This doesn't look like you're saying you hope she's not biased. Looks like you're trolling for responses.
Dude, let it go. I'm not a troll and I know a number of people can attest to that. I've been on this forum for years. Just because I don't agree with you politically doesn't mean I'm a troll. Actually, it's quite ridiculous. I am and have been a Pearl Jam fan for 15 plus years and I shouldn't be singled out because you don't agree with this thread being politically note-worthy or my opinions on it. I was the first person to post something about this debate moderator on this forum. This was and is political news. This is a political forum. If you have an issue with other perspectives that do not completely correlate with your own, perhaps you should talk to the mods about making this a YieldInHiding forum. Until then, enjoy the thread or exit out of it.
When you put it that way, you're completely right. I don't KNOW that the McCain camp had no idea about Ifill's book coming out in January, one she's talked about for months and has been on sale on Amazon for weeks. I also don't know that Joe Biden's not really an Al Qaeda trained operative set to assasinate Obama as soon as he is elected and bring about the destruction of the United States single-handedly. But I decided that wasn't the case based upon an educated guess based on facts. And the logical educated guess based on facts here is that considering the amount of people working on McCain's staff who's job it is to vet people, and how mind-numbingly easy it was to come across this information, it's likely that they knew about it but used to it to their own political advantage. If that's the case, fine. But don't make Americans out to be stupid by saying "you didn't know at all."
I'm not saying I know. I'm saying I'm using common sense. I don't really see common sense entering into the defense of your argument.
I understand why you are saying what you are saying. However, you have no proof for your conspiracy theory. Basically, you continue to imply that they knew because you were able to look it up once the story broke. Well, they probably could have looked it up once the story broke too. I know I could have. Before then, they were most likely concerned with the political race not a moderator political ties. All assumptions as to whether they knew or not are simply that.... assumptions.
The basic jist of the story here is simple....
1. Gwen is tied financially (via a book) to an Obama victory
2. She did not disclose this info to the Commission
3. We do know whether either party knew about the book
That's it. Everything else is assumptions and hearsay.
Dude, let it go. I'm not a troll and I know a number of people can attest to that. I've been on this forum for years. Just because I don't agree with you politically doesn't mean I'm a troll. Actually, it's quite ridiculous. I am and have been a Pearl Jam fan for 15 plus years and I shouldn't be singled out because you don't agree with this thread being politically note-worthy or my opinions on it. I was the first person to post something about this debate moderator on this forum. This was and is political news. This is a political forum. If you have an issue with other perspectives that do not completely correlate with your own, perhaps you should talk to the mods about making this a YieldInHiding forum. Until then, enjoy the thread or exit out of it.
Fine let's debate then.
What information do you have that shows she's a Obama supporter?
I could write a book about John McCain, does that mean I agree with his ideals and would do anything I could to make sure he won the election? No. The book is simply about African Americans in politics. Obama happens to be the most prominent African American in politics so there is need to talk about him in her book.
This whole "issue" is ridiculous. It is my opinion that the McCain campaign and the conservative right are grasping at straws because they know they are beginning to lag behind in the poll numbers. They also know that Palin was a mistake, so they're looking for anything they can find to bring BS to the forefront of the political discussion rather than the actual issues.
I understand why you are saying what you are saying. However, you have no proof for your conspiracy theory. Basically, you continue to imply that they knew because you were able to look it up once the story broke. Well, they probably could have looked it up once the story broke too. I know I could have. Before then, they were most likely concerned with the political race not a moderator political ties. All assumptions as to whether they knew or not are simply that.... assumptions.
The basic jist of the story here is simple....
1. Gwen is tied financially (via a book) to an Obama victory
2. She did not disclose this info to the Commission
3. We do know whether either party knew about the book
That's it. Everything else is assumptions and hearsay.
