Biden will clobber Palin
 

On 1 Oct 2008 13:19:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:49:17 -0600, "Charles Momsen"
said:

Watch the debate and see.

Do you suppose they'll tell viewers that the moderator has a direct economic
interest in Obama's winning?

Too bad we don't all have a direct economic interest in your whining.

Biden will clobber Palin
 

On 1 Oct 2008 18:52:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:05:05 -0400, Marty said:

If the moderator is biased, are you
suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it
and adjust their evaluation accordingly.

Absolutely.

Dave's projecting.

Biden will clobber Palin
 

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:29:46 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Marty" wrote in message
m...
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.

Dave doesn't consider himself "regular folks". That's where the
delusions start.

Biden will clobber Palin
 

On 1 Oct 2008 22:42:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:23:51 -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.

They must not have taken too well. This should have rung a bell with you.
Churchill famously described democracy as the worst of all forms of
government except for the available alternatives. See if you can apply that
to my views on capitalism.

Yes, you think like someone who has been dead for a long time.

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:52:23 -0600, JimC said:

Those two words -
"liberal media" - are guaranteed to work magic with their constituency.

But of course we know there's no truth whatever in those words, right?


And, the right-wingnut media doesn't exist at all. Being a bit disingenuous
again I see.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:52:23 -0600, JimC said:

Those two words -
"liberal media" - are guaranteed to work magic with their constituency.

But of course we know there's no truth whatever in those words, right?

It doesn't matter. What matters is credibility. During the days of the great
evil empire (the Soviet Union, not the USA for you liberals) Pravda was the
official and only newspaper. The title "Pravda" meant truth. How may people
do you think believed what was printed in it? The only reason it sold copies
was people needed something to stuff into their boots to stay warm while
standing in line for a bar of soap, fish head or ill fitting underwear. Look
at the numbers for the traditional "media" - newspapers going out of
business, tv viewership down, etc. The only media that is growing is the
fair and balanced, objective media such as Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Of
course the brainwashed will scream they're not fair and balanced.
Apparently, to a large number of viewers (and those who wished to be
interviewed) these are the only outlets that provide news that people seem
worth watching and perhaps, believing. Look at the tremedous resources being
poured into Obama's campaign - the free media bias, teachers in schools
duping children and college students, the tremendous social pressures, the
personal attacks, villification, etc and the best Obama can do is maybe be
ahead by a few percentage points. There is even a campaign dubbed "Educating
the Idiots" by the Democrats to get people to vote for Obama. That alone
rips the lid off of the sewer of what it takes to get their man elected.
Bias alone will not sell a bad product to most people. It takes deception,
lies and misrepresentation. Unfortunately in the present case one cannot
return the defective product for a refund. So, in closing, let them be
biased, as biased as possible and as blatant as possible. The bottom line is
money and if they can't make money selling deceptive, biased "news"
reporting perhaps their candidate can push for a bailout. Obama has a lot
more to spend in media advertising, why would the media bite the hand that
feeds it?

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
So I take it you accept the proposition that there is truth in those
words,
but you choose to justify it by pointing at what you regard as others' bad
behavior.


I don't know how you take it. I said that there is no right-wingnut media.
Do you agree or disagree.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
We know that Ifill is objective, fair and balanced because of her
employment
record, right Jon? PBS, NY Times, Washington Post and NBC. What could be
more balanced than that?


Do you believe that one's employment history is the definative, objective
measure of someone's bias or lack of bias?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Biden will clobber Palin
 

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:31:32 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
So I take it you accept the proposition that there is truth in those
words,
but you choose to justify it by pointing at what you regard as others' bad
behavior.


I don't know how you take it. I said that there is no right-wingnut media.
Do you agree or disagree.

That doesn't count.
Looks like if Obama wins the election, it'll be Iiffil's fault.
Pretty much how it was the Jews' fault Hitler came to power.
Uh oh, I said Hitler.
If everything works right, this lame-as thread will end.
But things have a way of going wrong.

--Vic

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:32:50 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
We know that Ifill is objective, fair and balanced because of her
employment
record, right Jon? PBS, NY Times, Washington Post and NBC. What could be
more balanced than that?


Do you believe that one's employment history is the definative, objective
measure of someone's bias or lack of bias?

Do you think MoveOn.org is gonna hire Rush Limbaugh to write for its web
site?

They couldn't afford it.