Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: farkplug: Romney persists in asking Obama questions during the debate, breaking the rules. Obama doesn't fall for the bait, but instead says, "Get the transcript." WHAT THE FARK WAS SHE SUPPOSED TO DO? Ignore the President of the United States? He's still the POTUS, even in a debate, and what he asked for was not the least bit unreasonable.

----

What a good journalist or moderator is supposed to do is let each side speak at length and treat both opinions as if they're equal, regardless of facts.

And what a good debater is supposed to do is NOT ask the other questions and NOT interrupt the moderator. If one should continue to press the other with a question, ignoring the moderator, the only recourse the other debater has is to ask for an impartial presentation of the facts, for he cannot answer the question.

Get your debating rules on.

"Listen, pal, all we want to know is whar pudding. We can work with you here, make a deal. You help us, maybe we put in a good word with the fudge to go cheesy on you."

Jackson Herring: James!: Without Subby's who agree with Bofart's blog we'd never have the opportunity to laugh at him.

Or someone could submit it ironically with a headline making fun of Jennifer Rubin as a liberal shill.

But, when Subby actually believes the crap contained in this freak's sucky blog, I don't think you'll see the necessary irony. So, it is our job to point it out to the poor, broken minds of Subtards everywhere.

dr_blasto: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374] 
Lulz at Greg Campbell.

Why would anyone think that was a good idea? It's not even a good Halloween costume.

vernonFL: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]

"Just the Derp, Ma'am"

Has his mom ever let him leave the basement? That's a pasty dude

Earguy: Frankly, I wish the moderators would call B.S. on candidates more often. I was fine with it, and would have been fine with it if she had done it on Obama too.

While she was totally correct, I don't think it's a good thing for a moderator to do because it's next to impossible to be totally consistent and impartial with the fact checking in real-time. If you fact check one candidate's statement, to be fair you have to try to do it every time for both candidates- you can't pick and choose. In order to do that, the moderator would have to be 100% sure of the facts in regard to every statement and always be able to chime in immediately, which is pretty impossible.

I think fact checking is more the responsibility of media covering the debate.

clkeagle: If a debate moderator really wanted to be taken seriously by the candidates, they should demand one of these for each microphone:

[nickshell1983.files.wordpress.com image 400x300]

"Don't look at me like that. I said you would have two minutes, and you did. Next question..."

I would love it if they did that.

Lou Brown: Earguy: Frankly, I wish the moderators would call B.S. on candidates more often. I was fine with it, and would have been fine with it if she had done it on Obama too.

While she was totally correct, I don't think it's a good thing for a moderator to do because it's next to impossible to be totally consistent and impartial with the fact checking in real-time. If you fact check one candidate's statement, to be fair you have to try to do it every time for both candidates- you can't pick and choose. In order to do that, the moderator would have to be 100% sure of the facts in regard to every statement and always be able to chime in immediately, which is pretty impossible.

I think fact checking is more the responsibility of media covering the debate.

So it's cool to lie to the country on live television?

FlashHarry: romney lied, and she called him on it. that makes her "disgraced?"

yeah you can't be objective with facts and the truth

James!: Jackson Herring: James!: Were you going to do that?

oh yeah the old "I can't complain about the proliferation of lying right-wing headlines if I don't submit headlines myself"

You green the headlines you have, not the headlines you wish you had.

When life gives you lemons, this is bad ..... for Obama.

After the screen-test, it was decided that Simon Pegg wouldn't be the next James Bond - even with his promise to shed a few pounds.

Lou Brown: If you fact check one candidate's statement, to be fair you have to try to do it every time for both candidates- you can't pick and choose

She did it for the purposes of stopping a particularly egregious lie that was holding up the debate. When one candidate is gumming up the works by repeatedly lying about a particular thing, it's perfectly acceptable for the moderator to shut him up and move him on, and if she knows the facts as was the case here, why not use them to do that?

The moderator's job is to keep things moving along and that's what she did here, it just so happened that the best way to do that was to cut through Romney's bullshiat with facts to shut him the hell up.

The republicans like to whine about that because they're crybaby little biatches with no sense of personal responsibility, but Romney could easily avoid that scenario by - and this is going to be a novel idea for him and his supporters - just sticking to the facts. Or at least doing what most politicians do and sticking to things that are at least technically true even if they're misleading or intentionally ignore other truths that offer important context.

That's the most galling thing about all this republican butthurt for me. You don't want the moderator pointing out to 65 million people that you're a shiat-eating liar? You can pretty easily avoid that outcome by not being a shiat-eating liar.

/ but, again, if there's one thing you can count on from the party of personal responsibility it's that nothing is ever their fault

 

I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings.

Epoch_Zero: Lou Brown: Earguy: Frankly, I wish the moderators would call B.S. on candidates more often. I was fine with it, and would have been fine with it if she had done it on Obama too.

While she was totally correct, I don't think it's a good thing for a moderator to do because it's next to impossible to be totally consistent and impartial with the fact checking in real-time. If you fact check one candidate's statement, to be fair you have to try to do it every time for both candidates- you can't pick and choose. In order to do that, the moderator would have to be 100% sure of the facts in regard to every statement and always be able to chime in immediately, which is pretty impossible.

I think fact checking is more the responsibility of media covering the debate.

So it's cool to lie to the country on live television?

Nope, not at all.

Jackson Herring: Barack Obama literally buttfarks a puppy

Before or after eating it?

Either way, the Dogeater-in-Chief strikes again.

