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.

(Fox News)   Fox News takes a gigantic bite out of Candy, asks for seconds   (foxnews.com) divider line 332
    More: Fail, Candy Crowley, Fox News, CNN, obama, John Sununu, Daily Caller, Soledad O'Brien, Boone Pickens  
•       •       •

5405 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Oct 2012 at 1:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



332 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-17 02:51:08 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: PanicMan: The thing that annoys me is that this happened a month ago and just today is the first time I've ever heard anyone make that distinction. It just smacks of goalpost moving.

This is where we are? A few weeks before the election and Romney's people are arguing f*cking semantics? Guys, get your sh*t together. Seriously.


I always knew those bigoted assholes were anti-semantic
 
2012-10-17 02:51:42 PM

Lando Lincoln: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: So, serious question, FarkCons: Romney finally blurted out his "five point plan" almost as a non-sequitur during that question about "Assure me you're not going to be another Bush" and this is what I got:

1. Energy Independence (it's implied)
2. Rattle the saber with China
3. Balance the budget
4. ???
5. Championing small business

The transcripts do nothing to help since Romney sucks even at basic counting, apparently.

What's number 4?

/number 4 count
//string 4 words

1. Drill, baby, drill
2. Fix public education by eliminating teacher's unions
3. Slap China's knuckles with a ruler for cheating on trade policies
4. Cut the deficit with magic
5. Repeal Obamacare, deregulate the hell out of everything and eliminate more unions


Or, here in reality where specifics matter:

1. ?????
2. ?????
3. ?????
4. ?????
5. ?????
 
2012-10-17 02:51:59 PM

lordjupiter: The whole point of this stupid "act of terror" attack angle is to try and portray Obama as incompetent against terrorism, and suggest that there was some kind of cover-up.


The Right's MO is to begin carpet bombing news sites with buzz words and how the perpetrators were a nefarious organization with deep pockets and worldwide agents on par with C.H.A.O.S., then explain why we have to take them out, while we're moving troops to the engagement area.
 
2012-10-17 02:52:09 PM

codergirl42: Weaver95: I think part of what I find so fascinating about the GOP these days is their absolute belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. there is zero doubt among any of them. the Democrats watched the first debate and most of them admitted that hey, Romney came out ahead. the GOP tho - Romney got his ass kicked last night and today ALL the Republicans are saying Romney won. they can't admit their guy did poorly.

that's amazing to watch...the almost fanatical religious belief in their own cause. scary sometimes too but still fascinating.

My step sister is one of the die hard republican types but she did admit she thought Obama won the debate. She then proceeded to call the moderator biased.


Is she also adopted from a "special needs" family?
 
2012-10-17 02:52:16 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: PanicMan: The thing that annoys me is that this happened a month ago and just today is the first time I've ever heard anyone make that distinction. It just smacks of goalpost moving.

This is where we are? A few weeks before the election and Romney's people are arguing f*cking semantics? Guys, get your sh*t together. Seriously.


Not even semantics in a policy or law. That I could understand. Semantics in a speech responding to the death of an ambassador is just bizarre.

That'd be like when FDR said "date that will live in infamy" responding: "dates are not alive, they can't live in infamy, how dare you!" Um, what.
 
2012-10-17 02:53:22 PM

Bullseyed: Candy Crowley, 10/17/12: "Now, did the president say this was an act of terror? The president did not say it."

So either she is a liar this morning or was a liar last night.


Telling the truth vs. lying is not the same as being right vs. being wrong.
 
2012-10-17 02:53:38 PM

Hebalo: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: 1. Energy Independence (it's implied)

P.S. Romney's Energy Independence plan is apparently "build more pipelines from Canada".

He also mentioned the USA could be Energy Independent in 8 years. My jaw dropped.


Oh, I'm not even getting into the ludricous details. The fact that Romney was openly and repeatedly talking about bullying a world superpower last night is downright terrifying, really.

However at this point I'll settle for anything. I think it's amazing that the election is now less than three weeks away and we're just now getting an outline of an idea from the challenger.
 
2012-10-17 02:54:11 PM
It seems awfully hypocritical that the same party that wants to blame someone else for their debate loss gets all uppity when the other party wants to blame someone else for the awful economy they inherited.

GOP, if you're not willing to accept Democrat excuses regarding the economy, don't make them for your candidate's performance.
 
2012-10-17 02:55:08 PM

Bullseyed: So either she is a liar this morning or was a liar last night.

