Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, Candy Crowley, CNN, garbage bins, Michelle Obama, Rose Garden, political corruption, Dan Rather  
•       •       •

3566 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Oct 2012 at 9:09 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



304 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-10-19 07:56:41 AM  
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.
 
2012-10-19 08:02:13 AM  
You know how the losing side knows the lost? They go after the moderator.

Yeah, the blog sucks.
 
2012-10-19 08:04:35 AM  
I left two comments there. How much we want to bet they won't be published?
 
2012-10-19 08:11:23 AM  
On the bright side, we've reached a new benchmark for blog suckiness. Jennifer farking Rubin, liberal shill.
 
2012-10-19 08:18:24 AM  
dustinstockton.com 
Lulz at Greg Campbell.
 
2012-10-19 08:19:55 AM  
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.

What, we want another Jim Lehrer, allowing both candidates to run roughshod over the whole thing?

I'd also like to see a moderator say, "you still didn't answer the question that was asked of you." The problem with it would be that candidates would use "not answering the question" to get three times more talking time.
 
2012-10-19 08:23:23 AM  
romney lied, and she called him on it. that makes her "disgraced?"
 
2012-10-19 08:26:33 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 08:29:17 AM  

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


Just keep in mind this guy thinks Jennifer farking Rubin is a liberal shill. He clearly has, at best, a tenuous connection with reality like most of the other conservative bloggers who have to invent their bullshiat out of whole cloth because the real world doesn't match what their defective brains tell them.
 
2012-10-19 08:30:09 AM  
Again; Losers whine about the moderator

/and the worse they lose, the louder and more persistently they whine
 
2012-10-19 08:30:54 AM  
Wiat, Candy did a bad job? When did this come about?

Ok, subby, listen. Just because Fox news makes it their talking point and buzzword for the day doesn't make it true. In fact, quite the opposite. When Fox begins a smear campaign it's because they want to change the public opinion.

Here';s how it works:
Fox News: Candy did a horrible job (rinse, repeat on every oped show, saying it at least 3 times an hour)
The Public: Candy did a bad job? Huh, Candy did a bad job!
Fox News: Look at all these people saying Candy did a bad job, if the public thinks it's true, it must be true.
Other networks: People are saying Candy did a bad job? We should investigate.
Public at large: /facepalm

Sure, she was no Raddatz, but she did well. Better than Jim Lehrer, but that's unfair as a houseplant could have done better than Jim Lehrer and his constant assertation there may be something different about the candidates and they should tell us.
 
2012-10-19 08:31:58 AM  
Yeah, that whole bit congratulating her on a good job and saying the right wing is having a good cry about the moderating aren't covering for disgrace.
 
You realize the president will have to deal with tougher situations than a debate moderated by Candy Crowley.
 
2012-10-19 08:32:08 AM  
It is inconceivable that someone at CNN would send an email out telling everyone to cover for Obama to help him get elected. Would never happen.
 
2012-10-19 08:33:41 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 08:34:16 AM  

SlothB77: It is inconceivable that someone at CNN would send an email out telling everyone to cover for Obama to help him get elected. Would never happen.


Sure.  If you find one you should send it to this blogger.
 
2012-10-19 08:36:11 AM  

SlothB77: It is inconceivable that someone at CNN would send an email out telling everyone to cover for Obama to help him get elected. Would never happen.


So, now this is an email from CNN telling them to cover for Obama? Please, do go on.
 
2012-10-19 08:36:32 AM  
Oh wow this actually got greenlit? Amazing.
 
2012-10-19 08:37:43 AM  

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


I have no chin, and I must scream
 
2012-10-19 08:40:21 AM  

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

I have no chin, and I must scream


The slob should make his bed.
 
2012-10-19 08:42:42 AM  

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

I have no chin, and I must scream

The slob should make his bed.


No you see it is still dishevelled from all of the hot ladies he was just totally boning in it. Also, he keeps his gun on while he is "doing" "it". Semper Paratus!
 
2012-10-19 08:44:05 AM  
After all the water CNN has carried for Romney in order to try to make the race a ratings win it seems silly to make them out as Obama supporters now. Not as silly as calling them a news network, but still, pretty darn silly.
 
2012-10-19 08:49:15 AM  

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

I have no chin, and I must scream

The slob should make his bed.

No you see it is still dishevelled from all of the hot ladies he was just totally boning in it. Also, he keeps his gun on while he is "doing" "it". Semper Paratus!


Yes, he gives the ladies screaming thigh sweats over his manliness. The monitor over his bed is must be there to play Reagan speeches while farking the liberal right out of them.
 
2012-10-19 08:53:39 AM  

TwoHead: After all the water CNN has carried for Romney in order to try to make the race a ratings win it seems silly to make them out as Obama supporters now. Not as silly as calling them a news network, but still, pretty darn silly.


The blogger in question called Jennifer Rubin a liberal shill.
 
2012-10-19 08:56:03 AM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-10-19 09:07:31 AM  
Your blog sucks
 
2012-10-19 09:12:36 AM  
Welp polls are moving back in Obama's direction and the right is coming totally unhinged. "Moderator bad! Not optimal!" The desperation is almost palpable. God I love it.
 
2012-10-19 09:12:41 AM  

vernonFL: Your blog sucks


The sun is warm
 
2012-10-19 09:13:16 AM  
Courtesy of Breitbart.com, the email reads,

Oh look, someone found another way to sneak insane ramblings onto Fark. Congratulations. I hope you're happy with yourself.
 
