If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   And the first fact check of the debate comes from a Romney advisor: No, our healthcare plan will not cover pre-existing conditions at all   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 58
    More: Fail, pre-existing condition, University of Denver, Massachusetts Health Care  
•       •       •

6911 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 1:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-04 01:18:15 AM  
9 votes:

logistic: GAT_00: snowjack: But Romney won anyway because "facts don't matter" in debates.

No, Romney won because the President didn't engage.

This.

[datacenteroverlords.files.wordpress.com image 292x356]

I SAID ENGAGE biatch DO YOU NEED A DICTIONARY


One of the things I've always bemoaned about this president is that he doesn't seem to get that Republicans are simply not going to play fair with him.

He went into this looking as if he expected Mitt Romney to be honest and own the crazy shiat he's been saying for the last 18 months. He looked as if he expected the debate to be a discussion of ideas. Bad plan.

It took Mr. Obama a loooong time to figure out what the Republicans in Congress were really about. I hope it doesn't take him as long to figure out Mr. Romney.
2012-10-04 12:17:16 AM  
6 votes:
Fark the pre-existing conditions limitations. If you want me to fark off and die, at least say so to my face.
2012-10-04 12:27:30 AM  
5 votes:

Bathia_Mapes: Yeah, good luck with that, Mitt. You said you wanted less government involvement in healthcare, so I guess you won't be forcing any states to do as Massachusetts did.


His idea of "smaller government" is by eliminating 1 federal program and creating 50 state programs with less resources. That sounds so f*cking retarded it just might be the GOP platform.
2012-10-04 02:30:14 AM  
4 votes:

GAT_00: snowjack: But Romney won anyway because "facts don't matter" in debates.

No, Romney won because the President didn't engage.


If you're serious:

- In the bit on health care, Obama literally quoted Romney's book that directly advocated the adoption of then-Romneycare by the federal government.

- In the bit on taxes, he made repeated references/media bait to companies that outsource jobs to China and putting Americans out of work, even getting to the point of baiting Romney into the outright falsehood of not knowing about relocation tax breaks, which I'm sure the media appreciates.

- In the bit on budget-balancing, he outright directly pointed out that Romney's plan was mathematically impossible and politely informed him that he could take it and shove it up his ass.

- Obama repeatedly baited Romney into saying shiat that centrists (the majority of actual undecided voters) absolutely farking hate in the simple guise of "pointing out some differences" in a way that a Republican finds inoffensive and an independent... does not. At all.

- He actually called Romney out at the end on not giving specifics.

- He used, like, facial expressions and was gracious to the audience instead of plastering a stupid smirk on his face and just holding that like Bill S. Preston, Esq. for an hour and a half.

Basically, he engaged just fine, and didn't perform poorly at all. While frankly Romney was fine, too, there was nothing really paradigm or even poll-shiftingly special in the debate and the claims that Romney "won" are like 0.05% the writer's actual opinion and 99.95% the fact that the big media companies lose literally billions in ad revenue in the next month if it doesn't look like Romney has a chance and the election's an exciting contest instead of an incumbent easily cruising to a comfortable victory.
2012-10-04 01:25:28 AM  
4 votes:
Is it just me, or is everybody else's Facebook feed filled with Romney fans getting their hopes up way too high?
2012-10-04 12:23:14 AM  
4 votes:
I'll admit, Obama had a rough night, even by his own debate standards. He was calm and cool, but left far too much slide unchallenged. Why? I'm not sure...perhaps it's part of a long-ball strategy? 0_o

That said though, watching Romney flail on HCR was hilarious: I'll repeal evil Obamacare, and have all 50 states setup individual Romneycares, which are designed to function just like Obamacare. The feds can't tell insurers what to do, but all 50 states can. you can't force them to cover people, but I did in my own state.

