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.

sweetmelissa31: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]
What is this "penis" you speak of?
Check out my sweet gun, though.

That guy needs to learn the correct length a tie is supposed to be when tied. Also make your bed you slob.

HST's Dead Carcass: JusticeandIndependence: 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.

Romney was trying to prove Obama didn't think it was an act of terrorism, but he misspoke and said Obama didn't call it an act of terror. This is the truth to the whole matter.

I agree. We can't do that, do I call you a whore now?

This picture really bothers me. 1. Suspenders should go straight up to the shoulder, not at an angle. Doing otherwise is both tacky and a "I'm going to try and look not as fat" trick. 2. WHAR OTHER SUSPENDER WHAR

She did a great job.

If you're going to post your own derpy butthurt blogpost to Fark, at least change the headline!

ps it sucks.

I was in my office. I had just come off working the Case of the Big Snatch when the phone rang. I was tired, too sober and didn't want to answer it, but, as Marlowe used to say to me as we sucked down gin fizzes at The Manhole, "if the phone ain't ringing, you ain't working."

Marlowe had a lot of rules for being a dick, and most had to do with avoiding my two favorite things: cheap cigars and the soft, sweet touch of wearing women's undergarments beneath my beefy tees and springy suspenders.

"Hello? Is this Greg 'Tuck Job' Campbell?" a woman's voice said when I answered the ringing phone.
"Depends," I said. "Who wants to know?"
"My name's Esmerelda," she began. "I'm looking for a private dick."
"Well," I mumbled trying to hold a cohiba in my lips to light, "they don't call me 'Tuck Job' for nothing, dollface."

Lou Brown: 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.

On the first point, Romney ignored it when Obama said the same thing. She had the nation's most powerful politician in a nationally televised, heated discussion with an opponent who ignored that recommendation and she chose a different tact. Both candidates were repeatedly censured for stepping out of bounds, she had no reason to expect Romney would respect her directions this time. She addressed the topic point instead of cutting him off rudely like he deserved.
Glad you agree, she impressed all but the most partisan hacks. With the benefit of hindsight it was an excellent performance.

Lou Brown: As a result, the moderator would unwittingly end up showing favoritism to one candidate

No, they wouldn't. Being a crappy moderator doesn't imply favoritism. It's just being a crappy moderator.

I don't know where this stupid idea comes from that balance means always treating everybody's opinions and statements as equally valid, but that's not what balance means. If one candidate is obviously lying, as was the case here, then nobody anywhere for any reason in any capacity throughout the entirety of time and the universe could ever possibly be showing favoritism simply by correcting them.

And your argument about what "might be" if fact-checking becomes a standard, real-time practice is pointless. It didn't happen, it's not happening, and there's no reason to believe it will happen. The moderator did correct an obvious lie with the facts in order to stop the liar from tying up the time. That's the entirety of it. The moderator is not there to fact-check every statement, but a quick fact-check can, as demonstrated in that debate, serve the purposes of moderation so there is no reason a moderator should not do it as long as they do it accurately, which is true of any responsibility they have. You can't take that tool away from the moderator with the argument "because it might go wrong" anywhere than you can take away their time clock duties because they might mess them up. Both things are a valid part of their job, both can be done poorly. That's all there is to it. A good moderator will do it well, a bad moderator will do it poorly. This is true of every tool in their toolbox, not just correcting lies.

HST's Dead Carcass: Had this been done to Obama, he'd be doing pelvic thrusts through out this thread and lauding the Moderator for catching the Lying Kenyan!

Thanks for that image that's now burned into my stupid brain

Xetal: The poutrage is going to be pretty epic on November 7th.

I'm hoping for the roles to be reversed and the Republicans will be screeching about "hanging chad" and filing lawsuits.

Cornelius Dribble: If you're going to post your own derpy butthurt blogpost to Fark, at least change the headline!

ps it sucks.

I hope this little biatch is a FARKer, I hope he posted this and read every comment, and I hope he eats that farking gun he's so proud of.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I don't know where this stupid idea comes from that balance means always treating everybody's opinions and statements as equally valid

I don't know where it came from either, because it's certainly nothing I've ever said or inferred.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: And your argument about what "might be" if fact-checking becomes a standard, real-time practice is pointless. It didn't happen, it's not happening, and there's no reason to believe it will happen. The moderator did correct an obvious lie with the facts in order to stop the liar from tying up the time.

It did just happen. The moderator fact checked a statement in real time. That's what we're talking about. Why did she fact check that Romney statement but not Obama's assertion that Romney thinks Arizona's immigration law is a model for the country? That is also demonstrably false based upon the primary debate transcript. Do you not thing her doing so would have swayed the audience perception of that argument in Romney's favor? The point is that there is no equitable way to pick and choose statements to fact check. It's possible to move the debate along without saying "You're right, he's wrong."

HST's Dead Carcass: Had this been done to Obama, he'd be doing pelvic thrusts through out this thread and lauding the Moderator for catching the Lying Kenyan!

