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.

(Some Guy)   CNN boss sends email to staff, reminding them to cover for disgraced Candy Crowley   (dustinstockton.com) divider line 304
    More: Followup, Candy Crowley, CNN, garbage bins, Michelle Obama, Rose Garden, political corruption, Dan Rather  
•       •       •

3552 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Oct 2012 at 9:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-19 11:04:56 AM  

Fart_Machine: 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]

[cdn2.damnfunnypictures.com image 520x390]


I saw that picture and my first thought was (in the Price is Right announcer voice)" This lovely item shoots bullets to make your enemies dead, it, uhh is made of metal and comes with a trigger, and a hole for bullets to come out of."
Then I thought "Man, the Price is Right Girls have really let themselves go."
 
2012-10-19 11:06:00 AM  

Lou Brown: I think it's possible for the moderator to move things along without interjecting herself in the debate.


Since when is "stating a fact" the same as "injecting herself into the debate"?
 
2012-10-19 11:06:04 AM  

oldfarthenry: [i1151.photobucket.com image 285x285]
The doughy white guy militia ALWAYS stands their ground
(due to obvious mobility-impairment issues)



Not until they start putting tank treads on Rascal scooters.
 
2012-10-19 11:06:46 AM  

Lou Brown: Nope, not at all. I think it was a minor issue in the grand scheme of the debate, and I felt Obama clearly won on substance.


Well crap. How am I supposed to disagree with you now? Clever trick, you.
 
2012-10-19 11:07:06 AM  

d23: 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.

regardless of facts

regardless of facts

regardless of facts

regardless of facts

regardless of facts

regardless of facts

regardless of facts

regardless of facts

YOU my friend are one of the reasons this country is starting to suck.


I was being sarcastic.
 
2012-10-19 11:07:49 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: That's something I don't believe can be done in a totally fair and impartial manner in real-time.

Why not? If the moderator understands the statement to be a direct falsehood, should they not correct it? Why?

Why does it have to be that the moderator has to correct everything or nothing?


Because I believe the most important responsibility for a moderator is to be unbiased, and I feel that is an impossibility when it comes to choosing which statements to fact-check in real-time.
 
2012-10-19 11:09:36 AM  

Lou Brown: cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: That's something I don't believe can be done in a totally fair and impartial manner in real-time.

Why not? If the moderator understands the statement to be a direct falsehood, should they not correct it? Why?

Why does it have to be that the moderator has to correct everything or nothing?

Because I believe the most important responsibility for a moderator is to be unbiased, and I feel that is an impossibility when it comes to choosing which statements to fact-check in real-time.


Yes. Being unbiased means that if one candidate is lying and it is bringing the debate to a screeching halt, you state a fact and you move along

Thank you for agreeing with me.
 
2012-10-19 11:10:45 AM  

keylock71: Who is Dustin Stockton and why should I give a shiat about his opinion and his shiatty blog?


Dustin!
Dustin Fustin Fo-Fustin Banana Bana Bo Bustin
Fee Fi Fo Fustin
Dustin!

Mitch!
...
 
2012-10-19 11:12:07 AM  

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

Some people should just NOT grow beards.

Aside from that, I think Crowley did a pretty good job. Romney walked all over her like a typical rich bastard simply assuming the rules of the little people do not apply to him, and there's no way to stop an out-of-control moron once the engineer falls asleep at the switch.

But, all-in-all, she hardly has anything to be disgraced about.

Romney expected that he would be allowed to get the last word in. She told him no, and Romney cannot abide being told "no" as he's always been the guy in charge.

And, for Greggy here, the whole cigar/pistol/suspenders and messed up bed with the stupid look on his face is just great.

Did you read the debate agreement? 5 times Obama got the first and last word to a question, against the agreed to rules. This was due to Crowley no t following the agreed to rules. How can you not call that bias. You believe there is no advantage in having first and last words?


Which debate agreement? The one between the two campaigns that both candidates chucked out the window at the first opportunity or the contract with the PDC? Crowley said she was not part of their agreement ahead of time and did exactly what she said she'd do.
 
2012-10-19 11:13:51 AM  

Flaming Yawn: keylock71: Who is Dustin Stockton and why should I give a shiat about his opinion and his shiatty blog?

Dustin!
Dustin Fustin Fo-Fustin Banana Bana Bo Bustin
Fee Fi Fo Fustin
Dustin!

Mitch!
...


My aunt had a dog named Tucker. We weren't allow to sing the Name Game after singing it to him ONCE! Just once!
 