2012-10-19 09:13:17 AM  
"The new butthurt is in early this year!"
"This blog has everything!"
 
2012-10-19 09:14:00 AM  

Earguy: What, we want another Jim Lehrer, allowing both candidates to run roughshod over the whole thing?


Well, the republicans do, yes. Because their guy is a domineering dickcheese with no sense of proper decorum who can easily take advantage of that sort of environment by exploiting the fact that apparently Obama's mother raised him right.

Plus, the moderators started butting in every time someone lies Romney would never get a chance to speak.

This entire debate season basically comes down to republicans being pissed off that only the first moderator allowed their guy to undertake his "blizzard of lies" strategy without any challenge.
 
2012-10-19 09:14:23 AM  
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

"I'm not staying in my mom's basement. I'm on stakeout!"
 
2012-10-19 09:14:23 AM  

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


It's funny when a 35-year old virgin tries to look like a badass.
 
2012-10-19 09:14:25 AM  

Jackson Herring: TwoHead: After all the water CNN has carried for Romney in order to try to make the race a ratings win it seems silly to make them out as Obama supporters now. Not as silly as calling them a news network, but still, pretty darn silly.

The blogger in question called Jennifer Rubin a liberal shill.


I was talking to/about anyone else who might be tempted to be so silly. In his case this blogger has already made his bed and proven himself to be quite silly indeed.
 
2012-10-19 09:15:19 AM  
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

"Don't look at me like that. I said you would have two minutes, and you did. Next question..."
 
2012-10-19 09:15:22 AM  
This butthurt goes up to eleven.
 
2012-10-19 09:16:20 AM  

Wyalt Derp: This butthurt goes up to eleven.


this. was just going to say The Butthurt is strong in that article.
 
2012-10-19 09:17:02 AM  
Whine more about the moderator.

If Romney can't deal with a moderator, how can he deal with Ahmadinejad?
 
2012-10-19 09:17:16 AM  

shotsaroundthewatercooler.files.wordpress.com
"Ey Cletus, what day is it?"

2.bp.blogspot.com
"The day is Freeper Friday, boy howdy!"

 
2012-10-19 09:18:24 AM  
Stop trolling, Drew.
 
2012-10-19 09:20:14 AM  
www.gumptees.com
 
2012-10-19 09:20:44 AM  

Speaker2Animals: You know how the losing side knows the lost? They go after the moderator.

Yeah, the blog sucks.


Republican wins, Democrat loses:
-Dems: Wow. Our guy got beat. Better make sure that doesn't happen again.
-Reps: HAHAHAHA! Our guy won! Dems suck.

Tie:
-Dems: A tie. How droll.
-Reps: HAHAHAHA! Our guy won! Dems suck.

Democrat wins, Republican loses:
-Dems: We win this round, so let's build on success for the next one.
Reps: HAHAHAHA! Our guy won! Dems suck. Also, the moderator was totally in the bag. And the audience. And - my gosh! - all that yelling and machismo; I bet the women were turned off. Also, did you see that time our guy nailed the other guy with this one sentence?! Our guy TOTALLY won, and anyone who says otherwise is a liberal just like the moderator that totally skewed the debate (I bet she did the job numbers too, that biatch) in the other guy's favor. Also, our guy won. And Dems suck.
 
2012-10-19 09:20:55 AM  

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 steak-ums!"


FTFY
 
2012-10-19 09:21:09 AM  

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

It's funny when a 35-year old virgin tries to look like a badass.


Well his bio says he's married, but given his detachment from reality, his imaginary wife probably wouldn't give him any either.
 
2012-10-19 09:21:30 AM  
dustinstockton.com

Humphrey Bofart
 
2012-10-19 09:23:38 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Whine more about the moderator.

If Romney can't deal with a moderator, how can he deal with Ahmadinejad?


To be fair, you could say the same thing about Obama with Romney in the first debate. Sure, Lehrer was a useless stump and Romney was an overbearing, insanely rude asshole, but Obama did just sit idly by and let it all happen with hardly any challenge.
 
2012-10-19 09:23:55 AM  
fark you, blogmitter. fark you Modmins for approving this dreck, fark you Drew for letting yourself become that which you used to rail against
 
2012-10-19 09:26:20 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: rufus-t-firefly: Whine more about the moderator.

If Romney can't deal with a moderator, how can he deal with Ahmadinejad?

To be fair, you could say the same thing about Obama with Romney in the first debate. Sure, Lehrer was a useless stump and Romney was an overbearing, insanely rude asshole, but Obama did just sit idly by and let it all happen with hardly any challenge.


Yes, you could say that. And I, for one, have. Often.
 
2012-10-19 09:26:33 AM  
I wish I could derive satisfaction from watching these morans flail about screaming, but I really can't anymore. All I can hope for is that they are given a small enough piece of the political pie that they can't cause trouble, but big enough that they feel like they are part of the process. Because when people that shout, "WORST PRESIDENT EVER HE IS DESTROYING AMERICA WE CAN'T LET THIS HAPPEN" start feeling left out, things are bound to get ugly.
 
2012-10-19 09:26:40 AM  
I wonder if they are going to blame Crowley on November 6th too?
 
2012-10-19 09:27:44 AM  

Jackson Herring: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]

Humphrey Bofart


Does he know you arent supposed to eat the cigar?
 
