"Marty" wrote in message
...
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?


You been hangin' out with Larry Dave? Is the moderator a Freemason?

Actually I think we all have a direct economic interest in Obama winning.

Cheers
Marty


Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game. 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. He forgets, apparently, that
both candidates agreed to the conditions of the debate. Of course, Palin can
always decline to attend. Or, perhaps McCain should suspend his campaign to
devote all his energy to fix the problem.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
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?

Dick Cheney was never biased toward Halliburton and never stood to profit at
the expense of America. Plus he was elected twice to the VP so there's no
conflict there either. Mr Cheney is a man of integrity.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:26:40 -0600, "Charles Momsen"

said:

Dick Cheney was never biased toward Halliburton

You and Jon drinking from the same jug of kool-aid?


Dave and McCain think Palin is qualified to be President! Is there anyone
else?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:26:40 -0600, "Charles Momsen"

said:

Dick Cheney was never biased toward Halliburton

You and Jon drinking from the same jug of kool-aid?

Kool aid jug? I thought it was a pee bottle. I hope Jon doesn't partake.

Dave, Cheney is as big a crook as the next politcian.

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to
repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones
that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose,
or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not
attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first
determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later
be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I
was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am
doing the very best I can."

"Dave" wrote in message
...
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?


So, what you're saying is that the McCain campaign doesn't approve of the
choice of moderator? News to them!

The book's been in the works in public for quite some time. The title was
known for quite some time. Ifill has a long history of integrity, which is
why she was chosen and why all approved her. Personally, I like the Swift
Boat timing of the attack. It speaks volumes about the right-wing.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:45:30 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

a long history of integrity

Brutus was an honorable man.

So are they all, all honorable men.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:45:30 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

a long history of integrity

Brutus was an honorable man.


?? You're comparing Ifill to Brutus? Talk about a stretch!

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

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

"Marty" wrote in message
news
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

As biased as the media is, it's still a tight race. No one is telling you
what to think, they're just lowering your expectations. That way, when Palin
hammers Biden it will have a much greater impact.

I expect Palin to get roasted. It will be embarrassing.

"Marty" wrote in message
news
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