Every article I looked at yesterday was from before this story broke, and as I said could have been easily found by anyone in the McCain camp. I can offer you some of the links if you'd like; one of them, as I said, is the Amazon pre-sale to the bookYou call what I'm saying a conspiracy theory, and I'd say your bending over backwards trying to believe something that is ridiculous on general merit (that McCain's camp didn't look into or investigate the VP moderator at all) because if you acknowledged that you'd have to acknowledge that all this phony outrage is political posturing. If you think any campaign wouldn't have been concerned in the political biases of the moderators of the debates, I'd say you must be thinking of something other than one of the most important and tight presidential races in recent memory. Like I said, if you want to believe that McCain's camp never came across this information, that in their thousands of employees they didn't have one employee to look into the VP moderator, go right ahead. But don't call it a conspiracy theory; call it me being reasonable.
What information do you have that shows she's a Obama supporter?
I could write a book about John McCain, does that mean I agree with his ideals and would do anything I could to make sure he won the election? No. The book is simply about African Americans in politics. Obama happens to be the most prominent African American in politics so there is need to talk about him in her book.
This whole "issue" is ridiculous. It is my opinion that the McCain campaign and the conservative right are grasping at straws because they know they are beginning to lag behind in the poll numbers. They also know that Palin was a mistake, so they're looking for anything they can find to bring BS to the forefront of the political discussion rather than the actual issues.
I really dislike the fact that I keep typing the same thing over and over.
I have information that ties her financially to an Obama win. I never said she's "without a doubt" a Obama supporter. I can make an assumption, but that's just an assumption. That said, I can say for certain that an Obama win will likely increase her book sales. That's probably why the book is being released on Inauguration Day. There's a clear, no doubt, financial gain for her sales if Obama wins.... that's simply a fact.
As for the rest of your post, it's your opinion, and nothing I need to respond to.
I really dislike the fact that I keep typing the same thing over and over.
I have information that ties her financially to an Obama win. I never said she's "without a doubt" a Obama supporter. I can make an assumption, but that's just an assumption. That said, I can say for certain that an Obama win will likely increase her book sales. That's probably why the book is being released on Inauguration Day. There's a clear, no doubt, financial gain for her sales if Obama wins.... that's simply a fact.
As for the rest of your post, it's your opinion, and nothing I need to respond to.
this information that ties her financially to an Obama win you have, could you share it....if you already posted it, please guide to the post....
But don't call it a conspiracy theory; call it me being reasonable.
It is a conspiracy theory. Here's the definition...
A conspiracy theory attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations.
...until you can prove that McCain knew about this, it is indeed a theory about the McCain camp keeping thier knowledge of this info quite until now. That seems to fit the definition. Sorry.
this information that ties her financially to an Obama win you have, could you share it....if you already posted it, please guide to the post....
Do you think a book on African Americans (most prominently Obama--who would be the 1st African American President) rising to power, which is set to be released on Inauguration Day, will do better if Obama wins? Basic economics says that demand will be higher if Obama wins. Larger Demand means more revenue for the publisher and the author. It's pretty simple really.
Do you think a book on African Americans (most prominently Obama--who would be the 1st African American President) rising to power, which is set to be released on Inauguration Day, will do better if Obama wins? Basic economics says that demand will be higher if Obama wins. Larger Demand means more revenue for the publisher and the author. It's pretty simple really.
so you have no real evidence other than your assumption, therefore it's not a fact...
I really dislike the fact that I keep typing the same thing over and over.
I have information that ties her financially to an Obama win. I never said she's "without a doubt" a Obama supporter. I can make an assumption, but that's just an assumption. That said, I can say for certain that an Obama win will likely increase her book sales. That's probably why the book is being released on Inauguration Day. There's a clear, no doubt, financial gain for her sales if Obama wins.... that's simply a fact.
As for the rest of your post, it's your opinion, and nothing I need to respond to.