2012-10-19 09:28:08 AM  

Lost Thought 00: ark you, blogmitter. fark you Modmins for approving this dreck, fark you Drew for letting yourself become that which you used to rail against


I don't think Drew can hear you, what with all that money stuck in his ears.
 
2012-10-19 09:28:22 AM  
dustinstockton.com

"Dustin here fancies himself a classic, square-jawed man out of the 50's, but as you can clearly see, his white bed sheets, 4-lane highway tie, and Hanes Beefy T undershirt positively scream 'LA Keep-That-Look-Confidential'. Luckily Queer Eye is here to throw Dustin some fashion clues and help get this gumshoe unstuck from his noir tragedy."
 
2012-10-19 09:29:00 AM  

machoprogrammer: Jackson Herring: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]

Humphrey Bofart

Does he know you arent supposed to eat the cigar?


That's actually a Slim Jim Magnum.
 
2012-10-19 09:30:00 AM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

they're still sweet and delicious like cookies fresh out of the oven.
 
2012-10-19 09:30:20 AM  
i28.photobucket.com

Also, has anyone noted that his blog sucks, yet?
 
2012-10-19 09:31:13 AM  
The best part of this election season has been the discovery of all of these amazing blogs (that link to other blogs) that I've never heard of before that are helping to expose the truth that the liberal media keeps hidden. Thanks Fark.
 
2012-10-19 09:31:24 AM  

Jackson Herring: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]

Humphrey Bofart


Steve McQueef.
 
2012-10-19 09:31:34 AM  
Where was the memo ordering CNN to cover for Candy Crowley? I think our dear blogger imagined it.
 
2012-10-19 09:32:09 AM  

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


I would be tempted to buy a mustache from that man. Your wing-tips are invalid.
 
2012-10-19 09:32:49 AM  
dustinstockton.com

"She walked through my door like a tigress walks into a Burmese orphanage - strawberry blonde and legs for hours. No dame her age could afford a coat like that, and the kinda makeup she had on gave me a good idea how she got it. She had bad news written on her like October of '29."
 
2012-10-19 09:32:57 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-19 09:33:13 AM  

sprawl15: That's actually a Slim Jim Magnum.


southbaltimorecf.com
 
2012-10-19 09:33:44 AM  
Has anyone pointed out that only a contemptible Republican shill could call Jennifer Rubin a liberal?
 
2012-10-19 09:34:36 AM  
Who is Dustin Stockton and why should I give a shiat about his opinion and his shiatty blog?
 
2012-10-19 09:36:13 AM  

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

I have no chin, and I must scream


Strange Whine?
 
2012-10-19 09:36:35 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: she was no Raddatz


Well yea, but he's going to talk back to a Saiyan?
 
2012-10-19 09:36:36 AM  

Lost Thought 00: fark you, blogmitter. fark you Modmins for approving this dreck, fark you Drew for letting yourself become that which you used to rail against


You can either enjoy yourself by making fun of Humphry Bofart or get up set because you had to read a headline you don't like.  Your choice.
 
2012-10-19 09:36:49 AM  
The poutrage is going to be pretty epic on November 7th.
 
2012-10-19 09:38:24 AM  

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


Because he's used his crack detective skills of deduction to solve The Case of There's Too Much Gravy in the Neighborhood Shoney's.
 
2012-10-19 09:39:01 AM  
Crowley did a fine job. Correcting a candidate on a blatant falsehood is not evidence of bias. It's what a moderator is supposed to do.

Republicans are just pissed that Romney lost big, just a few days after Ryan got smacked-down by Biden. Since they can never admit defeat, they're blaming the refs, as usual. Sore losers. Conservatives are the whiniest motherfarkers on the planet.
 
2012-10-19 09:39:27 AM  
If I was a Romney supporter, I would be more pissed the my guy did not know exactly to the word what Obama said in his morning speech and walked right into an obvious trap. Proceed, governor.
 
2012-10-19 09:39:43 AM  

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


It will get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it.
 
2012-10-19 09:39:47 AM  
How small is a studio apartment that has a tv for a headboard?

/room in the basement
 
2012-10-19 09:41:49 AM  

James!: Lost Thought 00: fark you, blogmitter. fark you Modmins for approving this dreck, fark you Drew for letting yourself become that which you used to rail against

You can either enjoy yourself by making fun of Humphry Bofart or get up set because you had to read a headline you don't like.  Your choice.


uh actually one can do both, the headline is a farking disgrace
 
2012-10-19 09:41:58 AM  
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.

The latest conspiracy I've heard from the right is that Candy and Obama somehow knew Romney would attack him on this point, and that is why she had the transcript on her desk, whereas she had it in her farking head, because she's a professional, and this only happened a few weeks ago.

What a bunch of delusional, shameless crybabies the right has become these days, my god.
 
2012-10-19 09:42:49 AM  
dustinstockton.com

Do tin-foil hats reverse the polarity of magnets? Is this what he's getting at?

/Has to be satire. Shirley?
 
2012-10-19 09:43:20 AM  

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


Wow, THAT is a d-bag. Talk about a face born to be punched.
 
2012-10-19 09:43:55 AM  

RyogaM: If I was a Romney supporter, I would be more pissed the my guy did not know exactly to the word what Obama said in his morning speech and walked right into an obvious trap. Proceed, governor.



He would have saved himself some embarrassment if he had known the general theme of Obama's adress in the rose garden.
 
2012-10-19 09:44:13 AM  
Crowley admitted that on the overall point Romney was making he was correct. That being said, if you let one candidate speak for a longer period of time you are not being fair to the other candidate. It doesn't matter how fast or slow the speaker is. Time is the same for everyone.

