Biden will clobber Palin
 

Palin is out of her league compared to Biden.

She will get crushed in the debate.

She should drop out now before futrther crippling McCain's bid for the
presidency.

Watch the debate and see.

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
Palin is out of her league compared to Biden.

She will get crushed in the debate.

She should drop out now before futrther crippling McCain's bid for the
presidency.

Watch the debate and see.


All Gov. Sarah Palin has to do is wear a sexy little librarian costume that
shows some thigh and cleavage. She's a good friend of mine and she modeled
what she's planning to wear for the debate.

Here she is:
http://librarianavengers.org/wp-cont...libcostume.jpg

Nobody will even hear what she says if she should happen to make a big
mistake. She'll have every red-blooded man in America voting for her and
most of the women.

Wilbur Hubbard

Biden will clobber Palin
 

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

Biden will clobber Palin
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:10:05 -0400, Marty said:

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?

She's releasing a book featuring Obama, with release scheduled for
inauguration day. Ya think she might sell a few more books if Obama is
elected than if he's an also-ran? Do ya, huh?


Sure, and you think a honest 'merican journalist would let a little
thing like that get in the way of her integrity? Pshaww.


Cheers
Marty

Biden will clobber Palin
 

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 mean her book that's been on Amazon and the Random House website for
some time? And that was discussed with Howard Kurtz several weeks ago in
the Washington Post? - The one that was ignored by MacCain's staff until
they realized John has been sliding on down in the polls? - Actually,
anyone who has ever watched Ifil couldn't help but recognize her bias
for Obama.

But I agree that she wasn't a good choice. - Not because she will be
unfair to Sarah, but because she may be unfair to Biden. She may think
she has to lean over backwards to avoid any appearance of being too hard
on poor little Sarah, in an effort to show that she has run a fair and
balanced event. Instead, we need a moderator that won't take any crap
from either of the candidates.

Jim

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"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

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"JimC" 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 mean her book that's been on Amazon and the Random House website for
some time? And that was discussed with Howard Kurtz several weeks ago in
the Washington Post? - The one that was ignored by MacCain's staff until
they realized John has been sliding on down in the polls? - Actually,
anyone who has ever watched Ifil couldn't help but recognize her bias for
Obama.

But I agree that she wasn't a good choice. - Not because she will be
unfair to Sarah, but because she may be unfair to Biden. She may think she
has to lean over backwards to avoid any appearance of being too hard on
poor little Sarah, in an effort to show that she has run a fair and
balanced event. Instead, we need a moderator that won't take any crap from
either of the candidates.

Jim


I heard and now believe that Biden can win the debate in the first minute.
He should apologize to her on behalf of all those people who attacked her
personally, her family, etc. I heard this suggestion on NPR, the center of
the great bastion of left-leaning journalists/communists, which includes
Disney/Viacom, News Corp., GE, etc. Oh wait! NPR gets its funding from
actual people!



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

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"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.

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"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

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:18:22 -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!

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

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
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.


CNN Breaking News... Palin loses. Right-wingnuts blame Ifill!

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

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"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

Biden will clobber Palin
 

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

Biden will clobber Palin
 

Dave wrote:
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?

Why not, you just did the same thing, "I recall hearing that the latter
category is about 10%", recall from where?

Although I personally have supported our PBS and NPR, even though they
are in another country, and have both watched and listened to many
pledge drives, so, yes I'm pretty damn certain that they get funding
from actual people.

Cheers
Marty

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.

Dave, given your almost psychotically pessimistic attitude towards
others abilities to be fair and decent, I cannot fathom how you can
support capitalism. "Capitalism, the quaint notion that incredibly
nasty men will do the right thing", can't remember who said it.

Cheers
Marty

Biden will clobber Palin
 

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.

Oh, I'm sorry Dave, must have lost my head, I forgot that you are the
only intelligent person in the USA.

Cheers
Marty

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"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."

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"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.

Biden will clobber Palin
 

"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

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

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.

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

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.