Well your point is an assumption, so it's nothing I need to respond to either. I wish you the best of luck in supporting your candidate .
so you have no real evidence other than your assumption, therefore it's not a fact...
that sounds right...:rolleyes:
It is a fact. As demand increases revenues increase. You are being unreasonable simply because of your political mindset. What I'm saying is very true.... she will benefit financially from an Obama win.... I'm betting many liberals would not deny that as a simple fact.
Let me ask you this... Do you think sales of Lakers Championship gear did as well as Boston Championship after they lost the championship to Boston? Hmmmmm. Wonder why.
You are being unreasonable simply because of your political mindset.
Ha. Pot kettle black.
All we know here is
1. Ifill releasing a book that includes Obama in the title.
2. Obama is one of two candidates for President.
3. The election hasn't happened yet.
That's all we have. Everything else is assumption.
But I do agree with you. It's very reasonable to assume that if Obama becomes the President, the book will do better in sales than if he had not been elected. You are understanding this through, I assume, common sense and the facts at your disposal. How reasonable of you.
And yet you call what I'm saying a conspiracy theory. I have shown you that it is as equally as reasonable to assume that since McCain has thousands of employees, many of them with jobs involving vetting, and considering how easy it was for me, a stupid idiot completely uninvolved with the McCain campaign to find this information, and considering we are talking about politics where everything has been micro-managed and overanalyzed, that therefore yesterday could not have been the first time McCain or his campaign staff heard of this book. I am understanding this through common sense and the facts at my disposal. That you call this conspiracy theorizing and then go off on some tangent on assumption is very interesting. I believe this is an example of "being unreasonable due to your political mindset." After all, those are your words, not mine.
1. Ifill releasing a book that includes Obama in the title.
2. Obama is one of two candidates for President.
3. The election hasn't happened yet.
That's all we have. Everything else is assumption.
But I do agree with you. It's very reasonable to assume that if Obama becomes the President, the book will do better in sales than if he had not been elected. You are understanding this through, I assume, common sense and the facts at your disposal. How reasonable of you.
And yet you call what I'm saying a conspiracy theory. I have shown you that it is as equally as reasonable to assume that since McCain has thousands of employees, many of them with jobs involving vetting, and considering how easy it was for me, a stupid idiot completely uninvolved with the McCain campaign to find this information, and considering we are talking about politics where everything has been micro-managed and overanalyzed, that therefore yesterday could not have been the first time McCain or his campaign staff heard of this book. I am understanding this through common sense and the facts at my disposal. That you call this conspiracy theorizing and then go off on some tangent on assumption is very interesting. I believe this is an example of "being unreasonable due to your political mindset." After all, those are your words, not mine.
You are saying that
1. Economic theory which states as demand increases revenue will increase...
...is the same thing as...
2. the chance that a McCain employee found out about a moderator's book, which has not been released.
For the first, hundreds of years of economic theory were involved in its construction. Empirical tests have been running proving it's validity. Basically, all of the economic world agrees with this theory being accurate.
For the second, you came up with this theory within the past few days. You have no data at your disposal to empirically test its relevance. Basically, you think it probably happened. That's all.
1. Economic theory which states as demand increases revenue will increase...
...is the same thing as...
2. the chance that a McCain employee found out about a moderator's book, which has not been released.
For the first, hundreds of years of economic theory were involved in its construction. Empirical tests have been running proving it's validity. Basically, all of the economic world agrees with this theory being accurate.
For the second, you came up with this theory within the past few days. You have no data at your disposal to empirically test its relevance. Basically, you think it probably happened. That's all.
Compare the two.
Hold on a moment now, where do you have the data at your disposal that proves should Obama win the election, more people will buy a book based on his political career than if he loses the election? What factual data on Obama supporters do you have that proves that? Ah, wait, I understand now; you made an entirely reasonable, logical assumption that since books about past presidential contenders did well when they became president, a book about Obama would do better if he was in office. Nice try, but still an assumption. A perfectly logical extremely likely assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. However, you seem to consider my logical assumption, considering the exhaustive nature of modern presidential political campaigns and the extremely strategic and political nature of the McCain campaign thus far, a conspiracy theory. Nice try; you can't pick the logical assumptions that you agree with politically and then disregard the rest of them.