I personally think she did an ok job except that she allowed too much cross talk and talking over each other. Personally I would like to see a debate with no moderators at all.
 
2012-10-19 09:44:21 AM  
More has been said in recent days about her awful job than what either candidate had to say.


I suggest you google "binder" and then tell me if you still believe this.
 
2012-10-19 09:44:25 AM  
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-19 09:45:11 AM  

Whodat: That being said, if you let one candidate speak for a longer period of time you are not being fair to the other candidate.


A big part of that was Romney breaking debate format and asking several questions directly to Obama.
 
2012-10-19 09:45:18 AM  
Yeah, she's disgraced. Never to be heard from again. Much like the sad, angry Mormon who believes in rewards extra-terrestrial. I had better hurry up and vote for that guy, or else. Or else, the black guy will get me.
 
2012-10-19 09:45:36 AM  

fracto: RyogaM: If I was a Romney supporter, I would be more pissed the my guy did not know exactly to the word what Obama said in his morning speech and walked right into an obvious trap. Proceed, governor.


He would have saved himself some embarrassment if he had known the general theme of Obama's adress in the rose garden. not run for office...again.

 
2012-10-19 09:45:45 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Crowley did a fine job. Correcting a candidate on a blatant falsehood is not evidence of bias. It's what a moderator is supposed to do.

Republicans are just pissed that Romney lost big, just a few days after Ryan got smacked-down by Biden. Since they can never admit defeat, they're blaming the refs, as usual. Sore losers. Conservatives are the whiniest motherfarkers on the planet.


well said doc.
 
2012-10-19 09:46:15 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 09:46:38 AM  
dustinstockton.com

"Just the Derp, Ma'am"
 
2012-10-19 09:47:11 AM  

Jackson Herring: James!: Lost Thought 00: fark you, blogmitter. fark you Modmins for approving this dreck, fark you Drew for letting yourself become that which you used to rail against


You can either enjoy yourself by making fun of Humphry Bofart or get up set because you had to read a headline you don't like.  Your choice.

--------

uh actually one can do both, the headline is a farking disgrace


^^^^
AGREED. VERY MUCH.
 
2012-10-19 09:47:42 AM  

RyogaM: If I was a Romney supporter, I would be more pissed the my guy did not know exactly to the word what Obama said in his morning speech and walked right into an obvious trap. Proceed, governor.


God, that was hilarious. When Obama says "Proceed, Governor," you can see it start to dawn on Romney that maybe what he picked up form the right-wing bubble is completely wrong. But, rather than duck out of what he thinks is a "gotcha," he goes from walking to running into the flaming brick wall of his own ignorance.

justinrlevy.com
 
2012-10-19 09:47:44 AM  

Jackson Herring: James!: Lost Thought 00: fark you, blogmitter. fark you Modmins for approving this dreck, fark you Drew for letting yourself become that which you used to rail against

You can either enjoy yourself by making fun of Humphry Bofart or get up set because you had to read a headline you don't like.  Your choice.

uh actually one can do both, the headline is a farking disgrace


Without Subby's who agree with Bofart's blog we'd never have the opportunity to laugh at him.
 
2012-10-19 09:48:39 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: 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


Wait a minute...

Account created:

2012-08-06


OK, off you go, little troll.
 
2012-10-19 09:48:51 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 09:50:24 AM  

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.


Eventually we would run out of variations on "Look at THIS asshole!". This is part of Fark's attempt to focus on alternative sources of lol.
 
2012-10-19 09:50:33 AM  
disgraced Candy Crowley

I find this sort of thing nothing short of hilarious. The floor-humping derp-mongoloids have their own reality, and any intrusion of reality is a 'disgrace'. A disgrace, I sez!!

Lololololololol
 
2012-10-19 09:51:12 AM  

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.


Were you going to do that?
 
2012-10-19 09:51:21 AM  

steerforth: Do tin-foil hats reverse the polarity of magnets? Is this what he's getting at?

/Has to be satire. Shirley?


Those stars morphing into fighter jets represent the U.S. military to which he is trying to associate himself.
You are obviously not a real American or you would instinctively feel this same surge of pride coursing through your genitals.
 
2012-10-19 09:51:25 AM  

sprawl15: Eventually we would run out of variations on "Look at THIS asshole!". This is part of Fark's attempt to focus on alternative sources of lol.


It's either that or we keep getting closer to "Barack Obama literally buttfarks a puppy, liberals cheer"
 
2012-10-19 09:51:29 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]

"She walked through my door like a tigress walks into a Burmese orphanage - strawberry blonde and legs for hours. No dame her age could afford a coat like that, and the kinda makeup she had on gave me a good idea how she got it. She had bad news written on her like October of '29."


If this jabrone had any fashion sense at all he wouldn't be wearing clip on suspenders.
 
2012-10-19 09:51:30 AM  

James!: Jackson Herring: James!: Lost Thought 00: fark you, blogmitter. fark you Modmins for approving this dreck, fark you Drew for letting yourself become that which you used to rail against

You can either enjoy yourself by making fun of Humphry Bofart or get up set because you had to read a headline you don't like.  Your choice.

uh actually one can do both, the headline is a farking disgrace

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


I disagree. We would certainly laugh at him if we saw him in the street, at the grocery store, etc. I'd argue that what subby has done is lessen the impact of the insults through the anonymity of the internet. I'd much rather this guy be introduced to us at a FARK party.
 