Crowley: "No... Did the President say this was an act of terror? The President did not say.... He said 'these acts of terror,' but he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi


So it's down to "this" vs. "these".

Maybe next you'll lecture us all on the meaning of the word "is". Really, this is all you idiots have?

Also, the headline from that quote on CNN reads: "Crowley says she did not backtrack on Libya 'acts of terror' debate moment"

So you can argue with her about what she said. Either way you look like an idiot.
 
2012-10-17 02:56:10 PM

Ambitwistor: MusicMakeMyHeadPound:

But seriously:

this is what I got:

1. Energy Independence (it's implied)
2. Rattle the saber with China
3. Balance the budget
4. ???
5. Championing small business


1. Energy independence on North America by 2020.
2. Trade (confront China, open new markets).
3. Education (public schools, access to higher education, job retraining).
4. Cut the deficit.
5. Champion small business.


Ah, thank you. He failed to articulate that last night.
 
2012-10-17 02:59:07 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Ambitwistor: MusicMakeMyHeadPound:

But seriously:

this is what I got:

1. Energy Independence (it's implied)
2. Rattle the saber with China
3. Balance the budget
4. ???
5. Championing small business


1. Energy independence on North America by 2020.
2. Trade (confront China, open new markets).
3. Education (public schools, access to higher education, job retraining).
4. Cut the deficit.
5. Champion small business.

Ah, thank you. He failed to articulate that last night.


He can't even explain how he will make his 6.5 trillion in additional spending revenue neutral, let alone fix the current deficit.
 
2012-10-17 02:59:29 PM
Listen libtards, Fartbongo might have said that "No act of terror" will something something America, and it might have been said while he was talking about the Benghazi attacks, but that doesn't mean he said that it was an act of terror! It's math!

What he needed to say was,
"This was an act of terror. And by 'this' I mean the attack on Benghazi. It was an act of terror in Benghazi. It was a terrible act of terror in Benghazi that was an act of terror. Terror. Benghazi. Benghazi was under a terrorist attack when terrorists attacked Benghazi which was attacked by terror. Benghazi. Terror."
 
2012-10-17 03:00:55 PM

ex0du5: It is a serious problem that people actually use this "generic comment about terror, not specifically calling it a terrorist act" logic.

The problem is much larger than this specific instance. It happens all the time and (yes) with people of many different beliefs. This is not to say they all do it equally, and it is clear that this has been a major problem in the thinking of the modern day Republican party.

This type of logic is an "avoidance obsession". What happens is that someone facing a thought that would bring discomfort will expand all of the events around that thought. They will look around wildly as if it were all under a microscope, which throws out any contextual continuity and focuses entirely on a "small field of view". Then, they will look for a way to interpret any event around the thought in a way that brings some harmony to their desires and avoids cognitive dissonance. Once found, they can keep the tight focus on this very narrowly interpreted event and anytime they face the broaching of the subject causing the discomforting conclusions, they leap to the "happy place" they have found nearby.

So, when the President points out that he called the actions terroristic immediately, he is telling a truth that doesn't fit into the whole narrative that was being developed. It doesn't contradict that the administration suggested for some time that it was a spontaneous attack for reasons unrelated to US policy, which is the core outrage being attempted, and an open minded person who had not committed a worldview to the idea could easily take this information and still have questions about why there were these public professions of cause different from what was later revealed. But some people have made that commitment and inserted associated stories into their narrative that are threatened by the simple act of point out that the president called it an act of terror. Now, no thinking person would misunderstand "acts of terror" and "terrorist acts" as being vastly different references to the type of act perpetrated - in our modern world, these refer to violent, often deadly, acts used to promote some message and inflict fear on those with other beliefs or political goals. But just saying they are different allows a thought process where it is believed that again the President is lying and he can't be trusted and he didn't refer to them as terrorism and there is a big difference between a terrorist group like Al Qaeda and a mob inflicting terror and... so the outrage can continue and one doesn't need to concede anything.