2012-10-19 11:19:38 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: That's something I don't believe can be done in a totally fair and impartial manner in real-time.

Why not? If the moderator understands the statement to be a direct falsehood, should they not correct it? Why?

Why does it have to be that the moderator has to correct everything or nothing?

Because I believe the most important responsibility for a moderator is to be unbiased, and I feel that is an impossibility when it comes to choosing which statements to fact-check in real-time.

Yes. Being unbiased means that if one candidate is lying and it is bringing the debate to a screeching halt, you state a fact and you move along

Thank you for agreeing with me.


Say Candidate A and Candidate B each lie five times during a debate. The moderator corrects Candidate A every time but never corrects candidate B. Is this a problem?

Or for a specific example of the debate on the other side... Obama stated that Romney claimed Arizona's immigration law was a model for the nation. Based on Romney's primary debate transcript listed in this Politifact article, it is abundantly clear that Romney was referring to the e-verify system enacted in a separate Arizona law. Why didn't the moderator backup Romney's statement and say Obama was wrong?
 
2012-10-19 11:23:01 AM  

92myrtle: Um...hell yes. Because troll alts logging into 10 library computers at once, hitting F5, then spamming their troll-alt musings on all their alts aren't high-value page views.


Paranoid much?

/it's obviously a Government funded library conspiracy! Cut the funding to Libraries!
 
2012-10-19 11:23:04 AM  

Lou Brown: Say Candidate A and Candidate B each lie five times during a debate. The moderator corrects Candidate A every time but never corrects candidate B. Is this a problem?


Sure, it would be a problem. But that's never happened, nor has it ever.

However, if (such as in this situation) a candidate is lying and off track, the moderator at that point should step in and correct.

Can you name one single other time that Crowley stepped in and corrected a lie? No?

Then why would that situation be congruous to this one?
 
2012-10-19 11:23:13 AM  

dr_blasto: Lulz at Greg Campbell.


Oh god. Nothing says derper like doing your best Limbaugh impression with a needless sidearm.
 
2012-10-19 11:24:36 AM  

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

What the fark is this crazy shiat? Is that a cell phone holder on his mismatched helmet? There's no phone in it, did he eat it?


Not a phone it's a Reloadable Mark 7 Kit Kat Holder. I have one of those. Looks like the individual has already deployed the contents.
 
2012-10-19 11:25:02 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: Say Candidate A and Candidate B each lie five times during a debate. The moderator corrects Candidate A every time but never corrects candidate B. Is this a problem?

Sure, it would be a problem. But that's never happened, nor has it ever.

However, if (such as in this situation) a candidate is lying and off track, the moderator at that point should step in and correct.

Can you name one single other time that Crowley stepped in and corrected a lie? No?

Then why would that situation be congruous to this one?


You know how I know you didn't watch the debate?
 
2012-10-19 11:26:36 AM  
Man, is that lying farktard carrying a Springfield? Give his ignorant ass a Jennings or something. Maybe he just borrowed it from daddy. Mitt lost that debate, hands down. What a bunch of chafed crybabies these people are.
 
2012-10-19 11:28:32 AM  
What was everyone supposed to do when the President of the United States issues a command, "Get the transcript." Are there rules in the debate about that, too? Were they supposed to ignore him?

Lou BrownI think it's possible for the moderator to move things along without interjecting herself in the debate.

It obviously is impossible at times to "move ROMNEY along", as we have seen at two debates. He interrupts, he talks first, lets the other respond and then just simply HAS to respond to the other's response. The moderators object, he doesn't give a fark. He continues. He does it with contrived stammering, trying to appear sincere and fooling only the already foolish, and he just talks over the moderator and repeatedly gets his way because he is Chief Executive Officer of everyone, everywhere. There is no "moving along" when Mitt debates.

Rather than answer Mitt's question (a debate no-no) and after having stated several times that those were not his words in the Rose Garden, President Obama simply wanted to shut the Romneytron up with the facts: the transcript. There could be no arguing with that.

And if the professional and skilled moderator happened to have that transcript in her head, wtf is the difference between her "interjecting" with the information the POTUS demanded, and waiting for someone to print a copy of it to present to Romneytron?

I suppose ideally some people would have like to continue watching Romneytron get flushed and excited with anticipation of sabotaging the POTUS with his pathetic line of QUESTIONing during a debate, his insistence that things happened the way he wanted them to, rather than the way they factually did. I suppose that would have been a fairer outcome. Gotcha.
 