2012-10-19 09:51:38 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: disgraced Candy Crowley

I find this sort of thing nothing short of hilarious. The floor-humping derp-mongoloids have their own reality



Especially when you read the actual email from the CNN guy. It says nothing of the sort that the blogger says it does.
 
2012-10-19 09:51:52 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.


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.
 
2012-10-19 09:52:01 AM  

Whodat: That being said, if you let one candidate speak for a longer period of time you are not being fair to the other candidate.


So, when Rudy 91ul1ani goes on and on and on and on and on, and Biden destroys him with "A noun, a verb, and 9/11" - because Giuliani spoke longer, he wins?

McCarthy hounding a military man for weeks and weeks, and one Congressman pipes up, "At long last, have you no decency, sir?" - McCarthy wins on volume?

You're part of the problem. Kindly digest things other than cable news and paint chips.
 
2012-10-19 09:52:37 AM  
dustinstockton.com
"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."
 
2012-10-19 09:53:30 AM  

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"
 
2012-10-19 09:53:51 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 09:54:16 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 09:55:27 AM  

vernonFL: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]

"Just the Derp, Ma'am"


Has his mom ever let him leave the basement? That's a pasty dude
 
2012-10-19 09:55:58 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 09:56:23 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: 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.


No... That's not what a Journalist or even a Debate Moderator is "supposed" to do. Not by a long shot.

But that's what all the bobbleheads were saying yesterday on Fox News, so we now know the depth of your knowledge on such topics.
 
2012-10-19 09:56:49 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 09:56:54 AM  

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?
 
2012-10-19 09:57:06 AM  

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


yeah you can't be objective with facts and the truth
 
2012-10-19 09:58:13 AM  
Dude, two points:

A) Your blog sucks.
3rd) Your boy Romney got his ass handed to him.
 
2012-10-19 09:58:22 AM  
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-10-19 09:58:42 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 10:01:21 AM  

keylock71: But that's what all the bobbleheads were saying yesterday on Fox News, so we now know the depth of your knowledge on such topics.


They were? That's pretty terrible, even by Fox News standards.
 
2012-10-19 10:02:18 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 10:02:23 AM  
dustinstockton.com
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.
 
2012-10-19 10:02:50 AM  
www.baconfrito.com

Who Dustin imagines himself to be
 
2012-10-19 10:03:09 AM  

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
 
2012-10-19 10:03:46 AM  
dustinstockton.com 

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.
 
2012-10-19 10:04:14 AM  

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've been a WaPo subscriber for years. I'm going to threaten to withhold my $2.95/week (Sunday included!) if they don't ditch this harpy. That'll put the fear of God in 'em.
 
2012-10-19 10:04:24 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 10:05:26 AM  

Jackson Herring: Barack Obama literally buttfarks a puppy


Before or after eating it?

Either way, the Dogeater-in-Chief strikes again.
 
2012-10-19 10:06:01 AM  
dustinstockton.com

The entire point of growing a chin-hider is to actually hide your double chin.

This guy can't even do that right.
 
2012-10-19 10:06:59 AM  
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.
 
2012-10-19 10:07:03 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 10:08:04 AM  

dustinstockton.com

Don't care if it hurts, just want to have control
I want a perfect body, a perfect potato

 
2012-10-19 10:10:42 AM  
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.
 
2012-10-19 10:11:27 AM  
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
 
2012-10-19 10:11:50 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 10:12:20 AM  

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.

 
2012-10-19 10:12:55 AM  
CNN's Candy Crowley did an unspeakably bad job moderating the debate

were we watching the same debate...? I thought she did a damn good job.
 
2012-10-19 10:14:05 AM  
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.
 
2012-10-19 10:14:10 AM  

Lou Brown: Above all else, a moderator has to be totally consistent and impartial


Facts are impartial.
 
2012-10-19 10:14:26 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 10:15:25 AM  

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
 
2012-10-19 10:15:57 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 10:16:45 AM  
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
 
2012-10-19 10:17:14 AM  

Lou Brown: 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.


Next thing you know, she'll be giving out facts at whim!! Perhaps even...oh, I don't know, actually moderating!

Where will we be then?!

Where the hell is my fainting couch?
 
2012-10-19 10:18:13 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]


Excellent... On so many levels.
 
2012-10-19 10:19:06 AM  

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.


yeah, but that's been the standard operating procedure for a while now - compromise is for the weak, any opponent isn't merely wrong for opposing you but they're EVIL to boot...and evil must be destroyed.
 
2012-10-19 10:19:09 AM  

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

Facts are impartial.


^^^^^^^
 
2012-10-19 10:19:21 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]


www2.swaylocks.com

Well, if we're gonna do this, I guess we should do it right.
 
2012-10-19 10:19:41 AM  
dustinstockton.com


I live in the basement of my parents condominium, right in the middle of the predominantly white Suburban district. Do you ever come to this area of town to shop/go out/visit/explore?

I went to an community league school - the University of Oregon - for my degree in history. Where did you go to school?

What activities do you currently participate in to stay in shape? I eat out 4 times a week at buffets. Do you go to Country Buffet regularly? I am 5 feet 9 inches tall, 235 pounds - what about yourself? I am truly sorry if that sounds rude, impolite or even downright crass, but I have been deceived before by inaccurate representations of sexual orientation so I prefer someone be upfront and honest on initial contact...