Of course, when you actually consider the whole events, that there apparently was some information early on that it was a coordinated attack and there were mostly unrelated members of the administration making the few comments about it being due to the video, and eventually it was stated more bluntly that it was not, a few potential scenarios come to mind. This includes things like not wanting to blame any organisations or give certain organisations notoriety without proof, or possibly there were counter-intelligence operations underway that required the organisation that perpetrated the attack to believe it was not suspected, or possibly the intelligence community was weighing the potential explanations before committing to the administration, ... Many of the scenarios don't actually involve anything that people would be outraged about from the administration if the details came out. But it's hard to see what the political advantage would be to, say, simply lying (which I have seen suggested), and it doesn't seem like incompetence is being played as the primary source of anger here. The security detail was obviously incompetent, but there appear to be other reasons not being mentioned for why this is taken as such a negative moment.

When you see actions like this hyperfocus, it makes it clear that a large component of this talk about the Benghazi attacks is just trying to find some narrative which puts the administration in a bad light, beyond any actual analysis of what actually occurred. And that's why this type of action is such a serious problem. People in general find it far too easy to justify their worldviews by excluding data and using a variety of avoidance obsessions to prevent any real communication.

/or whatever


Who told you critical analysis was allowed around here? More herp derp, on the double!
 
2012-10-17 03:04:12 PM
the fact checkers say Romney was right, therefore he is. but as for all that stuff they say Romney is lying out of his ass on, nice try libs.
 
2012-10-17 03:04:21 PM

Hebalo: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: 1. Energy Independence (it's implied)

P.S. Romney's Energy Independence plan is apparently "build more pipelines from Canada".

He also mentioned the USA could be Energy Independent in 8 years. My jaw dropped.


Annexing Canada counts as achieving energy independence, right?
 
2012-10-17 03:04:34 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: And the best part is: let's just say that Romney's right. Let's pretend that Obama never said "act of terror" in the speech.

So, the accusation is that the Commander in Chief refused to jump to conclusions that could escalate a bad situation out of control? This is really what he wants to accuse Obama of? Being responsible?

"American people, if elected I will be wildly clownish, unlike this boring professional we have as a President today."

If the Republicans are smart they'll drop the subject and hope people forget about it in the next three weeks.


Even if Obama had direct knowlege it was a terrorist attack and lied to the American people for two weeks...so what? The Commander in Chief is allowed to keep secrets about intel gathering operations and military movements and actions. That's not even controversial.
 
2012-10-17 03:04:48 PM

Carn: He can't even explain how he will make his 6.5 trillion in additional spending revenue neutral, let alone fix the current deficit.


Listen. He's a businessman, okay? He knows what he's doing.

Businesses don't die out due to shady accounting practices and chuckleheaded morons at the helm. They die out because of Obamacare and China; they always have.

By getting rid of NPR and PBS and giving you the interest on your savings account tax free, we'll grow the economy. Companies will be so desperate to hire people they'll even hire women. They'll even let women take time off from work at five to get their children and make dinner so that they can be back in the office later that night. You'll see.

Trust me.
 
2012-10-17 03:06:48 PM
If you talked to a derper they'd tell you benghazigate ranks right up there with solyndra and arugula on the outrage meter.
 
2012-10-17 03:09:00 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: " MSNBC Tingler-in-Chief Chris Matthews ..."

Annnnd we have a win.

so what was your view of the debate last night?

Boring for the most part, the interruptions were annoying and some of the questions picked were pretty weak. Overall, nothing new and nothing I would see as swaying any of the hopelessly undecided.


so you weren't bothered by Romney's loss?
 
2012-10-17 03:09:52 PM
Amusing how the Party of Personal Responsibility likes to blame everyone else for their problems and failures.
 
2012-10-17 03:11:43 PM
Yeah, it was all about the moderator.

Link
 
2012-10-17 03:15:39 PM

Zapruder: Listen libtards, Fartbongo might have said that "No act of terror" will something something America, and it might have been said while he was talking about the Benghazi attacks, but that doesn't mean he said that it was an act of terror! It's math!

What he needed to say was,
"This was an act of terror. And by 'this' I mean the attack on Benghazi. It was an act of terror in Benghazi. It was a terrible act of terror in Benghazi that was an act of terror. Terror. Benghazi. Benghazi was under a terrorist attack when terrorists attacked Benghazi which was attacked by terror. Benghazi. Terror."


It's all about terror, baby!

clclt.com
 
2012-10-17 03:17:18 PM
Before these debates started I really didn't think much about the moderators. I don't think anyone did. But now it's pretty clear that the moderators themselves are having a direct impact on the outcome of the actual debates.

In the first debate Lehrer didn't really pick sides. In the VP debate the moderator was clearly biased against Ryan. She let Biden interrupt Ryan multiple times and kept asking for "details" and "specifics" after Ryan finished speaking. In yesterday's debate.. Well. Just RTFA. She should be ashamed of herself.