2012-10-19 11:30:28 AM  
Anyone arguing with Lou Brown should realize he's stuck on this "bias" thing and isn't going to address the legitimacy of Crowley's interruption, being that Romney was directly addressing the President, asking him questions, and harping on a single issue of wording regarding what he said on the day of the Rose Garden speech. The only way to shut him up, as I recall she had already tried to move it along, was to say "He did in fact say that" because Obama wasn't going to answer the direct question, nor should he have.

And one instance of presenting an indisputable fact as a means to help a debate proceed, and counterbalancing it by suppoprting the other allegation (he didn't bring it up again for approximatelt 2 weeks) should rebut the accusation of "bias" as she ostensibly "supported" both opponents by mentioning a fact in relation to either side.

So, Lou, seriously get over it. She wasn't biased and she was in the right to get things moving.
 
2012-10-19 11:31:34 AM  
Those that keep saying "she did a good job" apparently are completely clueless as to the fundamental role of a debate moderator. It's not about who won or lost the debate. It's not about being a R or a D. If the candidates lie, they lie and she is bound by her role to keep her mouth shut. Her purpose is to ask questions and guide the conversation, but absolutely not to intervene or fact check. I'd say the same thing has she taken Romney's side on an issue. The moderator has no place intervening. Never in the history of presidential debate has anything like her "fact check" happened before. It is pretty much the moderator golden rule NOT to do exactly what she did.

I beg you all to stop being so partisan. Exercise intellectual honesty. Use the brain xenu blessed you with to think for yourself. This country would be so much healthier.
 
2012-10-19 11:32:19 AM  

92myrtle: low-quality hits


Speak for yourself! The quality of my hits remains at the highest of standards despite the sort of rabble I have to associate with around here.
 
2012-10-19 11:35:08 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: Say Candidate A and Candidate B each lie five times during a debate. The moderator corrects Candidate A every time but never corrects candidate B. Is this a problem?

Sure, it would be a problem. But that's never happened, nor has it ever.

However, if (such as in this situation) a candidate is lying and off track, the moderator at that point should step in and correct.

Can you name one single other time that Crowley stepped in and corrected a lie? No?

Then why would that situation be congruous to this one?


No, and it's an exaggerated example used to point out that when a moderator chooses to fact-check only certain statements, there will inevitably be a selection bias that favors one candidate over the other. When that happens, the moderator is not being totally impartial despite their best efforts, and I think that's a problem.

I believe it is the responsibility of the candidates to challenge each other's statements, and it is the responsibility of the media covering the debate to fact-check the candidates. The media has both the time and resources to do so in an impartial manner for the entirety of the debate. The moderator does not.
 
2012-10-19 11:35:32 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's what Crowley did. If the moderator needs to fact-check to keep the debate on track, absolutely they should do so.


But only as a last resort, for example when struggling to regain control of the debate from a self-absorbed, entitled jack4ss who disrespects the moderator, refuses to yield the floor and ignores the rules. Even rich entitled jack4sses. The circumstances meet the metric.
 
2012-10-19 11:36:35 AM  

Elandriel: The only way to shut him up, as I recall she had already tried to move it along, was to say "He did in fact say that" because Obama wasn't going to answer the direct question, nor should he have.


Also of note: Obama, after Crowley corrected Romney, tried to capitalize on the moment but Crowley had none of it and changed the topic.
 
2012-10-19 11:36:50 AM  

Lou Brown: cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: That's something I don't believe can be done in a totally fair and impartial manner in real-time.

Why not? If the moderator understands the statement to be a direct falsehood, should they not correct it? Why?

Why does it have to be that the moderator has to correct everything or nothing?

Because I believe the most important responsibility for a moderator is to be unbiased, and I feel that is an impossibility when it comes to choosing which statements to fact-check in real-time.

Yes. Being unbiased means that if one candidate is lying and it is bringing the debate to a screeching halt, you state a fact and you move along

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Say Candidate A and Candidate B each lie five times during a debate. The moderator corrects Candidate A every time but never corrects candidate B. Is this a problem?

Or for a specific example of the debate on the other side... Obama stated that Romney claimed Arizona's immigration law was a model for the nation. Based on Romney's primary debate transcript listed in this Politifact article, it is abundantly clear that Romney was referring to the e-verify system enacted in a separate Arizona law. Why didn't the moderator backup Romney's statement and say Obama was wrong?


