McCain concedes race to Obama and congratulates him!

[Lancer]

Is there nothing else you youngsters could be doing?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I am not shifting the debate. I am providing further evidence (hearsay, and reaction to it) which corroborates the initial evidence. The initial evidence does not disappear.

You said you were avoiding the issue of counterproductivity due to the lack of evidence upon which it can be argued. Essentially you were agreeing with me about the nature of that counterproductivity (in general), via your course of action.

We obviously disagree about the validity of the "evidence" in regards to the specific claims made against Palin, but it's nice that we can agree with about the counterproductivity if such "evidence" is not.

No, I'm using the available evidence regarding Palin's level of understanding to inform my opinions regarding the likelihood of claims being made.

Which means that your judgment about the likelihood of the claims is unnecessary to come to the conclusion you are proposing the likelihood of the claims would be useful towards coming to.

It's just an intellectual circle jerk based on hearsay. Nothing more.

"Bias" would mean that prior to seeing her make an idiot of herself I thought she was dumb.

No. "Bias" does not require a predisposed position made without evidence as to potential. (Even though it can include such, it is not necessary.)

The idea that Palin is ignorant or uninformed (in regards to foreign policy, among other things), and that can be applied to judge what she is likely to do in the future, is a bias. One which I find reasonable enough to hold, and hold myself even, but is still a bias. You illustrate your bias' effect on your analysis here by lending more weight to the claims made by unnamed sources than the contradictory claims made by named sources, which is wrong. The actual statements and their nature is not evident. You can guess all you want, but it's just showing your bias, not telling us what really happened.

As such, I don't consider it newsworthy. Hell, even substantiated it would be hardly newsworthy now that the election is over. Perhaps if later on Palin did throw her hat into the ring for the next election it would be important to bring up then. But who gives a **** now, especially when it's unsubstantiated?

Also you lend more weight to your own interpretation of a statement, even going so far as to ignore that you do not have access to the actual statement, then you lend to the interpretation of someone (given) to have been present and subject to the actual statement. (This is a self-bias getting in the way of your judgment. Not to be confused with the poster of similar name. )

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lancer
Is there nothing else you youngsters could be doing?

Not for 9 days

[Lancer]

[Naked Gents Rut]

MSNBC and The New Republic prove as reasonable and discerning as KH, fall for Palin hoax...

http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/11/10/eisenstadt-the-source-for-sarah-palin-africa-leak-and-proud-of-it/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=M._Thomas_Eisenstadt

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/11/10/even-more-palin-cluelessness.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/martin-eisenstadt-non-exi_n_142785.html

[Aeson]

Well, Eisenstadt is just as likely to be making up one of the claims as the other, so it's not much of a revelation. If he/she/it were the source, there's no credibility to the story. Just as there no credibility to the claim that he/she/it was the source (unless it's been verified).

[Naked Gents Rut]

Well, Eisenstadt is just as likely to be making up one of the claims as the other, so it's not much of a revelation.

I never said it was. Just another example of how stupidly eager people are to jump on any news that reflects badly on Sarah Palin.

[Aeson]

Ah, I see. Thought you were comparing the "hoaxes" (the claims made about Palin not necessarily a hoax), my bad.

[Ramo]

The day of the third debate, Palin refused to go onstage with New Hampshire GOP Sen. John Sununu and Jeb Bradley, a New Hampshire congressman running for the Senate, because they were pro-choice and because Bradley opposed drilling in Alaska. The McCain campaign ordered her onstage at the next campaign stop, but she refused to acknowledge the two Republican candidates standing behind her.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/11/08/the-palin-chronicles.aspx

Best Veep candidate evar.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Originally posted by Ramo

The day of the third debate, Palin refused to go onstage with New Hampshire GOP Sen. John Sununu and Jeb Bradley, a New Hampshire congressman running for the Senate, because they were pro-choice and because Bradley opposed drilling in Alaska. The McCain campaign ordered her onstage at the next campaign stop, but she refused to acknowledge the two Republican candidates standing behind her.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/11/08/the-palin-chronicles.aspx

Best Veep candidate evar.

Quoted For Posterity. God, you dumb****s will believe anything...

edit: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...in_smear_y.asp

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


I never said it was. Just another example of how stupidly eager people are to jump on any news that reflects badly on Sarah Palin.

I don't think that's very unusual for political figures.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


Quoted For Posterity. God, you dumb****s will believe anything...

This election has managed to make you even more pathetic. Awesome.

[Ming]

ENOUGH WITH THE PERSONAL CRAP FOLKS...
Discuss the TOPIC and NOT the POSTERS!

[Aeson]

What if Palin was a poster? (Someone make the DL and we can be done with this crap? Woot!)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Aeson
(Someone make the DL and we can be done with that poster? Woot!)

Corrected