And his "rely on the market to decide tooffer coverage" schtick is straight out of the Ron Paul book, imo. Insurance firms are in business to make money, and will not go out of their way to cover people unless incentivized to do so by the government. Romneycare proves that point.
2012-10-04 01:36:13 AM  
3 votes:
Sounds like Obama was being Presidential. I haven't watched it yet, but I'll catch it either later tonight or tomorrow. If it were me, I would have given Romney a long, unchallenged time just to talk. Just let him talk and get it all out. And then I'd write it all down, lie for lie and run those lies in commercials from now until election day. Then I'd use those lies at the next debate, but then just let him talk and talk and talk. It's not about who "wins" the debate, it's about how badly you can smear them with their own words later.

Besides, the challenger almost ALWAYS "wins" against the incumbent in the first debate.
2012-10-04 12:22:01 AM  
3 votes:

GAT_00: snowjack: But Romney won anyway because "facts don't matter" in debates.

No, Romney won because the President didn't engage.


THIS^

/WTF Obama?
//I'm truly baffled
2012-10-04 12:20:39 AM  
3 votes:

snowjack: But Romney won anyway because "facts don't matter" in debates.


No, Romney won because the President didn't engage.
2012-10-04 09:53:33 AM  
2 votes:

unexplained bacon: I suppose Obama wanted to be careful about appearing too combative, but honestly I thought he came off more weak than I've seen before.


If there's one thing I think is absolutely and unequivocally true about Obama it's that he has an ethos and he sticks to it. In governance he'd rather compromise to get something done than stick to his guns and get nothing. In debates, I think he'd rather play the respectable, cool head in the room and let the other guy lie and screech than appear combative or anything less than composed and polite.

All of this is in direct contrast with Romney who seems to have no scruples and believes he should be able to just bludgeon everybody around him whenever he wants. Obama is a gentleman, Romney is an asshole. Look no further than how often Romney just bowled right over Lehrer, talked him down and even interrupted the President.

I also think Obama has an unfettered optimism about the people in this country and he believes that if he sticks to the straight and narrow and plays the part of the guy who is stoic in his beliefs and stacked with facts that it will win him the election.

I do not share his optimism. I think people will easily mistake Romney's disrespectful and crude behavior as a positive trait and I think that's exactly what Romney's counting on.

That said, one thing I could see happening.... Obama let Romney dominate and open up all sorts of n new avenues and at the next debate Obama will just throw all that back in his face and trip him up with his own inconsistencies and failures to explain his policies.

I don't have a great deal of confidence that's what happened, but you never know. Obama's team has proven rather slick in the past and this would hardly be the first time he let an opponent twist himself into a trap.
2012-10-04 09:28:00 AM  
2 votes:
This morning the media is hyping this as a big win for Romney because it's very much in their best interest to make this a tighter race if at all possible. And it's easy on a very superficial level to make the case that Romney won. He did win, based only on his commanding demeanor, compared to Obama's evident disengagement. But once the talking heads are done phoning in the easiest story of the month, it's inevitable that the fact checks will start coming in, and that's where Romney again sputters and flails. We're already seeing his campaign have to deflect his claim about pre-existing conditions and the $5 trillion tax cut and the giant $716 billion lie. Romney performed well because he has the sociopathic ability to lie with conviction, as he has shown repeatedly. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But once you get down to the nitty gritty, it's clear that he offered nothing of substance. He STILL hasn't released his health care plan, fer chrissakes. He really is trying to con his way into office, as someone here said.
2012-10-04 09:03:24 AM  
2 votes:

manimal2878: I didn't listen to the debates live, but listened to the recap on NPR this morning instead. While claiming Romney won, they kept playing clips that seemed to show the complete opposite. Obama was giving facts and figures, estimates of possible outcomes, etc. Romney was basically giving the equivalent of "read my lips, no new taxes" while still failing to claim how it is possible to do that and keep the services people want and lower the deficit. Not only that when Obama spoke, Romney kept stuttering and making sounds like he could barely keep himself from interrupting.

I guess when everyone said as long as Romney didn't shiat himself on stage he would be declared winner they were right, because, at least according to the clips on NPR, he didn't seem to be "winning" to me even thought they claimed he did.


