I don’t see where I, or anyone, has come to that conclusion. I don’t think that to be the case. For me it’s simply the the potential bias this brings into it. If she wrote this book after January 21, good for her. But as it is, the book is in part about Obama. The fact that his name is in the title skews that a little more. It is reasonable to believe that if he wins she will sell more books. That introduces the taint of bias. And that is not helpful to the reason we have candidates debate.
Huh huh. Huh huh huh.
You said taint.
Huh huh huh huh huh huh.
and this has what to do with my post? disproves my disproving of Sinaijon’s moronic post? no? then why bother making it a reply to my post? :dubious:
I just found this story about exactly how Gov. Palin is getting ready for the debate. Clearly anything Ifill can ask will be easy money for Palin to answer.
If asking questions that make Mooseolini look bad is proof of bias, then she’s already guilty, since I have a hard time imagining a question that would make her look good.
“Senator Biden, where, exactly, are a moose’s musk glands? Oh, I see you refuse to answer! Gov. Palin, can you help us out with this?”
“Of course, Charlie! They are right behind…”
“Gwen, if you please, Governor…”
I’d like to point that this sort of unwarranted condescension is embarrassingly characteristic and among the reasons people make jokes about your pissing on yourself. Similar is your crass Muslim joke, your trying to twist my objecting to that joke as creating the possibility that “being a Muslim is crass,” your idiotically trying to demand that a statement of subjective opinion (for example, pointing out that a moronic and undignified joke is crass) requires a proof of some sort, your unfounded attacks on my understanding of the word “crass,” and your trying to score points at my being supposedly unoriginal for referencing Cervaise’s memorable joke; all of this puts you in the category Pompous Raging Asshole (which is being charitable, actually; “Fucking Tool” is probably more accurate if less euphonious.)
Sure, Cervaise’s “pissing on your head” joke is also a bit crass, as is my referencing it. But it is so very funny, and so very much a fair appraisal of your public debating skills. So, in my opinion the original crassness in this case is justifiable, if for nothing other than to watch you continue to try to be more than you are, thrashing about in an amusing rhetorical fashion, embarrassing yourself all the while.
But, ok, let’s address your hyperbolic contributions to this thread:
I don’t agree with your primary assertion that there’s a significant possibility of actual bias nor that that if there were a “taint” of bias–in other words, that the moderator might actually have an opinion regarding the outcome which they all do–that it would negatively affect the debate. There’s no credible reason that has been presented (certainly not by you) which demonstrates that Ifill couldn’t run a perfectly fair debate, regardless of her book project.
All this bias crap is stupid posturing by people like you. By assholes, basically.
I did state however that I think it’s always better to avoid the appearance of bias, and more significantly that I would rather not see assholes (like you) have any ammunition with which to lob specious assaults as a distraction from your candidate’s impending pathetic performance.
And, lastly, no, you’re not worth my time; I spent some time anyway. Call me magnanimous. It won’t last.
I have little patience for pissing contests. You’re getting most of it on yourself, anyway. It’s unseemly.
Yet…
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Sigh. I guess you don’t mean what you say after all.
As far as my position that you find so objectionable, you obviously don’t even know my position, as is evidenced by your characterization of it in paragraph #4 of your latest post.
Now if I’m worth your time after all—or not, which in your case evidently turns out to be the same thing—why don’t you review this thread and try to understand that which you apparently so vehemently disagree with. You can even check the other thread in GD for clues. If I’m worth the time of course. Or not, as the case may be.
Happy reading. Now, like I said, run along, punk.
And by all means, if you find me in another thread, feel free to insult me out of the blue there, too. I’ll be happy to slap the shit out of your stupid ass whenever you request it.
That sounds messy.
From the current CNN story:
So, this brings us back to two main points: 1) the McCain campaign was a little slow on the uptake; 2) Ifill doesn’t seem to bother them, so why is there a “controversy”?
No dogpile at all, just some idiot making ridiculous assertions based on nothing then not having the good sense to let it go when everyone’s pointing out the facts (not just the opinions, the facts!).