The post above is like watching a politician being caught in a non-answer; you're arguing something entirely different than what you stated you were arguing there, and still haven't addressed my points. What's more is that you got caught using a double standard against the posters who don't agree with you.
The post above is like watching a politician being caught in a non-answer; you're arguing something entirely different than what you stated you were arguing there, and still haven't addressed my points. What's more is that you got caught using a double standard against the posters who don't agree with you.
Hold on a moment now, where do you have the data at your disposal that proves should Obama win the election, more people will buy a book based on his political career than if he loses the election? What factual data on Obama supporters do you have that proves that? Ah, wait, I understand now; you made an entirely reasonable, logical assumption that since books about past presidential contenders did well when they became president, a book about Obama would do better if he was in office. Nice try, but still an assumption. A perfectly logical extremely likely assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. However, you seem to consider my logical assumption, considering the exhaustive nature of modern presidential political campaigns and the extremely strategic and political nature of the McCain campaign thus far, a conspiracy theory. Nice try; you can't pick the logical assumptions that you agree with politically and then disregard the rest of them.
The post above is like watching a politician being caught in a non-answer; you're arguing something entirely different than what you stated you were arguing there, and still haven't addressed my points. What's more is that you got caught using a double standard against the posters who don't agree with you.
Instead of staring at the incoming car like a deer in the headlights, you could simply walk off the road,... or in this case drop the argument because you lost.
I could (if I wanted to) find data to prove that books about past presidential contenders performed better when they became president then when they did not. To clarify, I do not have the time to dig up data for a debate on a PJ message board. But, I trust you are knowledgeable enough to know that the data does exist and are smart enough to know that I am right. But getting back to the subject matter, I can find data to support my claim. But, I trust you already know that.
Meanwhile, you CAN NOT find any data to support your theory. You have nothing except a theory "you" crafted yesterday. Whereas, I have a theory (supported throughout time) that supports the claim that the this woman has a real financial stake in an Obama victory due to her book sales.
Instead of staring at the incoming car like a deer in the headlights, you could simply walk off the road,... or in this case drop the argument because you lost.
I could (if I wanted to) find data to prove that books about past presidential contenders performed better when they became president then when they did not. To clarify, I do not have the time to dig up data for a debate on a PJ message board. But, I trust you are knowledgeable enough to know that the data does exist and are smart enough to know that I am right. But getting back to the subject matter, I can find data to support my claim. But, I trust you already know that.
Meanwhile, you CAN NOT find any data to support your theory. You have nothing except a theory "you" crafted yesterday. Whereas, I have a theory (supported throughout time) that supports the claim that the this woman has a real financial stake in an Obama victory due to her book sales.
Match.
That was fun.
Ah well, if presidential campaigns worked in this manner (in which case, you continuing to avoid and avert the points I am making while simultaneously engaging in a round of the 'nyah, nyah I win you lose' argument), then this whole campaign season could have been done much quicker. Alas, most of us actually believe in debate and discussion, in admitting where someone is wrong as well as proving why you are right. I mean, avoiding others' arguments and trying to use doubletalk to feel superior has worked for the Republicans in the last few elections, so why wouldn't you try it now?
I admitted forthrightly that your assumption about Ifill's book was entirely reasonable. Understand, if you can, that this is what people who are not hopelessly partisan do when in debate; they acknowledge well-made points. I also said you were making a logical assumption based on books by or about past presidential contenders, with no data to suggest that Obama supporters would act in an identical manner. I fail to see how your vast amounts of empirical data would prove this assumption. However, I agree with you that you are making an entirely logical assumption.
So, let's recap. Maybe if you can help me out, I'm going to posit all of the following things as facts. Why not help me out and tell me which of these are not facts?