I do blogs & rants (2nd Amendment) for Dustin Stockton (Right Wing Shills). Enjoy any of our screeds/disinformation?

Do you have any other recent pictures you care to share? I have many others if you care to see them.

Regards,

Greg
 
2012-10-19 10:21:44 AM  
alanschuyler.files.wordpress.com

"Here's your problem, Cletus... You got fudge in the chamber."
 
2012-10-19 10:22:34 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-19 10:24:11 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: 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]

[www2.swaylocks.com image 500x365]

Well, if we're gonna do this, I guess we should do it right.


Too far!
 
2012-10-19 10:24:17 AM  

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


I bet you believe it's not a journalist's job to report the facts, either. Just report the opinion of both sides equally.
 
2012-10-19 10:24:38 AM  
www.lilligren.com
 
2012-10-19 10:24:39 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]


I live in the basement of my parents condominium, right in the middle of the predominantly white Suburban district. Do you ever come to this area of town to shop/go out/visit/explore?

I went to an community league school - the University of Oregon - for my degree in history. Where did you go to school?

What activities do you currently participate in to stay in shape? I eat out 4 times a week at buffets. Do you go to Country Buffet regularly? I am 5 feet 9 inches tall, 235 pounds - what about yourself? I am truly sorry if that sounds rude, impolite or even downright crass, but I have been deceived before by inaccurate representations of sexual orientation so I prefer someone be upfront and honest on initial contact...

I do blogs & rants (2nd Amendment) for Dustin Stockton (Right Wing Shills). Enjoy any of our screeds/disinformation?

Do you have any other recent pictures you care to share? I have many others if you care to see them.

Regards,

Greg


itsbeautiful.jpg
 
2012-10-19 10:24:40 AM  

Your Zionist Leader: vernonFL: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]

"Just the Derp, Ma'am"

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


He's too fat and out of shape to walk up the stairs.

Jackson Herring: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]

Don't care if it hurts, just want to have control
I want a perfect body, a perfect potato


Cuz I'm a Freep, I'm a weirdo.
 
2012-10-19 10:25:16 AM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

I think Dustin has a great career in University protest law enforcement ahead of him.
 
2012-10-19 10:25:39 AM  
i1151.photobucket.com
The doughy white guy militia ALWAYS stands their ground
(due to obvious mobility-impairment issues)
 
2012-10-19 10:28:07 AM  

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

Facts are impartial.


Yes, facts are impartial. But I don't think it's possible for a moderator to correct the candidates on their facts in a totally consistent and impartial basis. If Candidate A and Candidate B both lie twice, but the moderator only interjects with facts to challenge those lies in 3 of those cases for whatever reason (not being able to get a word in or not knowing the facts in regard to the lie), then the moderator wasn't being impartial.
 
2012-10-19 10:28:33 AM  

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]


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?
 
2012-10-19 10:30:13 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: It's the participant's responsibility to challenge the lies. Not the moderator's.

I bet you believe it's not a journalist's job to report the facts, either. Just report the opinion of both sides equally.



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

 
2012-10-19 10:32:01 AM  

Lou Brown: Above all else, a moderator has to be totally consistent and impartial


Impartiality has nothing to do with this. The only reason Barack Obama didn't get slapped down like Romney is because at no point in the debate did he piss the moderator off by dragging it to a halt with a ceaseless string of lies.

The moderator doesn't serve the candidates, the moderator serves the debate audience. There is no reason that a moderator should not inject facts into the debate when one or both participants refuse to. And if the moderator injects something that isn't a fact, then they're a shiat moderator. One of the many reasons someone could be a shiat moderator. It would not be functionally different if she'd been wrong than Jim Lehrer's refusal to control the time clocks. Shiatty moderators happen and can happen for multiple reasons. The outcome, though, is the same regardless of why they're a shiatty moderator.

Again, the moderator is there to serve the audience, not the candidates. The moderator should be under no obligation to allow either candidate to lie to that audience without correction.
 
2012-10-19 10:32:18 AM  

Lou Brown: Yes, facts are impartial. But I don't think it's possible for a moderator to correct the candidates on their facts in a totally consistent and impartial basis. If Candidate A and Candidate B both lie twice, but the moderator only interjects with facts to challenge those lies in 3 of those cases for whatever reason (not being able to get a word in or not knowing the facts in regard to the lie), then the moderator wasn't being impartial.


Actually if they didn't make the correction for the two reasons you noted they were being entirely impartial.
 
2012-10-19 10:32:47 AM  
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-10-19 10:33:21 AM  

Lou Brown: cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: It's the participant's responsibility to challenge the lies. Not the moderator's.

I bet you believe it's not a journalist's job to report the facts, either. Just report the opinion of both sides equally.


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


What part of "moderator" is really that difficult to understand? The moderator's job isn't just to ask questions. It's to moderate.
 
2012-10-19 10:34:04 AM  
When you're whining about a moderator, you're doing so because your guy lost the debate.

Most libs agreed that Obama lost the first debate. We didn't accuse Leher of being partisan, or taking Romney's side, or ambusing Obama.
 
2012-10-19 10:34:46 AM  

dr_blasto: 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]

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?


It's probably where he attaches his night vision goggles for when he's on long nighttime patrols in the forest desert.
 
2012-10-19 10:36:08 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: It's the participant's responsibility to challenge the lies. Not the moderator's.

I bet you believe it's not a journalist's job to report the facts, either. Just report the opinion of both sides equally.