Yeah, that's about it. The media has a financial interest in saying "Romney won!" because that means the ad money keeps flowing in from both parties. From what I've read and saw last night, Romney still doesn't have a plan, is still flip-flopping, and is still prone to make stupid statements when he goes off his script. Obama said pre-debate he wanted to use the time to speak to the public about his policies, and not attack Romney, which he did for the most part. But, since Obama didn't call Romney a bald-faced liar, and Romney didn't foam at the mouth and call Obama "boy", everyone's saying Romney "won" the debate.

I kind of doubt anyone's opinion changed from last night.
2012-10-04 02:18:46 AM  
2 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I'll admit, Obama had a rough night, even by his own debate standards. He was calm and cool, but left far too much slide unchallenged. Why? I'm not sure...perhaps it's part of a long-ball strategy? 0_o

That said though, watching Romney flail on HCR was hilarious: I'll repeal evil Obamacare, and have all 50 states setup individual Romneycares, which are designed to function just like Obamacare. The feds can't tell insurers what to do, but all 50 states can. you can't force them to cover people, but I did in my own state.

And his "rely on the market to decide tooffer coverage" schtick is straight out of the Ron Paul book, imo. Insurance firms are in business to make money, and will not go out of their way to cover people unless incentivized to do so by the government. Romneycare proves that point.


I hope independents picked up on his plan to split seniors into two groups: those profitable for private companies and those better off on medicare. Then in a few more years we can compare the folks on medicare to those not and brag about how much cheaper the latter are. It really is true that some republicans try to set programs up for failure to prove their predictions right.
2012-10-04 01:51:56 AM  
2 votes:
The only fact you need to know:

imageshack.us

The sad part is it's actually true, since Romney would get rid of PBS. Saying "but I like Big Bird" is just another example of him wanting it both ways -- you can't keep Big Bird on the air if you shut down his network.
2012-10-04 01:50:34 AM  
2 votes:
Like I said in the other debate thread this seems like IMO it's going to play like the reverse of the first Bush/Gore debate in 2000 when everyone in the media declared Gore "the winner" after the debate only to have Gore's faults in the debate highlighted ad naseum on SNL with "lock box" and the sighing.

Considering it's 2:00 AM and Big Bird and PBS are still trending on Twitter I have a feeling that combined with Romney's bullying of Jim Lehrer and (no surprise) his lack of facts and contradictions are going to become more highlighted over the next several days as the media realizes their pathetic attempt to make this election a horserace falls flat on it's face.
2012-10-04 01:26:47 AM  
2 votes:
Given that the Obama ad campaign has been simply to run Mittens' own words against him, one wonders if this was nothing more than an opportunity to capture more Romney Sound Bites (tm). I didn't watch, so I don't know what lies or half-truths Romney spewed; but if he made any statements contradicting anything he's previously said, I'm sure Obama's campaign managers didn't fail to miss them.
2012-10-04 01:16:15 AM  
2 votes:

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: logistic: muck4doo: Quickly Fark! To the TPM machine!

Excellent retort. I like it because it was so full of intellect and stuff.

Hey, go get those Think Progress links lined up too. Ignore me.

So you have no problem with what the link actually says?

I don't pay attention to sites I disagree with. That shouldn't be a concept lost on the Fark Lib crowd. I won't even give it a click. :p


Enjoy continuing to be ignorant then. You know damn well the reasons that Townhall et. al. are not worth a click. TPM isn't even in the same galaxy.
2012-10-04 12:50:25 AM  
2 votes:
Romney looked and acted coked up.
2012-10-04 12:35:08 AM  
2 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: GAT_00: snowjack: But Romney won anyway because "facts don't matter" in debates.

No, Romney won because the President didn't engage.

THIS^

/WTF Obama?
//I'm truly baffled


It's his anniversary.
Personally, I think he was still in a sex haze. You know Michelle would get her some.