Four major debates and no moderator from Fox News or any other form of alternative news station/websites. Only the MSM, which have a proven liberal bias, are represented.

Romney is still going to win.
 
2012-10-17 03:19:30 PM

Hebalo: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: 1. Energy Independence (it's implied)

P.S. Romney's Energy Independence plan is apparently "build more pipelines from Canada".

He also mentioned the USA could be Energy Independent in 8 years. My jaw dropped.


Crash the economy so badly that no one can afford food, fuel or electricity.
 
2012-10-17 03:20:23 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: they'll even hire women


That was a little snapshot into his soul, wasn't it.
 
2012-10-17 03:22:00 PM

evoke: Four major debates and no moderator from Fox News or any other form of alternative news station/websites. Only the MSM


unfortunately fox news is part of the MSM or they wouldn't be able to influence the narrative with derp so much.
 
2012-10-17 03:22:52 PM

costermonger: Paul Ryan
Debate Moderators 

/most recent I could find


I was only missing Paul Ryan so I think the list is fairly up-to-date.
 
2012-10-17 03:30:24 PM

evoke: Before these debates started I really didn't think much about the moderators. I don't think anyone did. But now it's pretty clear that the moderators themselves are having a direct impact on the outcome of the actual debates.

In the first debate Lehrer didn't really pick sides. In the VP debate the moderator was clearly biased against Ryan. She let Biden interrupt Ryan multiple times and kept asking for "details" and "specifics" after Ryan finished speaking. In yesterday's debate.. Well. Just RTFA. She should be ashamed of herself.

Four major debates and no moderator from Fox News or any other form of alternative news station/websites. Only the MSM, which have a proven liberal bias, are represented.

Romney is still going to win.


Yeah, that would really have been the ticket. A moderator from Fox News:

"President Obama, in the next section I'd like you to explain why every one of your administration's policies has been an utter and undeniable failure, why you've broken nearly all of your campaign promises, and why the US is in the worst economic and social condition it's ever been in. You have two minutes."

"Governor Romney, in the next section I'd like you to explain how your background makes you uniquely suited to be President, how you deal with the continual lies and distortions about your proposals and plans from the media, and a little more detail about your job creation and charitable activities. You have two minutes."
 
2012-10-17 03:31:57 PM

Zapruder: Listen libtards, Fartbongo might have said that "No act of terror" will something something America, and it might have been said while he was talking about the Benghazi attacks, but that doesn't mean he said that it was an act of terror! It's math!

What he needed to say was,
"This was an act of terror. And by 'this' I mean the attack on Benghazi. It was an act of terror in Benghazi. It was a terrible act of terror in Benghazi that was an act of terror. Terror. Benghazi. Benghazi was under a terrorist attack when terrorists attacked Benghazi which was attacked by terror. Benghazi. Terror."


This reminds me of the "you didn't build that" bullshiat. Conservatives do not seem to handle context well.
 
2012-10-17 03:33:24 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Carn: He can't even explain how he will make his 6.5 trillion in additional spending revenue neutral, let alone fix the current deficit.

Listen. He's a businessman, okay? He knows what he's doing.

Businesses don't die out due to shady accounting practices and chuckleheaded morons at the helm. They die out because of Obamacare and China; they always have.

By getting rid of NPR and PBS and giving you the interest on your savings account tax free, we'll grow the economy. Companies will be so desperate to hire people they'll even hire women. They'll even let women take time off from work at five to get their children and make dinner so that they can be back in the office later that night. You'll see.

Trust me.


You just earned the blue tag of funny! I thoroughly enjoyed the "shady deal" quip from the debate. Because it is.
 
2012-10-17 03:34:42 PM

EnviroDude: Even the NFL had the decency to pull the replacement ref that was a Saints fan from officiating the Saints game. To expect as much courtesy in our debates, well, that is asking tooo much.

When you best hope of a win is to tag team with the moderator, then you really don't have much to run on;


Mentat: EnviroDude: Even the NFL had the decency to pull the replacement ref that was a Saints fan from officiating the Saints game. To expect as much courtesy in our debates, well, that is asking tooo much.

When you best hope of a win is to tag team with the moderator, then you really don't have much to run on;

Poor baby.