Because at that moment in the debate the entire world saw Romney grilling the sitting President of the United States that he did not say "act of terror" when in fact those words were said. It was the moment in the debate that was going nowhere and she moved it along by agreeing with both sides by saying yes in fact Obama did say Act of terror, but followed up with that the administration took a long time to come out and say it was terrorism. I thought at the time she took both sides.

But, what do I know.
 
2012-10-19 11:38:32 AM  

Elandriel: Anyone arguing with Lou Brown should realize he's stuck on this "bias" thing and isn't going to address the legitimacy of Crowley's interruption, being that Romney was directly addressing the President, asking him questions, and harping on a single issue of wording regarding what he said on the day of the Rose Garden speech. The only way to shut him up, as I recall she had already tried to move it along, was to say "He did in fact say that" because Obama wasn't going to answer the direct question, nor should he have.

And one instance of presenting an indisputable fact as a means to help a debate proceed, and counterbalancing it by suppoprting the other allegation (he didn't bring it up again for approximatelt 2 weeks) should rebut the accusation of "bias" as she ostensibly "supported" both opponents by mentioning a fact in relation to either side.

So, Lou, seriously get over it. She wasn't biased and she was in the right to get things moving.


You said this better than I did.
 
2012-10-19 11:43:51 AM  

Lou Brown: No, and it's an exaggerated example used to point out that when a moderator chooses to fact-check only certain statements, there will inevitably be a selection bias that favors one candidate over the other. When that happens, the moderator is not being totally impartial despite their best efforts, and I think that's a problem.

I believe it is the responsibility of the candidates to challenge each other's statements, and it is the responsibility of the media covering the debate to fact-check the candidates. The media has both the time and resources to do so in an impartial manner for the entirety of the debate. The moderator does not.


So, you're saying the moderator shouldn't keep them on subject and ask them for full explanations of what they're saying, that's the job of the other candidate? You want Jim Lehrer type moderation of continually asking each candidate: "How are you two different from each other?"
 
2012-10-19 11:44:20 AM  
It's about as relevant as anything in this thread.
 
2012-10-19 11:45:04 AM  

Elandriel: Anyone arguing with Lou Brown should realize he's stuck on this "bias" thing and isn't going to address the legitimacy of Crowley's interruption, being that Romney was directly addressing the President, asking him questions, and harping on a single issue of wording regarding what he said on the day of the Rose Garden speech.


Lou Brown: she was totally correct

Lou Brown: Again, she was totally right in what she said

Elandriel: The only way to shut him up, as I recall she had already tried to move it along, was to say "He did in fact say that" because Obama wasn't going to answer the direct question, nor should he have.


I simply disagree with that. A moderator can move the debate along without explicitly stating which candidate is correct on a particular issue.
 
2012-10-19 11:45:23 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: So, you're saying the moderator shouldn't keep them on subject and ask them for full explanations of what they're saying, that's the job of the other candidate? You want Jim Lehrer type moderation of continually asking each candidate: "How are you two different from each other?"


You know full well what he wants, he wants a moderator who will keep those people in there place
 
2012-10-19 11:45:30 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: It's about as relevant as anything in this thread.


hmm, my picture went down teh tubes.

Never mind....
 
2012-10-19 11:47:28 AM  

EyeballKid: ...
"I'm not staying in my mom's basement. I'm on stakeout!"


Indeed... If your going to pose for a pic that hundreds of people may see on the intertubes than at least make your bed.
 
2012-10-19 11:50:13 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: So, you're saying the moderator shouldn't keep them on subject and ask them for full explanations of what they're saying, that's the job of the other candidate? You want Jim Lehrer type moderation of continually asking each candidate: "How are you two different from each other?"


Lou Brown: In my opinion, the moderator's job in the town hall format should essentially be to enforce time limits and keep the candidates on topic.


And yes, as part of that, I believe that asking for the candidate to expand on the topic is certainly within the realm of the moderator's responsibilities as well.
 
2012-10-19 11:50:35 AM  

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.


You're forgetting the bit about it was a command issued by the POTUS.
 
2012-10-19 11:51:03 AM  

Lou Brown: I simply disagree with that. A moderator can move the debate along without explicitly stating which candidate is correct on a particular issue.


The point is: Romney was trying to fabricate a stance, and build upon it. She was right to correct him as the basis for his entire next point was a fallacy.
 
2012-10-19 11:52:02 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: JusticeandIndependence: It's about as relevant as anything in this thread.

hmm, my picture went down teh tubes.

Never mind....


::shakes fist:: If only there was some way to preview our posts!

Brother? We shall band together to fight this horrible injustice.
 