/That's what I'm going with.
2012-10-04 12:31:57 AM  
2 votes:

abb3w: Bontesla: Was Obama hoping to juxtapose his calmness to Romney's erratic and rude behavior?

Rude? Check the transcripts in the morning, because I got a head start on the drinking game, but my booze-boggled memory is that Obama was the first to interrupt in the other candidate's time segment.

Erratic... find a FarkIndepent™ to try finding some defense. I'm still voting for Obama.


I wasn't talking specifically about interrupting nor about exceeding the time limit. It's not a who started it first game. There was a pattern of rude behavior and Mitt carried that torch.

/this is coming from someone who will vote for Obama AND thinks Romney "won" tonight.
2012-10-04 12:31:01 AM  
2 votes:
oh, and telling the moderator that you'd defund his employer and fire him won't win many style points.
2012-10-04 12:28:57 AM  
2 votes:

Bontesla: Was Obama hoping to juxtapose his calmness to Romney's erratic and rude behavior?


Rude? Check the transcripts in the morning, because I got a head start on the drinking game, but my booze-boggled memory is that Obama was the first to interrupt in the other candidate's time segment.

Erratic... find a FarkIndepent™ to try finding some defense. I'm still voting for Obama.
2012-10-04 10:14:14 AM  
1 votes:
I also have to wonder if Romney and team didn't intentionally plot to run over Lehrer from the start and throw the whole thing into anarchy. They both took advantage of Lehrer to an extent, but I feel like Obama's was more out of frustration that Lehrer let it get so far out of control (a snap which will further hurt Obama) whereas Romney was more methodical and seemed much more at ease both with just completely disregarding the moderator and working within the new set of rules.

If that an intentional thing, kudos to them, it certainly worked despite being incredibly cheap. Obama looked prepared for an actual debate whereas Romney seemed more than ready to take over amidst the free-for-all.

Regardless, I'll bet Obama is severely pissed off this morning at what happened. He should have been able to adjust, but he definitely did not appear prepared for that mess.
2012-10-04 10:01:23 AM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: It's interesting to watch the Obama supporters complain that Mitt offers no specifics, then in the next breath tell you specifically how it will hurt you.


Or, you know, we can make some basic assumptions based on the prior policy of him and his running mate.

See, that's the problem when you say you have a plan but won't tell anybody what it is. Your opponents get an opening to just assume the worst and run with it based on what we already know about your past decisions and actions. Don't like it?

Then tell us what the farking plan is.
2012-10-04 09:33:26 AM  
1 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Their solution?

"We'd like to see states do what Massachusetts did"


What if all of them did that all at the same time? Would that be good?
2012-10-04 09:03:03 AM  
1 votes:
Romney's already shown that he's not ashamed to keep repeating a lie even after it's been debunked.
2012-10-04 09:01:22 AM  
1 votes:
Watching the debate last night, I was ready to award Romney the win. He came across a lot stronger, to the point, glib but in a manner that might reassure someone concerned about his intelligence (frankly, that's been in doubt lately). Romney more or less called Obama a liar on three occasions I noticed and Obama didn't respond. Obama seemed to meander and not have is facts thoroughly marshaled. I thought he was losing on points. And then he gave his closing speech, which he must have rehearsed a million times, and which was delivered in the same, slow, folksy and meandering manner. Why? His delivery may have irritated my northeast sensibilities, but droppin' your g's, slow and cadenced speech, ignoring insults and refusing to rise to the bait, all are hallmarks of the Southern gentleman. Obama's approach to this debate may have been thoroughly calculated. He may have just won North Carolina and Virginia.

Romney smirked. Obama looked grave. Romney looked like Hollywood's idea of what a president should look like. Obama looked presidential. I suspect that someone listening on the radio might call the debate for Romney, but to someone watching on TV, Romney's mannerisms and obvious discomfort in his own skin contrasted sharply with Obama's calm demeanor. Obama is a mensch, Romney is a bottle of Grecian Formula atop a smirk.
2012-10-04 08:06:42 AM  
1 votes:

RussianPooper: Didn't see the debate, but based on the comments and what we already know, I'm wondering if this isn't just a rope a dope strategy. There are three more debates, this one wasn't the time for a takedown.