Romney's boxed himself in. He's shown in two debates that he'll try to bully the moderator and Crowley showed how you shut him down. His only options for the third debate are to double down and hope the third moderator is submissive, or else he has to be the submissive one and let Obama run wild. It's Romney's own fault for not being clever enough to pivot from debate to debate like Obama did.


Don't forget the fact that Romney *MUST* have the last word no matter what. He even went back two questions so he could get the last word. And Obama handled it well. Said something like "We are talking about X now".

Obama crushed him this time around.

Can't wait for the third one.
 
2012-10-17 03:40:19 PM

evoke:
Four major debates and no moderator from Fox News or any other form of alternative news station/websites. Only the MSM, which have a proven liberal bias, are represented.


At what point does Fox News become mainstream? Do you believe that Fox News is independent?
 
2012-10-17 03:43:39 PM

Weaver95: I think part of what I find so fascinating about the GOP these days is their absolute belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. there is zero doubt among any of them. the Democrats watched the first debate and most of them admitted that hey, Romney came out ahead. the GOP tho - Romney got his ass kicked last night and today ALL the Republicans are saying Romney won. they can't admit their guy did poorly.

that's amazing to watch...the almost fanatical religious belief in their own cause. scary sometimes too but still fascinating.


I noticed there was no backtracking or admission of error whatesoever re the Ryan soup kitchen debacle. There is nothing more clear that that was a major screwup and embarrassment. Yet in an interview, a republican (senator?) wouldn't even answer the direct question about whether Ryan was wrong to do what he did.

Admission of error = weakness? It's a terrific pity if the general electorate really thinks that.
 
2012-10-17 03:45:41 PM
If you're dumb enough to be "undecided" at this point there's probably nothing a moderator can do or say to sway you.
 
2012-10-17 03:47:48 PM

JusticeandIndependence: evoke:
Four major debates and no moderator from Fox News or any other form of alternative news station/websites. Only the MSM, which have a proven liberal bias, are represented.


At what point does Fox News become mainstream? Do you believe that Fox News is independent?


Fox will always claim to be the underdog and not be part of the MSM....

imageshack.us
 
2012-10-17 03:51:46 PM

Weaver95: WorldCitizen: Republicans sure are whiny.

you have no idea.


A friend who is voting for Rmoney is reduced to "when did poor people hire anyone?". Makes me sad/cringe
 
2012-10-17 03:51:54 PM

evoke: Four major debates and no moderator from Fox News or any other form of alternative news station/websites.


Please tell me that you don't seriously think that Fox News is some sort of "alternative news station"! The number one news (or "news") network is some minority underdog?! LMAO!
 
2012-10-17 03:52:28 PM

Headso: complaining about the moderator comes off as weak.


There's a sputtering rant at Fox News about the Biden / Ryan debate. They tout the "82 interruptions", "moderator was a lib!", etc etc ad nauseam, but do concede in the middle of the article that the speaking times for each candidate were within a minute of each other.

Whine moar, GOP crybabies.
 
2012-10-17 03:53:13 PM

culebra: [i.imgur.com image 548x302]

/you knew it was coming


Yes...I still lol'd
 
2012-10-17 03:56:03 PM

wildsnowllama: Zapruder: Listen libtards, Fartbongo might have said that "No act of terror" will something something America, and it might have been said while he was talking about the Benghazi attacks, but that doesn't mean he said that it was an act of terror! It's math!

What he needed to say was,
"This was an act of terror. And by 'this' I mean the attack on Benghazi. It was an act of terror in Benghazi. It was a terrible act of terror in Benghazi that was an act of terror. Terror. Benghazi. Benghazi was under a terrorist attack when terrorists attacked Benghazi which was attacked by terror. Benghazi. Terror."

This reminds me of the "you didn't build that" bullshiat. Conservatives do not seem to handle context well.


Context requires thought, and thinking is hard. Absorbing and regurgitating memes generated by others is much easier.

/not really a "conservative" problem, more of a general lack of respect for or education in critical, rational thought
 
2012-10-17 03:58:37 PM
FoxNews' Dan Gainor

i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-17 04:00:37 PM

Lando Lincoln: Larry Mahnken: I can't believe that there's people who think EnviroDude is serious.

He's serious. We shouldn't take him seriously, but he's serious.


Serious or not, he's a perfect stand-in for my uncle, who would sometimes render me utterly speechless with his bizarre claims. And he is most definitely serious.

Thanks to Dude and his ilk I am no longer caught off guard by his insanity.
 
