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  
•       •       •

3550 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Oct 2012 at 9:09 AM (1 year 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 12:20:51 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 12:21:04 PM
j.wigflip.com
 
2012-10-19 12:22:01 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 12:23:21 PM

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?
 
2012-10-19 12:24:13 PM
dustinstockton.com

It was a hot day in mom's basement. The dryer lint was aggravating my asthma again, making me wheeze like a fat guy having to go back to the counter in a Burger King 'cause he forgot the extra ketchup packets.

I kicked open my desk drawer and poured myself three fingers of strawberry quik. Just as I raised my Boba Fett commemorative mug to my lips, She walked in--or I should say sashayed. She was built like a '47 Pontiac: big bumpers and wide bench seats. My heart was thumping like a washing machine full of galoshes. I hadn't felt so light-headed since buying my signed copy of Newt's "Contract With America" on eBay...
 
2012-10-19 12:26:41 PM

JusticeandIndependence: 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?


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


Damn, I'm not sure. We're in uncharted territory. Um, your candidate sucks? Um, yeah, your tactic in debate has left me unsure how to proceed.
 
2012-10-19 12:32:51 PM
dustinstockton.com

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
 
2012-10-19 12:36:09 PM
She did a great job.
 
2012-10-19 12:36:21 PM
dustinstockton.com
I may not agree with what you have to say,
and I'll shoot you if you come too close
 
2012-10-19 12:37:46 PM

sweetmelissa31: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]
I may not agree with what you have to say,
and I'll shoot you if you come too close


His mom won't let him light the cigar in the house, he has to do that in the garage. At least he took down his One Direction posters before removing the lampshade to cast that shadow on the wall like a true amateur.
 
2012-10-19 12:39:20 PM
If you're going to post your own derpy butthurt blogpost to Fark, at least change the headline!

ps it sucks.
 
2012-10-19 12:39:40 PM
i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-19 12:54:28 PM
dustinstockton.com


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."
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-10-19 12:55:30 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-10-19 12:57:18 PM
dustinstockton.com

Proof that the U.S. is sinking? Your neighbors probably think this is cool.
 
2012-10-19 12:59:03 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 01:06:19 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 01:11:45 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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.


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!
 
2012-10-19 01:14:47 PM

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
 
2012-10-19 01:16:16 PM

Your Zionist Leader: Thanks for that image that's now burned into my stupid brain


I am but a humble servant.
 
2012-10-19 01:24:19 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 01:25:27 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 01:26:04 PM

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."
 
2012-10-19 01:30:58 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 01:31:15 PM

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?
 
2012-10-19 01:32:56 PM

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.

 
2012-10-19 01:34:43 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 01:38:32 PM

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...
 
2012-10-19 01:41:42 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 01:49:40 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 01:51:59 PM

Lou Brown: 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.


Quoted for posterity. Anytime someone claims you're something you're not, we got this right here to prove them wrong.
 
2012-10-19 01:55:55 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 01:55:59 PM
http://dustinstockton.com/

That guy was a crap broadcaster during the NLDS on TBS.
 
2012-10-19 02:02:01 PM

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

3. i194.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-19 02:02:49 PM

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
 
2012-10-19 02:05:27 PM
dustinstockton.com
"You're off the case, McGarnagle!"
 
2012-10-19 02:12:18 PM

born_yesterday: 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.


I'm pretty sure he's a farker.
 
2012-10-19 02:19:48 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 02:32:15 PM

kimwim: born_yesterday: 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.

I'm pretty sure he's a farker.


Doughy, white, small room (possibly basement), bare walls, unmade bed, no woman (or hints that one is nearby), no accouterments (other than the gun) that indicate any hint of personality, stupid fashion sense.

Sounds like a farker to me...
 
2012-10-19 02:40:20 PM

Savage Belief: 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.


Please remember, Bush v. Gore was initiated by Bush's team to have the SCOTUS shiat all over FL's SC which, oddly, is really anti-state's rights.
 
2012-10-19 02:58:04 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 03:04:36 PM

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?
 
2012-10-19 03:10:35 PM

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


Because he's a Republican...duh!
 
2012-10-19 03:18:11 PM

BSABSVR: 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?


IOKIYAR to you, BSABSVR. Duh.
 
2012-10-19 03:41:33 PM
If Obama said something that wasn't true, and she defended it, then why shouldn't she be panned for it?
 
2012-10-19 03:41:42 PM

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]


God damn. It's a farking Eagle with wings that are not only an American flag, but also farking badass fighter jets.
 
2012-10-19 04:02:26 PM

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.
 
2012-10-19 04:05:30 PM

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


Look at the size of that "if". It's HUGE!
 
2012-10-19 04:50:29 PM

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


What Obama said was true. Romney just picked the wrong line of attack trying to insist Obama didn't say that. He could have talked about what Susan Rice saying, instead he fell into a trap. That's how fault, not Candy Crowley's.
 
2012-10-19 06:59:21 PM

goodbomb: What Obama said was true. Romney just picked the wrong line of attack trying to insist Obama didn't say that. He could have talked about what Susan Rice saying, instead he fell into a trap. That's how fault, not Candy Crowley's.


Yeah, Romney had multiple lines of attack that could have been effective, but he either misremembered the talking point, or a credulous staff member (maybe John Bolton) gave him bad intel.

Even funnier were the attempts to carry water for him afterwards.

/Acts of terror are very different than terrorist acts!
//Obama waited 14 days 4 minutes to admit this was terrorism, which is too long
 
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