i'm not in the business of trying to predict the outcome of the election. but, if you have a constructive way of evening the odds, have at it. the only rule is that the loser leaves- period.
nice to see you don't have the courage of your convictions. what do you drink? Scotch, tequila, Gin? if i lose i'll throw in a bottle of your favorite brand, anything less than $100. you'll have to tell me where to ship it. alternatively, i'll hit the tip jar for the equivalent on my way out. clutch can confirm receipt. not with a bang, not with a whimper- just go, baby. TTB?
Why are you guys all so scared to take a bet with even odds? Why do you all insist on the bet being heavily weighted in your favor? Intrade is selling the position you're offering to Sam at 15%. And you're telling him he's cowardly for not taking it? Typical.
excuse me? i've offered to leave, plus $100. sam just has to leave. what's weighted in my favor, or did you not realize there would be any math?
Well, maybe we value your contributions to the board at a much, much, much, much lower amount than we do Sam's. And by maybe I mean definitely.
Yeah, I kind of hate Sammy, but if he leaves, we will all need liquor bottles mailed to us. The crusade against Spanoulis alone is a public service we can never fully repay.
Pick anything in the world for which Intrade places the odds at 15% and I will bet you it won't happen. If I lose I will leave the board forever and pay you $10,000. The odds would still be 85-15 in my favor, as they are in your favor in your proposed bet. Why do you think you have such a problem with reality?
No, I don't have the courage of my convictions - that's why I said only 25% chance she goes Eagleton. How about this 100$ to the charity of my choice if she withdraws, 25$ to the charity of mine if she does not.
bet's on Palin w/drawing, not the general. i make no representations about the stupidity, or the lack thereof, of the american electorate.
so rekko, pastor wright... those were all mostly ignored by the LIBERAL LEFT MAINSTREAM MEDIA, right?
yes that material didn't come into the National spotlight until recently. Yet the maistream media still has yet to go in deeper analysis of those issues you mention. I'd like to further add that the NY times have become almost like the National Enquirer in regards to McCain and the alleged affair he had with a lobbyist. The mainstream media ran with that rumor right away which turned out to be false. In regards to Edwards, it took over a year after the Enquirer reported it before the mainstream media was FORCED to. So yes after a year of Obama we still don't know all the details of Rezko, Ayers, and other deals he made as Illinois legislature and Senator. So yes there is a bias in the media.
On Rezko, Obama sat down with the editorial board and reporters from the Chicago newspaper that had been most antagonistic towards him on the story. He sat for hours and answered every question from everyone until there were none left to ask. Why won't Palin sit down with some journalists? They won't even let her go to the Pro Life rally at the Repub Convention.