I just don't get the appeal of Twitt. He walks like he's concurrently having a colonoscopy, he lies left and right, he's practically a religious extremist, he's an entitled phony who claims to have succeeded based on talent and skill, he claims to have balanced the budget in Massachusetts while instead having left a billion dollar deficit, he's not physically attractive, his voice is irritating and he speaks too fast (which is a proven characteristic of a person who's lying), he's hyperactive and pointlessly aggressive, he's chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran at the very least, he has a car elevator, he had the lack of intelligence to hire PAUL RYAN as his VP running mate, he wears mom jeans... the list could very well go on.

John Huntsman described him well: You have the consistency of a well-oiled weather vane.

I watched the debate...

the moment that seems to have hurt the GOPers feelings was a complete non-story.

Mitt had it wrong, he seemed unsure, and seemed to be looking for help...Crowley spoke up and inserted an absolute fact, not an opinion...a fact. That was it.

That's what the GOPers are mad about....really speaks to their weak position.

Facts are a problem for the GOP.

/Mitt didn't go after the right part of that story, that's Mitt's problem.
//blaming others for their own failing is a big reason why the GOP is in decline. They never correct themselves, they just push out a shiatstorm, have a pity party and move on. No introspection allowed.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Lou Brown: If you fact check one candidate's statement, to be fair you have to try to do it every time for both candidates- you can't pick and choose

She did it for the purposes of stopping a particularly egregious lie that was holding up the debate. When one candidate is gumming up the works by repeatedly lying about a particular thing, it's perfectly acceptable for the moderator to shut him up and move him on, and if she knows the facts as was the case here, why not use them to do that?

The moderator's job is to keep things moving along and that's what she did here, it just so happened that the best way to do that was to cut through Romney's bullshiat with facts to shut him the hell up.

Yeah, I agree it's the moderator's job to move things along. I think she could do that without interjecting into the argument itself, though. Again, she was totally right in what she said, but I think interjecting like that is a very slippery slope. Above all else, a moderator has to be totally consistent and impartial, and I don't think that's something that can be reasonably accomplished by anyone in real time.

Lou Brown: Nope, not at all.

Oh, so when you said
Lou Brown: I think fact checking is more the responsibility of media covering the debate.

What you really meant was

Lou Brown: I think fact checking is more the responsibility of media covering the debate.for after the lies have been said unchallenged and have already done their damage.

What concerns me about this story, and the recent blowback from Ryan's pot-washing photo op, is that for the repubs it's not enough to prove their opponents wrong; their opponents must be destroyed, humiliated, disgraced, fired. The right wing will not rest now until Candy Crowley loses her job for the sin of "partisanship," just like it won't rest until the St. Vincent De Paul Society soup kitchen is put out of business for not playing along with a repub fantasy. If Romney wins, to many repubs it will mean "payback time." Scores will be settled, liberals and Democrats will be punished. This is a party that was willing to throw the economy under the bus to achieve political points, that is actively seeking to disenfranchise political opponents. If they are willing to go this far to regain political power, how far will they go to keep it? The Democrats may find themselves in a position similar to the Mensheviks in post-Czarist Russia, following the rules of polite political discourse while its opponents ruthlessly use any and all means of taking and keeping power.

born_yesterday: Vegan Meat Popsicle: That's the most galling thing about all this republican butthurt for me. You don't want the moderator pointing out to 65 million people that you're a shiat-eating liar? You can pretty easily avoid that outcome by not being a shiat-eating liar.

That's how deep in the bag the MSM is for these assholes--they EXPECT to be able to lie to people without being called on it.

Indeed. Fox/News Corp. once went to court to defend their right to lie to the public on the air in news programming.

And won.

keylock71: Heh... Pictures of doughy white guys trying to show how bad-ass they are by posing with their firearms crack me up.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 470x616]

clambam: What concerns me about this story, and the recent blowback from Ryan's pot-washing photo op, is that for the repubs it's not enough to prove their opponents wrong; their opponents must be destroyed, humiliated, disgraced, fired. The right wing will not rest now until Candy Crowley loses her job for the sin of "partisanship," just like it won't rest until the St. Vincent De Paul Society soup kitchen is put out of business for not playing along with a repub fantasy. If Romney wins, to many repubs it will mean "payback time." Scores will be settled, liberals and Democrats will be punished. This is a party that was willing to throw the economy under the bus to achieve political points, that is actively seeking to disenfranchise political opponents. If they are willing to go this far to regain political power, how far will they go to keep it? The Democrats may find themselves in a position similar to the Mensheviks in post-Czarist Russia, following the rules of polite political discourse while its opponents ruthlessly use any and all means of taking and keeping power.

Look at the thread from yesterday where they were going after the Kindergarten teacher who asked the equal pay for women question.

to add to my previous post....

if anything Crowley helped Mitt. Obama wasn't going to correct him, he was fine to let Mitt go off with the wrong information...Crowley spoke up and gave Mitt the right answer.

Mitt could have done a lot more with that topic on his time, but he fumbled all over himself and did not correct.
criticize your own guy GOP....like the Dems did after Obama's piss poor performance. Notice Obama learned from his mistakes. How will Mitt do that if you all give him a pass in favor of crying about the mod?

/whinny biatches

Dusk-You-n-Me: Lou Brown: Above all else, a moderator has to be totally consistent and impartial

Facts are impartial.

^^^^^^^

Epoch_Zero: Lou Brown: Nope, not at all.

Oh, so when you said
Lou Brown: I think fact checking is more the responsibility of media covering the debate.

What you really meant was

Lou Brown: I think fact checking is more the responsibility of media covering the debate.for after the lies have been said unchallenged and have already done their damage.

It's the participant's responsibility to challenge the lies. Not the moderator's.