I think Obama's goal was to just avoid making any big mistakes or looking arrogant and/or condescending. I don't think they expected Romney to be as aggressive, but Romney told a lot of whoppers last night. Those are going to get thrown back in his face shortly.

Romney did "win" because the media is wetting themselves this morning on both sides and declaring he won. Will it move the numbers enough for Romney? I don't know, but we'll find out soon enough.

I think Obama needs to get back into fighting shape a bit. Romney was coming across as an angry douche a lot of the times and I think not calling him out directly on his lies or hitting him with some of the things he's said in the past was a missed opportunity for Obama.
2012-10-04 08:02:17 AM  
1 votes:
I didn't listen to the debates live, but listened to the recap on NPR this morning instead. While claiming Romney won, they kept playing clips that seemed to show the complete opposite. Obama was giving facts and figures, estimates of possible outcomes, etc. Romney was basically giving the equivalent of "read my lips, no new taxes" while still failing to claim how it is possible to do that and keep the services people want and lower the deficit. Not only that when Obama spoke, Romney kept stuttering and making sounds like he could barely keep himself from interrupting.

I guess when everyone said as long as Romney didn't shiat himself on stage he would be declared winner they were right, because, at least according to the clips on NPR, he didn't seem to be "winning" to me even thought they claimed he did.
2012-10-04 07:53:45 AM  
1 votes:
I find it humorous that Romney's plan of "say whatever sounds good including going back on what I've campaigned for over the past six years....even if it is wrong or false" has been put in to action. That's a heck of a reboot.

Obama: Here is what he's been saying for 3 years
Romney: Nuh-uh. I'd do the same things as you.
Obama: Really?
Romney: No. Your ideas are bad.

James F. Campbell: Why the hell is it that, generally speaking, the earlier someone's user number is, the more conservative (and retarded -- but I repeat myself) they are?


Settle down there, noob.
2012-10-04 07:11:08 AM  
1 votes:

Lost Thought 00: I can say I'm really considering voting for Romney, even though I disagree with his positions, because I want a President who is willing to

protest in favor of having other people fight for what they believe in.

/FTFY

www.addictinginfo.org
2012-10-04 05:19:43 AM  
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: Fair points -- but, friend, if the undecideds were intelligent enough to grasp anything you just said, they wouldn't be undecided.


They won't notice the rhetorical maneuvering because they're stupid. But they will likely (at least subconsciously) notice that Romney's complete lack of any kind of real agenda was being pounded into their head for half an hour, and being stupid they're unlikely to suspect spin as a factor since it was Romney himself doing the pounding, whereas being arbitrarily skeptical they might be more prone to disbelieve the impression if it actually came from his opponent.

Like I said, Obama knows his audience, and knows at this point that it's the appearance of competence rather than actual competence that matters. Which is why he was more baiting Romney for blatantly empty pandering and soundbites for the media to run with rather than really making a serious effort to confront his ideas on logical grounds.

//I suspect the reasoning was something like, "Romney's been doing all the work of putting me in the lead so far, might as well save my campaign some money by letting him keep the job".
2012-10-04 05:15:18 AM  
1 votes:

DubyaHater: Oh boy, when they get desperate, Obama voters seem to cling to current polling numbers and Nate Silver. The election is gonna get fun now! "But.....but......but look, Mr. Silver said POTUS will win by 500 electoral votes! It has to be true. Fivethirtyeight has predicted every election since the Greeks founded democracy"


You know what I found interesting? Republicans have been discounting the effectiveness of polls for weeks but the post-debate online polls showing a Romney win were sacrosanct.
2012-10-04 05:03:17 AM  
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: Could you elaborate on this one? I'm not sure what Romney said will be so offensive to moderates.


