![]() |
Biden will clobber Palin
"Marty" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game. Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner, etc. have no effect, right, Jon? He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be. I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested bias in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias before, rather than after, the debate. He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of the debate. Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if the moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make that money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If you're betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet that the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse to win? Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing performance even before it happens. Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to stupid to think for ourselves. Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before hand. Cheers Marty Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they vote for people like Bush the 2nd. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Biden will clobber Palin
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:46:09 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: NPR gets its funding from actual people! Do you have figures for the percentage that come from individuals, how much from advertising (which the NPR folks like to call corporate support), how much from the generally left-leaning foundations, and how much from gummint broadcasting bureaucracies? I recall hearing that the latter category is about 10%. Do your own research! So you made the assertion above with nothing to back you up? I did my own research! Try it sometime. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Biden will clobber Palin
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:10:02 -0400, Marty said: yes I'm pretty damn certain that they get funding from actual people. Ever notice who gets mentioned last when an NPR station talks about where its funding comes from? While it's accurate to say they get some funding from actual people, that statement is at best incomplete. They get most of their funding from actual people, who are actually breathing, who actually vote, who actually drive cars, which is at best an incomplete statement. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Biden will clobber Palin
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game. Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner, etc. have no effect, right, Jon? He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be. I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested bias in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias before, rather than after, the debate. He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of the debate. Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if the moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make that money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If you're betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet that the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse to win? Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing performance even before it happens. Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to stupid to think for ourselves. Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before hand. Cheers Marty Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they vote for people like Bush the 2nd. I'm reluctantly coming to this conclusion. Cheers Marty |
Biden will clobber Palin
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:13:13 -0400, Marty said: I cannot fathom how you can support capitalism. Take as a starting point Winston Churchill's description of democracy as the worst of all possible systems except... You should probably stay away from quoting Churchill.... given what the Bush Administration has been doing for the last 7 years. "You might however consider whether you should not unfold as a background the great privilege of habeas corpus and trial by jury, which are the supreme protection invented by the English people for ordinary individuals against the state. The power of the Executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist." -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Biden will clobber Palin
"Marty" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game. Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner, etc. have no effect, right, Jon? He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be. I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested bias in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias before, rather than after, the debate. He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of the debate. Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if the moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make that money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If you're betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet that the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse to win? Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing performance even before it happens. Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to stupid to think for ourselves. Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before hand. Cheers Marty Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they vote for people like Bush the 2nd. I'm reluctantly coming to this conclusion. Cheers Marty You're a bit slow. I came to this conclusion when Bush the 1st was President! LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Biden will clobber Palin
Capt. JG wrote:
Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they vote for people like Bush the 2nd. I'm reluctantly coming to this conclusion. Cheers Marty You're a bit slow. I came to this conclusion when Bush the 1st was President! LOL Guilty, I have been burned many times by my oft misplaced hopes that my fellow man is of a better moral caliber than he actually is. Sort of like hoping that Christians actually embrace and live the values they espouse. I do however, sleep well at night. I may not be rich, monetarily, but I am rewarded in other ways infinitely more valuable. Cheers Marty |
Biden will clobber Palin
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:13:13 -0400, Marty said: I cannot fathom how you can support capitalism. Take as a starting point Winston Churchill's description of democracy as the worst of all possible systems except... Democracy? I said nothing about that. I have read a good deal of Churchill's writings. I am quite sure that likening his concept of both capitalism and democracy to yours is somewhat akin to likening the current US republic to that of ancient Greece. Cheers Marty |
Biden will clobber Palin
"Marty" wrote in message
... I do however, sleep well at night. I may not be rich, monetarily, but I am rewarded in other ways infinitely more valuable. Cheers Marty Dude... it's obvious! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Biden will clobber Palin
Dave wrote: On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:07:58 -0600, JimC said: Actually, anyone who has ever watched Ifil couldn't help but recognize her bias for Obama. Would you allow as how there might be a difference between being simply biased and being biased and also having a big bet riding on the result? A mortgage broker might be biased in favor of getting loans made to po' folks. But he's gonna try a lot harder to push that loan through if it earns him a big commission. Perhaps. But in my opinion, it's actually a windfall for Palin/MacCain. - Ifil will be so careful that she will lean over backwards to avoid any undue or excessive attacks on Sarah (essentially giving Sarah a pass). Also, if Sarah is deemed to have lost the debate, their staff can always blame the dishonest, unscrupulous liberal media. Those two words - "liberal media" - are guaranteed to work magic with their constituency. Jim |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com