A) Gwen Ifill is writing a book about African-American politicans. Parts of it are about Barack Obama and his name is in the title. Ifill has spoken about this book on several occasions with reporters and in statements for months, and her book has been for sale for weeks.
C) Getting information on this fact, particularly the articles written before the story "broke" yesterday, through use of the Internet, is extremely quick to do.
OK, now here we go...
D) Modern presidential political campaigns have hundreds of volunteers and thousands of employees and operate throughout the country.
E) Every modern presidential political campaign does extensive research on opponents, surrogates, moderators and policy positions.
If you take E and put it together with C, you can easily come up with the reasonable assumption that yes, the McCain campaign heard about this before yesterday. I'm sorry to speak to you as a child, but your "I win, I win" argument is something straight out of grade school, and is about one step above 'talk to the hand' as an argument strategy. Especially when you continue to evade the points I make above.
Until you're willing to answer the point I made pages ago whether you find that assumption I made reasonable or unreasonable then I guess the argument is done. This isn't Meet the Press and you're not a McCain surrogate; you don't have to avoid answering. Just answer; at least if you responded in the former I'd know you were capable of thinking for yourself, and if you responded with the latter at least I'd know I was debating with someone feeding me talking points as a viable argument.
It is a fact. As demand increases revenues increase. You are being unreasonable simply because of your political mindset. What I'm saying is very true.... she will benefit financially from an Obama win.... I'm betting many liberals would not deny that as a simple fact.
Let me ask you this... Do you think sales of Lakers Championship gear did as well as Boston Championship after they lost the championship to Boston? Hmmmmm. Wonder why.
here's a fact...you're assuming gwen's book will be in demand if Obama wins the election...here's another fact, you have NO evidence showing demand will increase...another fact, you tend to not understand anything said to you and keep repeating things as if they are a fact...
as for you stupid laker question...I have no idea, do you have any "facts" showing sales went down after the Boston won the NBA championship...? or are you just making "facts" up again...?
one final fact - you have no real evidence to back up you assertion that gwen will automatically make money on this book...for all you and I know, the book may suck...perhaps another Harry Pooter book will be released that same day...
fact of business, you're making things up and are unwilling to step back and look at an opposite point....
Can we put this Gwen Ifill non-issue to rest yet? She is doing a good, neutral job 45 minutes in.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Gwen did a fine job....and she was fair and objective....
I guess the mcpalin folks can't whine now....
in my opinion - she was awful ... both candidates were essentially doing an act in a play ... she didn't pressure either of them to answer questions ... i believe the GOP fear campaign worked ... palin often didn't answer the question and she just gave her a free pass ... trying too hard to maintain an air of neutrality ...
like many of us said - her "bias" worked in favour of the GOP
in my opinion - she was awful ... both candidates were essentially doing an act in a play ... she didn't pressure either of them to answer questions ... i believe the GOP fear campaign worked ... palin often didn't answer the question and she just gave her a free pass ... trying too hard to maintain an air of neutrality ...
like many of us said - her "bias" worked in favour of the GOP
in any case - she lacked courage in my opinion
did you want he to confront and push each of them....?
what were you looking for...?
as for palin not answering a question, that was obvious....if Gwen pushed her, the focus would have been on Gwen and taken off mcairhead...
did you want he to confront and push each of them....?
what were you looking for...?
as for palin not answering a question, that was obvious....if Gwen pushed her, the focus would have been on Gwen and taken off mcairhead...
absolutely ... her job as a moderator is to instigate debate ... there was barely any of it ... she just kept moving to the next question ... how do you let someone get away with *i'm not gonna answer that*??
absolutely ... her job as a moderator is to instigate debate ... there was barely any of it ... she just kept moving to the next question ... how do you let someone get away with *i'm not gonna answer that*??
I actually agree with you. I think the only time she tried forcefully to get them to answer a question was when she something like "you both didn't answer my question" and then she moved on.