The most blatant one was getting him to state outright that he didn't have a plan and thought that winging it once he was in office was better for the country. People that don't have a strong opinion on what someone's plan is tend to have stronger feelings about whether or not the candidate is competent or hard-working enough to come up with a plan or do basic analysis period.

Another one was the firing Big Bird bit, which to be fair wasn't so much something he was baited into as just being a terrible public speaker coming naturally. The general theme of "hey, what programs would you cut" was schmuck bait and Obama put it on the hook, though. Most government-funded social programs that aren't the military, i.e. things that Republicans will cheer if you propose cutting, are either relatively popular or considered a necessary evil by the centrist, so even had Romney not gone for the worst example humanly possible like some sort of fail-seeking missile he was bound to go for the "name random social programs" that worked so well for him in the primaries and alienate some of the undecideds.

Another was Obama refusing to actually directly correct Romney's 700 million dollars from Medicare comment, but instead present the refutation one bit at a time so that Romney, being on the stage with a spotlight in his face, didn't notice in time and kept using the incorrect number about five minutes after the audience realized it had been refuted.

And the meta-example was turning a two-minute question on Education into like half the damned debate. Once Obama realized that Romney hadn't prepared a goddamned thing beyond "Massachusetts has good schools" and "I like schools" he just kinda put it in park and kept Romney talking about how he had nothing for on the order of half an hour. Which, again, tends to be a sticking point with the undecideds since they care more about having a plan than what the plan is.

Basically Obama knew the audience, or at least the audience whose votes are typically in play this far in, better than Romney and was playing the "give him just enough rope to hang himself with" game the whole time, with Romney politely obliging. Basically the only bait Romney didn't take was getting defensive about his time at Bain, the rest of the hour and a half was de facto moderated by the president.

//Note the continual polite references to how awesome Romneycare is and how it was a model for Obamacare, as well, though that may have been genuine snark more than an actual attempt to take Romney down a few points with the GOP base. Obama does seem to genuinely dislike Romney, which was the one thing playing against him on this one.

//All that said, it's not like Obama was absolutely destroying Romney either. I think mostly because not only is he winning, but because he genuinely wants the debates to be more informative than adversarial since he (correctly) thinks that his policy is the obvious logical choice (since Romney doesn't have one) and he's at a greater and greater advantage the more the arguments are left to stand on their merits.
2012-10-04 04:37:08 AM  
1 votes:

muck4doo: Keep preaching to the choir waiting for their hope and change? Sounds like an awesome plan.


The most reliable polling analyst in the country has Obama forecast as up by 101 EVs and 4% of the popular vote, with an 86% of winning. The actual current (non forecast) numbers are even worse for Romney. So yes, when the choir overwhelmingly outnumbers the congregation, you preach to the choir.

Romney has to turn out voters in record numbers to even have a chance at winning. The odds of every single necessary event occurring for him to win in every battleground state is incredibly low, and on top of that, his chances hinge on Obama failing to turn out voters. He can't win, unless Obama drops the ball.

Sorry, I know it rankles your little troll-heart, but that's the way it is.
2012-10-04 04:34:05 AM  
1 votes:

Z-clipped: I know this might sound strange, but it's going to make them feel like Obama can handle Romney on his own, without any help from the voters. If Democrats see Romney getting away with lying on the podium and looking like he has a chance to turn things around, they're going to be more motivated to make sure he doesn't win.


eh, maybe...I don't know enough about the success/failure of various debate strategies to have an opinion on that, but I would at least agree that a "don't make waves" strategy makes sense for Obama. When you're in the kind of lead that Obama is, there is no need for high risk / high reward strategy., as there is for Romney.

Romney may have "won" tonight, but this, and two more "wins" like this won't be nearly enough to win in November. And blatantly tossing out falsehoods that need to be immediately corrected by his own staff won't help him either. That's just giving the Obama camp ready-made campaign spots.
2012-10-04 03:57:32 AM  
1 votes:
I was thinking today, "how would I debate Romney"?

