The powers that be at “fair and balanced” Fox News are going out of their way to try to make Rudy look bad compared to other Republican candidates in the presidential primaries. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, has said publicly that he supports Hillary, and Fox News’ supposedly objective pollster, Frank Luntz, looks like a total schill for Murdoch, attacking the only Republican candidate who can beat Hillary, Rudy Giuliani.
This morning on Fox and Friends, Luntz was on, talking about his focus group’s feelings about what the candidates were saying during the debate last night, with his “patented Fox opinion nobs” for the focus group members, to register their like or dislike of what was being said by the respective candidates, moment by moment, during the debate.
Luntz showed low opinion nob graphs from when Rudy was talking about the high crime and necessities of his having been an incoming Republican mayor in Democrat New York City, with no relief forthcoming from the federal immigration authorities. He worked with what he had to work with, but Luntz showed the reactions to Rudy’s recitation of what New York was like, sky high crime rates, before his great work as mayor began to pay off. The focus group was responding to “high crime rate” and “lack of federal immigration authority responsiveness” with the low opinion nob ratings at that point, which Luntz deceptively presented as indicative of how people feel about Rudy’s presidential platform concerning illegal immigration.
Luntz is plainly a schill to try to sabotage Rudy’s run, as the Democrats, Luntz, and Rupert Murdoch, know that Rudy would beat Hillary, while the other Republican candidates would stand little chance, so they try to make Rudy look bad, deceptively, all too obviously. So stand alert to this charade over at Fox, the “fair and balanced” network, as they seek to assist Hillary by attempting to sabotage the candidacy of the only Republican who will beat Hillary, Rudy Giuliani.
Posted by dancingfromgenesis
Republican Presidential YouTube/CNN Debate Bible Question Guy Joseph Dearing asks Candidates about Genesis Veracity and Historicity of Bible as Reliable Reportage
November 30, 2007Joseph Dearing, with a strange, low-key but in-your-face delivery, asked the Republican presidential candidates in the CNN/YouTube debate on Nov. 28 if they believe every word of the Bible, and those who answered said essentially that they believe the Bible, but not all that is written in it, as it is written, but they never said where and how the history in the Bible is supposedly wrong (except Giuliani that the whale didn’t swallow Jonah), so of course, Bible skeptics say “ah ha, they believe the Bible, but not all of it, so where’s the intellectual consistency?”
Obviously, the question was geared to Genesis history, as that is the most controversial portion of Biblical history, but the candidates somewhat adroitly avoided discussing the six days of creation, Noah’s Flood, the Table of Nations (Genesis 10), how the Ice Age fits in, and all the other components of the Global Flood Model discussed at this blogsite.
If but one of the candidates had been knowledgable on the science of Genesis history, he could have said:
“Only warmer oceans from Noah’s Flood, geothermal heating of the oceans from below, could have caused the dense worldwide cloudcover for the Ice Age, great corroboration of the Biblical account, in defiance of mainstream notions, but nevertheless, the only way the Ice Age could have been caused, when you analyze the hydrology involved, so we see that any global atmospheric warming today would cause more cloudcover which cools the atmosphere back down, a negative feedback mechanism, such as we see with hurricanes, which cool the atmosphere back down.”
Such a statement would send the mainstream scientists scurrying, to then reluctantly concur that Genesis does in fact have much explanatory power, but even the theologian candidate Mike Huckabee squandered the opportunity, ostensibly through ignorance, so somebody please let the candidates know that there is a plethora of good reasons to believe the Bible, as it reads, not as one might like to interpret it, such as the candidates who were clearly implying that the Bible is mostly wrong about Genesis history, as it supposedly belies good science, which in fact, it does not. See http://genesisveracityfoundation.com.