The Cone of Silence Scandal

[GreyArea]

Originally Posted by xian

If you've got better evidence - I'd certainly reconsider

What is better evidence than the transcripts? He answered a series of questions before he was asked them.

We could talk about the non-denial denial, but I'm sure that our interpretations of that would be different.

[mrdale]

I remember Obama saying "I cheated" when asked about the orphan project. At that point I assumed that the candidates had prior knowledge of the questions, didn't seem that odd to me. Obama was admitting to prior knowledge of the question to the moderator. - shrug

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by GreyArea

What is better evidence than the transcripts? He answered a series of questions before he was asked them.

I think the transcripts would be good source of evidence. The particular section you're relying on not so much.

Originally Posted by GreyArea

We could talk about the non-denial denial, but I'm sure that our interpretations of that would be different.

well, like I said, the transcript section you posted seems very weak evidence at best

if you have a transcript section where he appears to ask about an upcoming question and the transcript doesn't illustrate any earlier discussion of the topic or telegraphing of it.... then I'd be much more inclined to change my mind.

As for non-denial. Some things are better off responded to with a headshake and look of contempt at the accuser. This, imo, is one of them.

[GreyArea]

Originally Posted by xian

I think the transcripts would be good source of evidence. The particular section you're relying on not so much.



well, like I said, the transcript section you posted seems very weak evidence at best

if you have a transcript section where he appears to ask about an upcoming question and the transcript doesn't illustrate any earlier discussion of the topic or telegraphing of it.... then I'd be much more inclined to change my mind.

As for non-denial. Some things are better off responded to with a headshake and look of contempt at the accuser. This, imo, is one of them.

It is beyond me that you can say the transcripts show absolutely no evidence. I guess McCain would have needed to full on state that he knew what the question was before hand for you to even consider it. Again, how do you explain him answering questions that had not been asked? Can you please provide an answer beyond you thinking it is weak. Why you think it is weak ect...

We both know that no amount of evidence is going to detach you from McCain's man-tit, so please feel free to go find (and ignore) the other parts of the transcript for yourself.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by GreyArea

It is beyond me that you can say the transcripts show absolutely no evidence.

I am aware of the disparity of our opinion on the matter. It remains.

Originally Posted by GreyArea

I guess McCain would have needed to full on state that he knew what the question was before hand for you to even consider it. Again, how do you explain him answering questions that had not been asked? Can you please provide an answer beyond you thinking it is weak. Why you think it is weak ect...

If you care to review each of my responses to that same question I noted each that the "yes yes" is filler talk before claiming your evidence was weak. It is akin to McCain starting off sentences, pausoing them etc with "my friends." Its just stutter speach we use when asked to perform off the cuff.

That's the third (at least) time I've answered that question and I've answered it the same way every time. Can we be done with it now?

Originally Posted by GreyArea

We both know that no amount of evidence is going to detach you from McCain's man-tit, so please feel free to go find (and ignore) the other parts of the transcript for yourself.

You made the assertion that a comment was made that would be more supportive of your assertion that McCain new the questions before hand. I simply said if you had such evidence I;d reconsider - and I would. If you simply wish to be rude and demand I find your proof for your assertion then we can discontinue this. It has gotten quite repetitive anyway.

[GreyArea]

Originally Posted by xian

I am aware of the disparity of our opinion on the matter. It remains.



If you care to review each of my responses to that same question I noted each that the "yes yes" is filler talk before claiming your evidence was weak. It is akin to McCain starting off sentences, pausoing them etc with "my friends." Its just stutter speach we use when asked to perform off the cuff.

That's the third (at least) time I've answered that question and I've answered it the same way every time. Can we be done with it now?



You made the assertion that a comment was made that would be more supportive of your assertion that McCain new the questions before hand. I simply said if you had such evidence I;d reconsider - and I would. If you simply wish to be rude and demand I find your proof for your assertion then we can discontinue this. It has gotten quite repetitive anyway.

Yes, you continually deflecting questions with non-answers is repetitive.

[Warren] - ABOUT 80 PERCENT OF AMERICA SAYS THEY SUPPORT MERIT PAY FOR THE BEST TEACHERS. NOW, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR STUMP SPEECH ON EDUCATION?

[McCain] - YES. YES. AND FIND BAD TEACHERS ANOTHER LINE OF WORK.

Yes, Yes, and...

Your being intellectually dishonest if you say that the begining of that quote is filler. Here is the video. The question starts at 1:50. Are you still going to argue that it was filler?

Video Link

[zerojunkie]

Hold on, so McCain can memorize all the questions that are going to be asked during a debate but can't remember the difference between shia and sunni muslims or that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore?

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by GreyArea

Yes, you continually deflecting questions with non-answers is repetitive.

No, I answered your question you just don't like the answer.

Yes, Yes, and...

Originally Posted by GreyArea

Your being intellectually dishonest if you say that the begining of that quote is filler. Here is the video. The question starts at 1:50. Are you still going to argue that it was filler?

Video Link

you know that's the second time you've just hurled out that charge based on the fact that we disagree. So, I think it's probably best thaty I just descend to your level, say "fuck you" and walk away because you argue like a petulant child and offer nothing of value.

[GreyArea]

Originally Posted by xian

No, I answered your question you just don't like the answer.

Yes, Yes, and...



you know that's the second time you've just hurled out that charge based on the fact that we disagree. So, I think it's probably best thaty I just descend to your level, say "fuck you" and walk away because you argue like a petulant child and offer nothing of value.

And this is the second time I have provided you with evidence and you just pretend like it doesn't exist, hence the "intellectually dishonest" comment. You interpretation that it is "filler" does not trump the transcript /video. It's funny that your ok calling others out, but when the tables are turned you resort to a "fuck you". Who's acting like a child now?

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

1) I was being childish - see comment about descending to your level

2) I watched your video clip (ty for the time marker - truly appreciated) but I still don't buy it

3) to call disagreement dishonesty is not appropriate - it is childish - see point one - fuck you

ftr - at least the first question was given in advance to the candidates. This suggests that perhaps others may have been as well. That is pure speculation but it is not unreasonable to begin wondering how many questions these candidates were given advanced notice of thus rendering the "cone of silence issue" moot (really wanted to say mute.... just for fun....).

Warren apparently doesn't think McCain had an advantage

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...hn-mccain.html

excerpted.......

God-O-Meter Editor Dan Gilgoff asked Warren (who is much in demand after his turn as candidate inquisitor) about assertions by Obama backers that McCain got the heads-up, meaning he wouldn't have to think as fast on his feet as his rival.

"They're dead wrong.

That's just sour grapes..." Warren responds.

Gilgoff presses the matter, saying: "A source at the debate tells me that McCain had access to some communications devices in the few minutes before he went on stage with you and that there was a monitor in his green room, in violation of the debate rules."

Responds Warren: "That's absolutely a lie, absolutely a lie. That room was totally free, with no monitors -- a flat out lie."

Warren was there.... asking the questions.... he didn't see what you're seeing. He is saying that what you are seeing is sour grapes.

That's not my opinion - that's the Q&A leader's. Recall, McCain is anything but a friend of the evangelicals.... he's spent the past 10 years pissing in their tea. They have yet, as a group, to embrace him as they embraced Bush. Many disavow him. Ultimately I think they'll..... see the light. But currently he's not polling the way you'd expect a GOP candidate to poll amongst religious voters.

[Dionysos]

I'd like to put this forum in a cone of silence.