The idea that I'm in any way, shape, or form in favor of a Romney presidency is about as based in reality as his statement that caused this entire discussion.

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

So what should the moderator do when the debate degenerates into "Nuh-uh!" "Yah-huh!" like that one did?

HeartBurnKid: So what should the moderator do when the debate degenerates into "Nuh-uh!" "Yah-huh!" like that one did?


Lou Brown: "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.

EyeballKid: A) So, did somebody want a link to the Fox News talking points memos? 'Cos, we're a pretty friendly lot, you can ask and we'll usually oblige. Not me, though. And...


B) [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]

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

This is the stupid person vision of what a "Bad Ass" looks like...

Fat, pasty, bloated, suspenders (because there is no waist for a belt to rest on), gun/holster, cigar (what do you think Sigmund?), vaguely retarded look. yep republican bloviator...

JusticeandIndependence: Lou Brown: cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown:

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.

that's where you're getting it wrong. that was by far the most dramatic moment of the debate. ever.

HST's Dead Carcass: Lou Brown: The idea that I'm in any way, shape, or form in favor of a Romney presidency is about as based in reality as his statement that caused this entire discussion.

Let me guess: You're a disillusioned, former Obama supporter thinking about trying out the other side, because that's so believable.

Not at all. In fact I'd be willing to bet I support the job Obama's done more so than most liberals on this board given I take a pragmatic view of the difficulties he's faced as President.

In fact, this is the type of shiat that really pisses me off about politics. People make it out to be some black and white world where if you're not with Team A 100% of the time, then you're clearly a RINO/DINO. In this thread alone, I've stated:

1. Obama was right, Romney was wrong.
2. Crowley was correct in what she said.
3. I don't think it's cool that Romney lied on television
4. I think Obama clearly won the debate on substance, and I disagree with the assertion that the Crowley was the reason that Romney lost.
5. I think the Crowley did a good job moderating the debate overall.

But because I believe (regardless of partisan bias) that the moderator should not attempt to fact check a debate in real-time due to the difficulties of doing so in a totally fair and unbiased manner (and be able to advance the discussion without doing so), somehow I'm disillusioned, don't support Obama, and am now thinking about becoming a Republican. For fark sake.

Lou Brown: Why did she fact check that Romney statement but not Obama's assertion that Romney thinks Arizona's immigration law is a model for the country?

Because one of them was holding up the debate by persisting with his lie and one of them wasn't. Why is this so hard to understand? She didn't correct Romney just because he lied, she corrected him because his dedication to his lie was stopping the progression of the debate and it's her responsibility to keep it moving.

http://dustinstockton.com/

That guy was a crap broadcaster during the NLDS on TBS.

sweetmelissa31: Mrtraveler01: http://dustinstockton.com/

That guy was a crap broadcaster during the NLDS on TBS.

Top three most amazing things about that site:

1. The Farting Blogger himself, John Hawkins, is a contributer

2. [i194.photobucket.com image 202x154]

3. [i194.photobucket.com image 195x192]

Dammit, images blocked at work

"You're off the case, McGarnagle!"

Lou Brown: Not at all. In fact I'd be willing to bet I support the job Obama's done more so than most liberals on this board given I take a pragmatic view of the difficulties he's faced as President.

In fact, this is the type of shiat that really pisses me off about politics. People make it out to be some black and white world where if you're not with Team A 100% of the time, then you're clearly a RINO/DINO. In this thread alone, I've stated:

1. Obama was right, Romney was wrong.
2. Crowley was correct in what she said.
3. I don't think it's cool that Romney lied on television
4. I think Obama clearly won the debate on substance, and I disagree with the assertion that the Crowley was the reason that Romney lost.
5. I think the Crowley did a good job moderating the debate overall.

But because I believe (regardless of partisan bias) that the moderator should not attempt to fact check a debate in real-time due to the difficulties of doing so in a totally fair and unbiased manner (and be able to advance the discussion without doing so), somehow I'm disillusioned, don't support Obama, and am now thinking about becoming a Republican. For fark sake.

This is sadly, what so many people struggle with understanding these days.
There is hope after all. Although I disagree with your assessment of the debate that was well said. Nice post.

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..."

And then put John Stewart as moderator.

MyRandomName: Did you read the debate agreement? 5 times Obama got the first and last word to a question, against the agreed to rules.

Which were originally thrown out the window when Romney directly asked Obama a question, against the same rules. And after both candidates went over time against those rules.

Why should the rules only count when they are to Romney's advantage?

BSABSVR: Why should the rules only count when they are to Romney's advantage?

Because he's a Republican...duh!

If Obama said something that wasn't true, and she defended it, then why shouldn't she be panned for it?

dr_blasto: TFA says "even the liberal shills at the Washington Post..." and then proceeds to link to an op-ed from Jennifer farking Rubin criticizing Crowley.

Subby, your blog sucks mass quantities of dead pigeon cock.

I wouldn't have said it quite that way, but THIS.