"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

"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

"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

Capt. JG wrote:
"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.


I'm reluctantly coming to this conclusion.

Cheers
Marty

"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

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"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.


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

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

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

"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

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