2012-10-19 11:55:55 AM  

Lou Brown: I simply disagree with that. A moderator can move the debate along without explicitly stating which candidate is correct on a particular issue.


When that candidate is Mitt Romney and he has established a consistent pattern of disregarding rules that are inconvenient for him, sometimes additional intervention is necessary. In this case it was presenting him with irrefutable evidence that he couldn't stammer and lie to obfuscate. Was there another way to move the debate along and preserve the integrity of the discussion? If she had swept it under the rug she would have fallen victim to the same accusation levied at Lehrer; an ineffective moderator who allows candidates to run roughshod over the rules and lie at will without consequence.

I think given the circumstances she did a fine job handling this fairly brazen move by Romney in disregarding the rules and decorum of the debate. He didn't just disrespect the President after all, he also disrespected the moderator.
 
2012-10-19 11:59:14 AM  

Lou Brown: And yes, as part of that, I believe that asking for the candidate to expand on the topic is certainly within the realm of the moderator's responsibilities as well.


And, when the moderator wants to make sure the candidate is talking about a subject correctly?

If she had let Romney go off the deep end, like Obama was willing to do by saying: "Proceed, Mr. Governor.", the Right would have had a shiatfit about her not keeping him on subject.

it's a double edged sword, the Right cannot admit fault, it's always someone else's fault.
 
2012-10-19 11:59:51 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: The point is: Romney was trying to fabricate a stance, and build upon it.


Yep definitely.

HST's Dead Carcass: She was right to correct him as the basis for his entire next point was a fallacy.


Why didn't she correct Obama when he said that Romney called Arizona's immigration law was a model for the nation, when (as stated in this Politifact article) it's clear he was referring to the e-verify system enacted in a totally different law?

The problem is not that she was incorrect in her statement. The problem is that it's impossible to pick and choose which statements to correct in a totally unbiased fashion. That's why I believe the moderator should avoid doing so.
 
2012-10-19 12:02:48 PM  

cc_rider: [i28.photobucket.com image 480x332]

Also, has anyone noted that his blog sucks, yet?


God you people have short memories.

Altitude too high for Obama.
Obama didn't get enough rest before the debate
Romney has more time to prepare since Obama is still acting President
Obama was being "too polite"
The moderator (Lehrer) sucked.
John Kerry preped him badly
Blew it on purpose as part of a "long game" strategy (but no explanation of what that might be)
 
2012-10-19 12:05:08 PM  

Office Ninja: cc_rider: [i28.photobucket.com image 480x332]

Also, has anyone noted that his blog sucks, yet?

God you people have short memories.

Altitude too high for Obama.
Obama didn't get enough rest before the debate
Romney has more time to prepare since Obama is still acting President
Obama was being "too polite"
The moderator (Lehrer) sucked.
John Kerry preped him badly
Blew it on purpose as part of a "long game" strategy (but no explanation of what that might be)


Most of those were prefaced with "Obama lost but," and you know it. You just don't want to admit that Romney and Ryan may be fallible after all
 
2012-10-19 12:05:52 PM  

Lou Brown: Why didn't she correct Obama when he said that Romney called Arizona's immigration law was a model for the nation, when (as stated in this Politifact article) it's clear he was referring to the e-verify system enacted in a totally different law?

The problem is not that she was incorrect in her statement. The problem is that it's impossible to pick and choose which statements to correct in a totally unbiased fashion. That's why I believe the moderator should avoid doing so.


She obviously didn't know about the situation they spoke of, whereas with the Benghazi situation, she knew she was going to ask a question about it and had knowledge of the situation. Her only mistake was not being informed of the AZ issue, as it was a sidetrack he took to distract and evade the overall main topic.

Both candidates were meandering the subjects, and she worked hard to keep them on track. This is not the Gotcha Moment the Right wants it to be, but Fox News is trumping it up because it made Romney look bad being misinformed by his handlers.

The real issue here is how the Right can't accept their guy made a mistake. Standard Operating Procedure is to deploy the army of Strawmen, deflect and lay blame at someone else's feet.

So, to bring this argument full circle, here's my Strawman argument I claim to be apropos to the point I am trying to make: When Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face with a shotgun, the guy who got shot issued an apology to Cheney! That's how the Right operates! It was the other guys fault for standing near Cheney when he was armed.
 
2012-10-19 12:09:26 PM  

Office Ninja: God you people have short memories.