I don't think she did a great job pushing for answers. That said, she was fair with her questions.
absolutely ... her job as a moderator is to instigate debate ... there was barely any of it ... she just kept moving to the next question ... how do you let someone get away with *i'm not gonna answer that*??
damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess....
I suppose Gwen should have just stopped and forced her to answer....for me, I think the answer stood for itself....she allow both sarah and joe to showcase their stance and views without injecting herself....
Comments
This doesn't look like you're saying you hope she's not biased. Looks like you're trolling for responses.
Dude, let it go. I'm not a troll and I know a number of people can attest to that. I've been on this forum for years. Just because I don't agree with you politically doesn't mean I'm a troll. Actually, it's quite ridiculous. I am and have been a Pearl Jam fan for 15 plus years and I shouldn't be singled out because you don't agree with this thread being politically note-worthy or my opinions on it. I was the first person to post something about this debate moderator on this forum. This was and is political news. This is a political forum. If you have an issue with other perspectives that do not completely correlate with your own, perhaps you should talk to the mods about making this a YieldInHiding forum. Until then, enjoy the thread or exit out of it.
I understand why you are saying what you are saying. However, you have no proof for your conspiracy theory. Basically, you continue to imply that they knew because you were able to look it up once the story broke. Well, they probably could have looked it up once the story broke too. I know I could have. Before then, they were most likely concerned with the political race not a moderator political ties. All assumptions as to whether they knew or not are simply that.... assumptions.
The basic jist of the story here is simple....
1. Gwen is tied financially (via a book) to an Obama victory
2. She did not disclose this info to the Commission
3. We do know whether either party knew about the book
That's it. Everything else is assumptions and hearsay.
Fine let's debate then.
What information do you have that shows she's a Obama supporter?
I could write a book about John McCain, does that mean I agree with his ideals and would do anything I could to make sure he won the election? No. The book is simply about African Americans in politics. Obama happens to be the most prominent African American in politics so there is need to talk about him in her book.
This whole "issue" is ridiculous. It is my opinion that the McCain campaign and the conservative right are grasping at straws because they know they are beginning to lag behind in the poll numbers. They also know that Palin was a mistake, so they're looking for anything they can find to bring BS to the forefront of the political discussion rather than the actual issues.
Every article I looked at yesterday was from before this story broke, and as I said could have been easily found by anyone in the McCain camp. I can offer you some of the links if you'd like; one of them, as I said, is the Amazon pre-sale to the bookYou call what I'm saying a conspiracy theory, and I'd say your bending over backwards trying to believe something that is ridiculous on general merit (that McCain's camp didn't look into or investigate the VP moderator at all) because if you acknowledged that you'd have to acknowledge that all this phony outrage is political posturing. If you think any campaign wouldn't have been concerned in the political biases of the moderators of the debates, I'd say you must be thinking of something other than one of the most important and tight presidential races in recent memory. Like I said, if you want to believe that McCain's camp never came across this information, that in their thousands of employees they didn't have one employee to look into the VP moderator, go right ahead. But don't call it a conspiracy theory; call it me being reasonable.
I really dislike the fact that I keep typing the same thing over and over.
I have information that ties her financially to an Obama win. I never said she's "without a doubt" a Obama supporter. I can make an assumption, but that's just an assumption. That said, I can say for certain that an Obama win will likely increase her book sales. That's probably why the book is being released on Inauguration Day. There's a clear, no doubt, financial gain for her sales if Obama wins.... that's simply a fact.
As for the rest of your post, it's your opinion, and nothing I need to respond to.
this information that ties her financially to an Obama win you have, could you share it....if you already posted it, please guide to the post....
It is a conspiracy theory. Here's the definition...
A conspiracy theory attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations.
...until you can prove that McCain knew about this, it is indeed a theory about the McCain camp keeping thier knowledge of this info quite until now. That seems to fit the definition. Sorry.