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

What part of "moderator" is really that difficult to understand? The moderator's job isn't just to ask questions. It's to moderate.

Thank

you.
 
2012-10-19 10:36:20 AM  

max_pooper: dr_blasto: 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]

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?

It's probably where he attaches his night vision goggles for when he's on long nighttime patrols in the forest desert teenage wasteland.

 
2012-10-19 10:36:23 AM  
The e-mail didn't say to cover for her. It said she tried her best and did a good job. I get the feeling that if Romney had more time to talk, but actually said fewer words people would be upset by that, too. The first moderator did a terrible job. But Dems knew Obama did, too. It's not everybody elses fault when somebody loses. If Romney was amazing he could have done a better job all on his own. I read people are also attacking a girl there who asked a question since Romney didn't answer it and it made him look bad. Attacking a soup kitchen because Ryan messed up and barged in there not doing anything. Not cool.
 
2012-10-19 10:37:57 AM  

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?
 
2012-10-19 10:38:40 AM  

keylock71: [alanschuyler.files.wordpress.com image 460x323]

"Here's your problem, Cletus... You got fudge in the chamber."


thats a mosin nagant. itll still fire with fudge in the chamber.

interesting however tho that so many gun guys are so fat. i used to notice that on the range, too, when id go shooting.
 
2012-10-19 10:39:10 AM  

amiable: Welp polls are moving back in Obama's direction and the right is coming totally unhinged. "Moderator bad! Not optimal!" The desperation is almost palpable. God I love it.


Yes. Binders full of women is a far cry from desperation... grow up.
 
2012-10-19 10:39:36 AM  

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


Not when you get journalists to be the moderators. If you want a moderator who's literally only going to ask questions, then don't get news people to do it.
 
2012-10-19 10:40:17 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Again, the moderator is there to serve the audience, not the candidates. The moderator should be under no obligation to allow either candidate to lie to that audience without correction.


And I believe that it is impossible for a moderator to fact check in real-time in a totally consistent manner. As a result, the moderator would unwittingly end up showing favoritism to one candidate, and that does not serve the audience, either.
 
2012-10-19 10:40:25 AM  

Lou Brown: Yes, facts are impartial. But I don't think it's possible for a moderator to correct the candidates on their facts in a totally consistent and impartial basis. If Candidate A and Candidate B both lie twice, but the moderator only interjects with facts to challenge those lies in 3 of those cases for whatever reason (not being able to get a word in or not knowing the facts in regard to the lie), then the moderator wasn't being impartial.


So you didn't see Crowley correct Romney and then immediately say that Romney was correct on the other point he was making?
 
2012-10-19 10:41:31 AM  
Ronald Reagan could have been the moderator and the post debate spin would have us believe he was a liberal.

/on second thought, he pretty much is these days.
 
2012-10-19 10:42:08 AM  

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

Not when you get journalists to be the moderators. If you want a moderator who's literally only going to ask questions, then don't get news people to do it.


She also was arguably moderating the debate in that exchange. Romney was stuck in a glitch and kept saying things like "Are you sure about that, Mr. President?" So she told him off, and kept the debate moving along.
 
2012-10-19 10:42:22 AM  

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


And Romney directly asked Obama questions about 8 times, against the agreed to rules.
 
2012-10-19 10:42:59 AM  

Lou Brown: And I believe that it is impossible for a moderator to fact check in real-time in a totally consistent manner. As a result, the moderator would unwittingly end up showing favoritism to one candidate, and that does not serve the audience, either.


I would point out that she wasn't fact-checking anyone, until Mitt tried to set up Obama on some hyper-technical issue about what someone said on a given day, especially when there was a record of that. Romney had really stopped debating at that point and was simply trying to mince Obama's words.

In order to get the debate back on track, Crawley finally stepped in and corrected Mitt so that this non-issue side show would be put to rest and an actual debate on issues could continue.
 
2012-10-19 10:44:04 AM  

dr_blasto: 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]

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?


Looks like he just went to his local Army/Navy Surplus and bought a bunch of shiat he thought "looked cool".


2.bp.blogspot.com

What is that? A Nerf Shotgun?
 
2012-10-19 10:44:10 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: She also was arguably moderating the debate in that exchange. Romney was stuck in a glitch and kept saying things like "Are you sure about that, Mr. President?" So she told him off, and kept the debate moving along.


Ha! I just posted this, basically, in my last post.
 
2012-10-19 10:44:46 AM  

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

And Romney directly asked Obama questions about 8 times, against the agreed to rules.


AND OMG MICHELLE OBAMA CLAPPED! THE HORROR!
 
2012-10-19 10:45:05 AM  
Weaver95


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.

yeah, but that's been the standard operating procedure for a while now - compromise is for the weak, any opponent isn't merely wrong for opposing you but they're EVIL to boot...and evil must be destroyed.


Yes, we learned well from you libs. Thanks.
 
2012-10-19 10:48:50 AM  
cdn2.screenjunkies.com
 
2012-10-19 10:49:28 AM  

cameroncrazy1984:

What part of "moderator" is really that difficult to understand? The moderator's job isn't just to ask questions. It's to moderate.


Do you think it's possible for the moderator to fact-check every statement in the debate? If not, how does the moderator pick and choose which statements to fact-check in a fair and impartial manner?

My answers to those questions are 1. No and 2. It's impossible. 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. Those things can be done impartially in real-time. Fact-checking every statement cannot.
 
2012-10-19 10:49:30 AM  
Bloggers pic allows me to interject one of Fark's favorite German words. Ladies and Gentlemen ....

