At least according to the New York Times, official propaganda organ of the Democratic party. :yep:

And how many times have you fussed about someone else using a BLOG as a source of fact, Mookie..

Not to mention - is Gallup and CNN also biased to the right?

Perhaps you'd like a Zogby poll better? Their latest has 58% saying the nations is going the wrong way....

(This link won't last - its their "latest" poll - so you may have to search the site for it soon)
http://www.ibopezogby.com/polls/latest/
I could go on and on ....

Got any polls that show Americans overwhelmingly love the healthcare debacle, soaring debt, amnesty, or high gas prices due to a lack of domestic energy production????

Yea... I thouht not...
Well, you can probably find a blogger or two that might like it... that has to count, right?:rotfl2:

If you can find fault with Mr. Silver's analysis, which is based on the notoriously liberal lie that is....uh...comparing pre-election polls with actual observed election results....then your argument basically boils down to "NUH UH, THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID IT SO NUH UH!"

Whine and snark all you want, so long as you strive to use accurate sources to back up your statements. Rasmussen polls are not that source.

Also, you can pull the same knee jerk argument that is "NUH UH THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID IT, SO NUH UH!" as August did, but realize it only makes you look intellectually lazy. If you can find the partisan spin in "hey Rasumussen said the election would be this way, but it actually turned out to be this way, so Rasmussen was off by X%" then I'd love to hear it.

As you said - Yeah, I thought not.

In conclusion, if you use Rasmussen to back up your statements, then your evidence is not evidence at all.

One thing for sure we have a dying middle class, just compare it to the middle class of the 60's-80's, that's why our nation is headed for the dumps. Almost every study shows that our next generation will face a nation where 10% hold over 80% of total wealth. The sad thing will be when the 20% face retirement at probably age 75 by then when SS and medicare in the tank.

Except that he also provided links to several other polling organizations with similar results that also back up the point he was making to Fr8monkey.

And yes nothing the NYT says can be trusted. Their bias to Team D is greater than Fox's bias to Team R and you can bet that the article you quoted is only there because it's conclusions agree with that bias.

Which coupled with his complaints about the current system does raise a big question.
Does Haplo want to rip up the constitution and start afresh with a system of direct democracy where national policies and laws are changed every time a poll shows a swing in peoples views on a subject?

I do like the poll in that gallup link he posted where 58% of the population are in favour of some quantative easing where the government will flood the market to try and temporarily lower prices.......seems like the exact opposite of what the population is normally calling for when it actually does happen.

Then again the piece also takes that and another example and says the 15-20% differences don't really amount to a consensus of opinion and the fluctuating of opinions don't suggest it would be wise to go with those opinions.
And the best of all is about opinion on prices as it says it is rather silly since it is one for an approach that not only doesn't work but would do the opposite of what people say they wanted it to do.

Now that is debatable. Fox' lacking objectivity has become proverbial even outside the US for no reason. They make German Bild-Zeitung look like a academical thesis paper.

Of course there's no reason, except perhaps maybe that Fox doesn't say what "outside the US" want's to hear. But hasn't that always been the case?

If "Fox doesn't say what "outside the US" want's to hear" is an euphemism for lacking journalistic quality, moral codes and professional standards, then you probably have a point somewhere, deep below, well hidden, most likely.

Keep digging.

You seem to forget that Fox is just one arm of a global media empire and that empire has a serious credibility problem everywhere so "outside the US" doesn't come into it, Murdoch peddles populist trash aimed at the lowest common denominator, it is good business to peddle simplistic rubbish on the mass market.
It doesn't in any way give credibility to itself anywhere and certainly cannot stand to the claim that it is less crap than the NYT or less biased in that national market.
A decent claim might be that it is just as crap as the NYT, but that would require a lack of partisanship and a level of honesty by those making the claim.

Digging? This started being about the US Senate obeying the wishes of a majority of Americans so don't try to misdirect it into a Fox foreign popularity contest.

I did not start making it a media issue between the NYT and FOX. ;)

And I didn't make one about Rasmussen. We're all just Victims of Coircumstances! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Personally I blame Mookie. He's just one lab accident away from supervillan status. :yep:

That....would be awesome.

http://images.wikia.com/cartoonchara...d_screen_4.jpg

Sorry Mookie - as cool as it would be, I just can't see you as a villian. Your heart's in the right place, even if (I think) your head isn't on straight sometimes!

Ok @everybody- back to the topic.

Everyone wants to debate the issue of "fair". Some say a certain % across the board is fair. Others say if you make more, you should pay more.

One of the things I have not heard defined by proponents of the tax scale is - how much is "too much" taxes to take from someone? Right now, the top 1% percent pays roughly 38% of the taxes. About 45% pay no taxes at all (and a large portion of that group actually "pay" negative taxes - they get money back that they never even pay in).

On that note - how is it "fair" that people get something out of a system like that - getting more than they ever put it? Especially at the cost of the other 55% of the people? Where is the "fairness" there?