Do you think a book on African Americans (most prominently Obama--who would be the 1st African American President) rising to power, which is set to be released on Inauguration Day, will do better if Obama wins? Basic economics says that demand will be higher if Obama wins. Larger Demand means more revenue for the publisher and the author. It's pretty simple really.
so you have no real evidence other than your assumption, therefore it's not a fact...
that sounds right...:rolleyes:
Well your point is an assumption, so it's nothing I need to respond to either. I wish you the best of luck in supporting your candidate .
It is a fact. As demand increases revenues increase. You are being unreasonable simply because of your political mindset. What I'm saying is very true.... she will benefit financially from an Obama win.... I'm betting many liberals would not deny that as a simple fact.
Let me ask you this... Do you think sales of Lakers Championship gear did as well as Boston Championship after they lost the championship to Boston? Hmmmmm. Wonder why.
Ha. Pot kettle black.
All we know here is
1. Ifill releasing a book that includes Obama in the title.
2. Obama is one of two candidates for President.
3. The election hasn't happened yet.
That's all we have. Everything else is assumption.
But I do agree with you. It's very reasonable to assume that if Obama becomes the President, the book will do better in sales than if he had not been elected. You are understanding this through, I assume, common sense and the facts at your disposal. How reasonable of you.
And yet you call what I'm saying a conspiracy theory. I have shown you that it is as equally as reasonable to assume that since McCain has thousands of employees, many of them with jobs involving vetting, and considering how easy it was for me, a stupid idiot completely uninvolved with the McCain campaign to find this information, and considering we are talking about politics where everything has been micro-managed and overanalyzed, that therefore yesterday could not have been the first time McCain or his campaign staff heard of this book. I am understanding this through common sense and the facts at my disposal. That you call this conspiracy theorizing and then go off on some tangent on assumption is very interesting. I believe this is an example of "being unreasonable due to your political mindset." After all, those are your words, not mine.
You are saying that
1. Economic theory which states as demand increases revenue will increase...
...is the same thing as...
2. the chance that a McCain employee found out about a moderator's book, which has not been released.
For the first, hundreds of years of economic theory were involved in its construction. Empirical tests have been running proving it's validity. Basically, all of the economic world agrees with this theory being accurate.
For the second, you came up with this theory within the past few days. You have no data at your disposal to empirically test its relevance. Basically, you think it probably happened. That's all.
Compare the two.
Hold on a moment now, where do you have the data at your disposal that proves should Obama win the election, more people will buy a book based on his political career than if he loses the election? What factual data on Obama supporters do you have that proves that? Ah, wait, I understand now; you made an entirely reasonable, logical assumption that since books about past presidential contenders did well when they became president, a book about Obama would do better if he was in office. Nice try, but still an assumption. A perfectly logical extremely likely assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. However, you seem to consider my logical assumption, considering the exhaustive nature of modern presidential political campaigns and the extremely strategic and political nature of the McCain campaign thus far, a conspiracy theory. Nice try; you can't pick the logical assumptions that you agree with politically and then disregard the rest of them.
The post above is like watching a politician being caught in a non-answer; you're arguing something entirely different than what you stated you were arguing there, and still haven't addressed my points. What's more is that you got caught using a double standard against the posters who don't agree with you.
Sounds like what might happen tonight.
Instead of staring at the incoming car like a deer in the headlights, you could simply walk off the road,... or in this case drop the argument because you lost.
I could (if I wanted to) find data to prove that books about past presidential contenders performed better when they became president then when they did not. To clarify, I do not have the time to dig up data for a debate on a PJ message board. But, I trust you are knowledgeable enough to know that the data does exist and are smart enough to know that I am right. But getting back to the subject matter, I can find data to support my claim. But, I trust you already know that.
Meanwhile, you CAN NOT find any data to support your theory. You have nothing except a theory "you" crafted yesterday. Whereas, I have a theory (supported throughout time) that supports the claim that the this woman has a real financial stake in an Obama victory due to her book sales.
Match.
That was fun.