What’s more, ever since I’ve been on this message board and have seen this over and over again. I’ve also seen the US Republican party squirm and sneak their way out of genuine non-partisan debate and discussion for that time too - talk of terror, bias, elitism, bravery (or not) of military service are all, to this independent observer, being used to indoctrinate a country into voting for personalities not people. This, yet again, is another beautifully inter-Roven event to add to the long list.
Roll on November.
Defensive much? Look at what you said:
Sinaijon may have been incorrect about “every other failed POTUS candidate” but he was also talking specifically about Obama, who has said he will not be running over and over again. Obama may stay in the limelight after the election, but unless he goes back on his word he won’t be doing it as a POTUS candidate. You appeared to think he would. I corrected you.
Someone might have noted it, though I think a lot of us who are opposed to the current crop of Republicans have a habit of thinking they are complete and utter morons who are also, somehow, evil geniuses. 
If this had been a calm, sober election season, I would have agreed that Ifill should at least consider stepping aside (if either campaign seemed to want it). But this particular season has been so full of distraction, of some of the most transparent attempts to work the refs, that I think most people who are paying attention at all are sick and tired of the McCain campaign’s antics. And those who aren’t paying attention wouldn’t even hear about the Ifill issue.
So, in a nutshell, if McCain’s camp hadn’t been such spazzes, I might have taken this complaint more seriously. That might not be fair, but it’s where I’m coming from right now.
It’s manufactured bullshit. The book isn’t due out until January. It’s been in press releases and conservative rags since July. Is Fox (Sustern) seriously trying to tell us that nobody in the McCain campaign has ever done any research on the moderator? A simple Google search would have revealed that she is writing this book, and I’m willing to bet they have a very large folder on Ms. Ifil. The fact that Fox didn’t know about it should surprise nobody.
Now, don’t mix things up. The candidates and their operatives are evil geniuses. The people who fall for their shenanigans are utter morons.
It’s pretty obvious that all of this is set up for the more extremes on FOX and the Limbaughs to scream bias after the debate. No one will explain how Ifill could have perfectly guaged that bias so that it was undetectable, just as no one has been able to explain how Gibson and Couric were hitting Palin with Gotcha questions - it’s just obvious to the faithful that giving Palin questions she can’t answer or answers differently from McCain is a “gotcha.” No one will explain how Obama’s being elected will increase the sales of an esoteric work on black politics in America that will sell pretty much to political junkies and Afican American History scholars. They’ll just scream “bias” and the base will believe it, and a few independents will think “no smoke without fire.”
One of the reasons Republicans win so often is their willingness to do this kind of thing. Democrats usually just can’t do it, because they just don’t believe people are stupid enough to fall for it. It’s not that their principles are any higher, just that they can’t believe they’d get away with it.
Maybe, but the Limbaugh listeners and Fox watchers are already voting for McCain.
I don’t even get how it isn’t embarrassing for McCain to admit not doing his homework on Ifill’s book. Why on earth is he bragging that he was a stupid schmuck for not objecting to Ifill back when he could so easily have had her replaced by a more objective moderator? As Tomndebb correctly notes above, and as the Huffpo story substantiates, he has no one but himself to blame for allowing a biased moderator to be chosen for the VP debate.
So why isn’t the story “McCain incompetent at vetting mod”? Especially since it fits so well with the real theme here: “McCain incompetent at vetting VP.” He’s a hothead, who impulsively does all kinds of self-destructive shit and then has a tantrum seeking to put the blame at someone’s else’s feet. I’m seriously beginning to think that this is more a psychological disorder than anything else.
Wait…so you mean to tell me that Palin doesn’t read all of the papers? The deuce you say!
Yes, I agree that it’s a terrible thing when a television network is so closely connected to the government that its news coverage cannot credibly be considered fair and balanced. :rolleyes:
Is that right? Well, why don’t you point out what, specifically, is ridiculous about what I’ve said. And supply these “facts”.
And I love the “everyone”? Aside from it being a lie, as I’ve stated, an appeal to the masses is a pathetic sign of mental weakness.