Backpfeifengesicht


/indeed
 
2012-10-19 10:51:13 AM  

Trivia Jockey: So you didn't see Crowley correct Romney and then immediately say that Romney was correct on the other point he was making?


I did. Did you see Crowley correct Obama and Romney on all of the other statements they made in the debate? I didn't. How do you decide which statements to fact check in a debate? That's something I don't believe can be done in a totally fair and impartial manner in real-time.
 
2012-10-19 10:52:39 AM  

Lou Brown: Do you think it's possible for the moderator to fact-check every statement in the debate? If not, how does the moderator pick and choose which statements to fact-check in a fair and impartial manner?


Generally when the moderator sees that a candidate isn't going to drop it and it will bog down the debate, they step in. That's what Crowley did. If the moderator needs to fact-check to keep the debate on track, absolutely they should do so.
 
2012-10-19 10:53:24 AM  

Lou Brown: How do you decide which statements to fact check in a debate?


Easy...the ones where the candidates are no longer debating, and just trying to play "gotcha!" with some choice of words on an irrelevant issue.

She wasn't doing this to "fact check" Romney, she was trying to put the issue to rest so, you know, actual debating of the issues could continue.
 
2012-10-19 10:53:28 AM  

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?
 
2012-10-19 10:54:29 AM  
Lou Brown:


Let me ask you this...are you suggesting that Romney was only beaten in this debate because of the moderator?
 
2012-10-19 10:58:06 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Lou Brown:


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


It was unfair, because both the moderator and his opponent came with a knowledge of the facts in play.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2012-10-19 10:58:39 AM  
When did our country turn into a Phillip K. Dick novel?

Was I asleep?
 
2012-10-19 10:59:08 AM  

Buffalo77: Weaver95


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.

yeah, but that's been the standard operating procedure for a while now - compromise is for the weak, any opponent isn't merely wrong for opposing you but they're EVIL to boot...and evil must be destroyed.

Yes, we learned well from you libs. Thanks.


i201.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-19 11:00:30 AM  
I would like to see a debate where their microphones cut off after the allotted response period. The candidates could bank unused seconds to apply to another response, but none of this running over time. That would also prevent one candidate from interrupting another since his/her mic would be off.
 
2012-10-19 11:01:24 AM  
(Some Guy) is so done as a wrapper, man.
 
2012-10-19 11:02:02 AM  

92myrtle: This site loses more credibility every time Drew or some modmin insults the collective FARKtelligence by parroting that weak line.


Credibility? Credibility?

We're talkin' 'bout credibility? Not page hits, not ad revenue. Credibility?
 
2012-10-19 11:02:04 AM  
overall she did an ok job. but she screwed the pooch when she broke it up like a boxing referee right when her guy looked like he was gonna get hammered. that right there is what caused all the controversy.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2012-10-19 11:02:20 AM  
 
2012-10-19 11:02:26 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lou Brown: Do you think it's possible for the moderator to fact-check every statement in the debate? If not, how does the moderator pick and choose which statements to fact-check in a fair and impartial manner?

Generally when the moderator sees that a candidate isn't going to drop it and it will bog down the debate, they step in. That's what Crowley did. If the moderator needs to fact-check to keep the debate on track, absolutely they should do so.


Trivia Jockey: Lou Brown: How do you decide which statements to fact check in a debate?

Easy...the ones where the candidates are no longer debating, and just trying to play "gotcha!" with some choice of words on an irrelevant issue.

She wasn't doing this to "fact check" Romney, she was trying to put the issue to rest so, you know, actual debating of the issues could continue.


I think it's possible for the moderator to move things along without interjecting herself in the debate.
 
2012-10-19 11:03:18 AM  

Buffalo77: Weaver95
yeah, but that's been the standard operating procedure for a while now - compromise is for the weak, any opponent isn't merely wrong for opposing you but they're EVIL to boot...and evil must be destroyed.

Yes, we learned well from you libs. Thanks.


Seriously? Like the way Congressional Democrats relentlessly went after Bush over Iraq? Or the way Congressional Democrats ruthlessly investigated the stolen election of 2000? It's not enough to simply insist on your own set of facts, but the "From you, Dad, I learned it from watching you!" approach simply doesn't wash in this instance. If GWB were in jail and Cheney's head stuck to a pike outide the Pentagon, you might have a reasonable argument but failing that, you are simply full of baloney.
 
2012-10-19 11:03:37 AM  

keylock71: [alanschuyler.files.wordpress.com image 460x323]

"Here's your problem, Cletus... You got fudge in the chamber."


"On the next exciting episode of The Cake Hunter..."
 
2012-10-19 11:04:56 AM  

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 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.
 
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 [BareFark]
2012-10-19 12:55:30 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
d23 [BareFark]
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
 
2012-10-19 08:39:22 PM  
Admins: Stop greenlighting your own blogs. We already know Fark's editorial stances.
 
2012-10-19 09:19:56 PM  
So if I have this straight, its ok for employers to threaten to fire employees who don't vote for Romney but when CNN tells its employers to not attack the debate moderator its somehow an outrage?
 
2012-10-20 02:52:52 PM  

Lou Brown: 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


I have just the opposite view. That real time fact check was one of the most real moments in presidential debate history. It makes me want more real time fact checking, not less.
 
2012-10-20 07:22:32 PM  
Another whiny rightist blog.
 
Displayed 304 of 304 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report