Ah well, if presidential campaigns worked in this manner (in which case, you continuing to avoid and avert the points I am making while simultaneously engaging in a round of the 'nyah, nyah I win you lose' argument), then this whole campaign season could have been done much quicker. Alas, most of us actually believe in debate and discussion, in admitting where someone is wrong as well as proving why you are right. I mean, avoiding others' arguments and trying to use doubletalk to feel superior has worked for the Republicans in the last few elections, so why wouldn't you try it now?
I admitted forthrightly that your assumption about Ifill's book was entirely reasonable. Understand, if you can, that this is what people who are not hopelessly partisan do when in debate; they acknowledge well-made points. I also said you were making a logical assumption based on books by or about past presidential contenders, with no data to suggest that Obama supporters would act in an identical manner. I fail to see how your vast amounts of empirical data would prove this assumption. However, I agree with you that you are making an entirely logical assumption.
So, let's recap. Maybe if you can help me out, I'm going to posit all of the following things as facts. Why not help me out and tell me which of these are not facts?
A) Gwen Ifill is writing a book about African-American politicans. Parts of it are about Barack Obama and his name is in the title.
C) Getting information on this fact, particularly the articles written before the story "broke" yesterday, through use of the Internet, is extremely quick to do.
OK, now here we go...
D) Modern presidential political campaigns have hundreds of volunteers and thousands of employees and operate throughout the country.
E) Every modern presidential political campaign does extensive research on opponents, surrogates, moderators and policy positions.
If you take E and put it together with C, you can easily come up with the reasonable assumption that yes, the McCain campaign heard about this before yesterday. I'm sorry to speak to you as a child, but your "I win, I win" argument is something straight out of grade school, and is about one step above 'talk to the hand' as an argument strategy. Especially when you continue to evade the points I make above.
Until you're willing to answer the point I made pages ago whether you find that assumption I made reasonable or unreasonable then I guess the argument is done. This isn't Meet the Press and you're not a McCain surrogate; you don't have to avoid answering. Just answer; at least if you responded in the former I'd know you were capable of thinking for yourself, and if you responded with the latter at least I'd know I was debating with someone feeding me talking points as a viable argument.
here's a fact...you're assuming gwen's book will be in demand if Obama wins the election...here's another fact, you have NO evidence showing demand will increase...another fact, you tend to not understand anything said to you and keep repeating things as if they are a fact...
as for you stupid laker question...I have no idea, do you have any "facts" showing sales went down after the Boston won the NBA championship...? or are you just making "facts" up again...?
one final fact - you have no real evidence to back up you assertion that gwen will automatically make money on this book...for all you and I know, the book may suck...perhaps another Harry Pooter book will be released that same day...
fact of business, you're making things up and are unwilling to step back and look at an opposite point....
Fuckin Classic.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Gwen did a fine job....and she was fair and objective....
I guess the mcpalin folks can't whine now....
in my opinion - she was awful ... both candidates were essentially doing an act in a play ... she didn't pressure either of them to answer questions ... i believe the GOP fear campaign worked ... palin often didn't answer the question and she just gave her a free pass ... trying too hard to maintain an air of neutrality ...
like many of us said - her "bias" worked in favour of the GOP
in any case - she lacked courage in my opinion
did you want he to confront and push each of them....?
what were you looking for...?
as for palin not answering a question, that was obvious....if Gwen pushed her, the focus would have been on Gwen and taken off mcairhead...
absolutely ... her job as a moderator is to instigate debate ... there was barely any of it ... she just kept moving to the next question ... how do you let someone get away with *i'm not gonna answer that*??
I actually agree with you. I think the only time she tried forcefully to get them to answer a question was when she something like "you both didn't answer my question" and then she moved on.
I don't think she did a great job pushing for answers. That said, she was fair with her questions.
damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess....
I suppose Gwen should have just stopped and forced her to answer....for me, I think the answer stood for itself....she allow both sarah and joe to showcase their stance and views without injecting herself....
I guess you won't be buying her book....;)