" republicans and their "evil" "partisan" attacks against this > "goodly" and "saintly" man who is just trying to do his best for our nation. > PLEASE GIVE US ALL A BREAK!? > Teo1000 > > 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 Please Patronize PRJ's Advertisers: http://home.msen.com/~daugh/store.htm Many Pay Even If You Just Look and Don't Buy! << END -- Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms Discussion List, not necessarily endorsed by: *********************************** Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273, Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales, rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources. To Discuss Ideas: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://msen.com/~lloyd/ For Ordering Info & Free Catalog: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a-albionic.com/ For Discussion List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] text: subscribe prj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> **FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <http://a-albionic.com/search.html> ** Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html> Please Patronize PRJ's Advertisers: http://home.msen.com/~daugh/store.htm Many Pay Even If You Just Look and Don't Buy! Video Finder, Free catalogs, Health Products, Sweepstakes, Etc. *********************************** 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