2012-10-17 04:01:57 PM

Flaming Yawn: Headso: complaining about the moderator comes off as weak.

There's a sputtering rant at Fox News about the Biden / Ryan debate. They tout the "82 interruptions", "moderator was a lib!", etc etc ad nauseam, but do concede in the middle of the article that the speaking times for each candidate were within a minute of each other.

Whine moar, GOP crybabies.


They're hilarious! They are always trying to paint "libs" as nothing but useless emotional saps, devoid of intelligence, logic and facts, but when it comes right down to it, not only is this obviously false, but it's all projection. All they have is an appeal to emotion. They have nothing.
 
2012-10-17 04:02:34 PM

falcon176: the fact checkers say Romney was right, therefore he is. but as for all that stuff they say Romney is lying out of his ass on, nice try libs.


I recall this sentiment coming from the Left when Romney won the first debate and the Right told the Left to 'suck it'.

Turnabout is fair play?

/Romney lost
//Deal with it
///4 more years coming your way!
 
2012-10-17 04:07:01 PM

vrax: codergirl42: Weaver95: I think part of what I find so fascinating about the GOP these days is their absolute belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. there is zero doubt among any of them. the Democrats watched the first debate and most of them admitted that hey, Romney came out ahead. the GOP tho - Romney got his ass kicked last night and today ALL the Republicans are saying Romney won. they can't admit their guy did poorly.

that's amazing to watch...the almost fanatical religious belief in their own cause. scary sometimes too but still fascinating.

My step sister is one of the die hard republican types but she did admit she thought Obama won the debate. She then proceeded to call the moderator biased.

Is she also adopted from a "special needs" family?


Not adopted but each of us have "special needs" siblings...
 
2012-10-17 04:14:27 PM

James!: If your excuse for every failure is that the world is biased against you then maybe you're just farking wrong.


Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.
 
2012-10-17 04:18:28 PM

Zapruder: Listen libtards, Fartbongo might have said that "No act of terror" will something something America, and it might have been said while he was talking about the Benghazi attacks, but that doesn't mean he said that it was an act of terror! It's math!

What he needed to say was,
"This was an act of terror. And by 'this' I mean the attack on Benghazi. It was an act of terror in Benghazi. It was a terrible act of terror in Benghazi that was an act of terror. Terror. Benghazi. Benghazi was under a terrorist attack when terrorists attacked Benghazi which was attacked by terror. Benghazi. Terror."


Too subtle.
 
2012-10-17 04:19:35 PM

codergirl42: vrax: codergirl42: Weaver95: I think part of what I find so fascinating about the GOP these days is their absolute belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. there is zero doubt among any of them. the Democrats watched the first debate and most of them admitted that hey, Romney came out ahead. the GOP tho - Romney got his ass kicked last night and today ALL the Republicans are saying Romney won. they can't admit their guy did poorly.

that's amazing to watch...the almost fanatical religious belief in their own cause. scary sometimes too but still fascinating.

My step sister is one of the die hard republican types but she did admit she thought Obama won the debate. She then proceeded to call the moderator biased.

Is she also adopted from a "special needs" family?

Not adopted but each of us have "special needs" siblings...


It's nice that you can look at one another that way. :)
 
2012-10-17 04:19:41 PM

James!: If your excuse for every failure is that the world is biased against you then maybe you're just farking wrong.


when did we start talking about black people?

/who said that??!
 
2012-10-17 04:19:59 PM
Oh jesus farking christ. This is so predictable. The two candidates were arguing over an objective fact. Obama said "I said it was an act of terror." Romney said "no you didn't."

The moderator did her farking job and set the record straight, and suddenly she's part of the Obama campaign? This stupid farking outrage machine - partisan hacks who have the gall to accuse real journalists of being partisan hacks based on the fact that they're doing their job - is one of the reasons (among many) why our media is so farked up.


And the talking point on this is so farking stupid. Who cares what they said right after it happened? Everyone was trying to figure shiat out at the time. Did we know exactly what happened as the towers were falling on September 11? Give me a break.

What this is, is disgusting political opportunism. A U.S. ambassador is killed, and Romney's douchey, smirking self stands up and basically says "Oh, see, this fits my campaign narrative. Obama killed this ambassador because he went on an apology tour and loves muslims too much."

God I hate Romney. What a farking piece of shiat.
 
Displayed 50 of 332 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report