Altitude too high for Obama.
Obama didn't get enough rest before the debate
Romney has more time to prepare since Obama is still acting President
Obama was being "too polite"
The moderator (Lehrer) sucked.
John Kerry preped him badly
Blew it on purpose as part of a "long game" strategy (but no explanation of what that might be)


I said none of these things, I said Romney stomped a mudhole in Obama's ass large enough to hold a Monster Truck Rally, because that's what happened.
 
2012-10-19 12:10:12 PM  

Lou Brown: I simply disagree with that. A moderator can move the debate along without explicitly stating which candidate is correct on a particular issue.


Examples? STFU Mitt? Face slap? Call security? Romney, as he did from the opening salvos of the first debate, tried to dominate the floor against both his opponent and the moderator. Candy chose to settle the issue he pressed instead of speaking against Romney or his behavior directly. High school debate teams would punt Romney for his disrespectful, selfish actions. 
She did great. Don't blame a woman for Romney's humiliation on live national TV. Mitt built that himself.
 
2012-10-19 12:16:49 PM  
Obama, speaking in Virginia today, called the condition of constant flip-flopping "Romnesia"

I like this.
 
2012-10-19 12:17:08 PM  

neenerist: Lou Brown: I simply disagree with that. A moderator can move the debate along without explicitly stating which candidate is correct on a particular issue.

Examples? STFU Mitt? Face slap? Call security? Romney, as he did from the opening salvos of the first debate, tried to dominate the floor against both his opponent and the moderator. Candy chose to settle the issue he pressed instead of speaking against Romney or his behavior directly. High school debate teams would punt Romney for his disrespectful, selfish actions. 
She did great. Don't blame a woman for Romney's humiliation on live national TV. Mitt built that himself.


Here's my point:

Romney: "The sky is a wonderful shade of Orange tonight and that's because of my opponent's Nuclear Proliferation..."
Moderator: "Mr. Governor, the sky is indeed blue.."
Romney: "I disagree, it's Orange because of Nuclear..."
Moderator: "Mr. Governor, you're standing next to a window, turn around and look at the blue sky..."
Romney: "I disagree, it's obviously Orange, because..."
Obama: "That's wrong. I am sitting in front of you and behind you is the window and I can clearly see it's blue."
Romney: "I beg to differ."
Obama: "Please proceed, Mr. Governor."
Ronmey: "You're welcome to think that, but I promise you..."

Starting off the subject with a fallacy is bad because he was basing his whole point on this fallacy. The whole basis of his argument would have been wrong because the beginning conclusion was wrong.

Think of it this way: She was actually helping Romney save face! She wasn't taking Obama's side.
 
2012-10-19 12:17:39 PM  
dustinstockton.com
What is this "penis" you speak of?
Check out my sweet gun, though.
 
2012-10-19 12:18:54 PM  

neenerist: Examples?


"People can go to the transcripts and figure out what was said and when."

She should have simply said that from the start and moved on.


neenerist: She did great


Yes, I agree. Overall I thought she did a very good job.


neenerist: Don't blame a woman for Romney's humiliation on live national TV.


Lou Brown: Trivia Jockey: Lou Brown:


Let me ask you this...are you suggesting that Romney was only beaten in this debate because of the moderator?

Nope, not at all. I think it was a minor issue in the grand scheme of the debate, and I felt Obama clearly won on substance.

 
2012-10-19 12:18:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Obama, speaking in Virginia today, called the condition of constant flip-flopping "Romnesia"

I like this.


That's an Oh Snap! moment.
 
2012-10-19 12:19:02 PM  

Lou Brown: HST's Dead Carcass: The point is: Romney was trying to fabricate a stance, and build upon it.

Yep definitely.

HST's Dead Carcass: She was right to correct him as the basis for his entire next point was a fallacy.

Why didn't she correct Obama when he said that Romney called Arizona's immigration law was a model for the nation, when (as stated in this Politifact article) it's clear he was referring to the e-verify system enacted in a totally different law?

The problem is not that she was incorrect in her statement. The problem is that it's impossible to pick and choose which statements to correct in a totally unbiased fashion. That's why I believe the moderator should avoid doing so.


Did Obama press the issue and ask "for the record you didn't say X?" multiple times and ground the debate to a halt? Also in Romney's case there was some interpretation to what he was referring to not a the word statement. With Obama, there was some interpretation to the meaning, but he did say the words "Act of Terror" which Romney said he didn't. The wrong point was trying to be made by Romney and they needed to move along, Crowley correctly moved it along and pointed out at the time that Romney was correct, but not in exact wording that he was using.
 
Displayed 50 of 304 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