I didn't know, because he has given no specifics. Who the fark knows what his plan is?
2012-10-04 03:46:02 AM  
1 votes:
Jennifer Granholm called it, so long as Romney didn't somehow soil himself on stage, the media was going to call this a win for him.

And there's a good reason. They at least need the appearance of a horse race for the next four weeks. And not just for viewership, but for the hundreds of millions of presidential ads still waiting to be spent. The last thing they want is for super PACS with deep pockets to suddenly decide to save their cash for another day
2012-10-04 03:18:03 AM  
1 votes:

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Do you laugh at people who believe everything Fox News says? You just convinced me you are just like they are. They just report facts, and are not partisan hacks, right? They're just reporting the truth! Right? Please tell me you are not that gullible.

Okay, find me some examples if they're that bad.

http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/07/think-progress-assault-weapons- b an/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296524/thinkprogress-lies-about- c antors-comments-patrick-brennan

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2011/09/09/call-the-wahmbulance-thi n k-progress-lies-claim-bush-taking-credit-for-killing-obl/

http://mypoliticalintervention.com/2012/05/15/think-progress-lies/

http://www.randpaulreview.com/2012/08/thinkprogress-lies-about-rands- v iews-on-contraception/

/There are a few, but of course, they aren't Daily Kos approved, so you won't believe it anyways.


So your defense of the position that the right wing cites are opinion based and factless, and that TPM is the same is to quote not TPM posting non-facts, but instead to post more right wing opinion and present it as fact?

Dude, you went full retard. You can't even see the irony.

The only reason you aren't ignore listed is because your brand of retardation is widespread, and I like to know how the lowest common denominator thinks. Very insightful.

Also, reading your posts constantly reminds me of ol Issac Asimov;

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

You are the epitomy of this, and you will never, ever understand it.
2012-10-04 03:09:13 AM  
1 votes:
i was really disapointed about how Mr Lehrer let the thing degrade to be just a talking point statement fest. And I am upset that many falsehoods were just brushed aside and not disproven by the President.
2012-10-04 03:07:58 AM  
1 votes:
Romney made the gaffe tonight that will impact his election.

"I'm sorry Jim. I'm gonna stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm gonna stop other things," Romney said. "I like PBS, I like Big Bird, I actually like you too."

Obama's research ops people are going to marry this to is "I like to fire people" comment.
2012-10-04 02:45:40 AM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: snowjack: But Romney won anyway because "facts don't matter" in debates.

And he presented none


He presented two.

First, he wants to get rid of Obamacare and second, he wants to get rid of Big Bird.

Neither are particularly popular or bright options.
2012-10-04 02:12:11 AM  
1 votes:

logistic: abb3w: but my booze-boggled memory is that Obama was the first to interrupt in the other candidate's time segment.



No. While they both behaved like mentally impaired children with respect to moderation, if I recall Romney was the first to openly defy lil Jimmy.


I thought the more noticeable part was that Romney continually did it. Obama did it a couple of times, but Romney pretty much did it every single chance he got....
2012-10-04 02:07:11 AM  
1 votes:
imageshack.us 

AAAAAaaaaaahhhhhhh!
2012-10-04 01:57:44 AM  
1 votes:

muck4doo: Teufelaffe: muck4doo: Teufelaffe: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: logistic: muck4doo: Quickly Fark! To the TPM machine!

Excellent retort. I like it because it was so full of intellect and stuff.

Hey, go get those Think Progress links lined up too. Ignore me.

So you have no problem with what the link actually says?

I don't pay attention to sites I disagree with. That shouldn't be a concept lost on the Fark Lib crowd. I won't even give it a click. :p

Enjoy continuing to be ignorant then. You know damn well the reasons that Townhall et. al. are not worth a click. TPM isn't even in the same galaxy.

Everybody starts out ignorant; the true measure of character is seeing who chooses to remain that way.

And the way to get out of that is read TPM, Think Progress, Daily Kos, and the rest of the crap you swallow. Got it.

You can tell a lot about a person by what they accuse others of.

/Platitude mode engaged!

It's the Fark way. You're not new to the politics tab, are you? Refusing to read any article by an organization that doesn't adhere to your beliefs is the norm here.


Holy shiat! You are correct, most people don't like to read crap about birther conspiracy theories and other bull shiat from those sites. I've read them, and my god it is some of the most rediculous crap ever. Earlier this week they were trying to justify the Rasputen polls, the same polls that openly said that they would only poll people after goading them with a question to try to change their minds. Some of the most vitriolic garbage that causes their readers to spew racist, fear-mongering garbage through the comments that follow said shiat articles.

I like to torture myself though, so I read that shiat. I listen to these so called 'God fearing' folk that spew bull-racist comments about Moocherela and the communist muslim socialist president who is destroying america. But sure, they are all equal to you. Swing fast and loose with your 'reality', patriot.
2012-10-04 01:43:13 AM  
1 votes:
Does anybody understand the 10th Amendment? Romney is saying it is not a FEDERAL issue, but a STATE issue.

You people are sheep to the slaughter
2012-10-04 01:34:27 AM  
1 votes:

deeproy: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Is it just me, or is everybody else's Facebook feed filled with Romney fans getting their hopes up way too high?

Oddly enough, the Romney fans on my FB page are eerily quiet. Lots of posts about Big Bird, tho'.


I only have two that have officially "liked" him, but man they are excited. Too bad they don't remember Kerry's first debate versus Bush.
2012-10-04 01:28:57 AM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: GAT_00: snowjack: But Romney won anyway because "facts don't matter" in debates.

No, Romney won because the President didn't engage.

THIS^

/WTF Obama?
//I'm truly baffled


I was a little baffled too -- I thought he was okay and I didn't think it was some kind of absolute drubbing, but Andrew Sullivan nearly had a heart attack -- but then I saw this. And I realized that I never would have thought of it.

25.media.tumblr.com

When in the history of America has a black man getting angry at a rich white guy ever ended in anything but a world of shiat?
2012-10-04 01:27:56 AM  
1 votes:

muck4doo: I don't pay attention to sites I disagree with.


It's OK sweetheart. They'll be along with another American Thinker article soon. No need to get your panties in a bunch.
2012-10-04 01:25:18 AM  
1 votes:
Romney did do a bunch of contradictions and BS. Already the PBS thing is just firestorming through the Internet. It was something he shouldn't have even said and it just showed him off as a dick in comparison to boring Obama.
2012-10-04 12:52:21 AM  
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: Does this mean I have to destroy my mixer... Cause that sh*t ain't happening.


I have a early-70s KitchenAid stand mixer that I got at a garage sale for $30 back when my son was still in high school (early 90s). It's an absolute workhorse and I'd never willingly part with it.
2012-10-04 12:44:19 AM  
1 votes:
Does this mean I have to destroy my mixer... Cause that sh*t ain't happening.
2012-10-04 12:31:43 AM  
1 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: oh, and telling the moderator that you'd defund his employer and fire him won't win many style points.


Althought it did give him a rare chance to show off an impressive set of brass balls.
2012-10-04 12:31:07 AM  
1 votes:

abb3w: but my booze-boggled memory is that Obama was the first to interrupt in the other candidate's time segment.



No. While they both behaved like mentally impaired children with respect to moderation, if I recall Romney was the first to openly defy lil Jimmy.
2012-10-04 12:28:32 AM  
1 votes:
Obama probably could have been stronger, but honestly, this probably won't hurt him.
2012-10-04 12:27:38 AM  
1 votes:
oi45.tinypic.com
2012-10-04 12:20:28 AM  
1 votes:

snowjack: But Romney won anyway because "facts don't matter" in debates.


And he presented none
2012-10-04 12:18:45 AM  
1 votes:
But Romney won anyway because "facts don't matter" in debates.
 
Displayed 58 of 58 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report