huskerXman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Why is this relevant? If you call federal funds "pork barrel," does it cease to be currency? I don't get the semantics argument here. (Really...not being snarky or critical or anything. I just don't understand the relevance.) It isn't, it is nothing but a gotcha game and another reason this country is going to hell. This semantics game is more important than real REAL issues 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 All that said, I just about drove off the road when the moderator actually fact checked on the fly in the middle of the debate. That was completely out of line and unprofessional. I have never in my life heard a moderator flat out correct a candidate in the middle of a debate. That isn't her place. Quite simply, you're wrong. This is exactly what we need from journalists. Lies need to be called out as lies. Immediately, if possible. That is exactly her place. Quite simply, I'm not. When this is done on the fly like that, it is easy for the "moderator" to be wrong. Her job is to ask questions and keep the debate within the rules that were agreed to. All fact checking can go on after it is over. Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I listened to a couple of Lewis Black specials last night. I can only stand about 20 minutes of political debate at a time. LB had one riff that sums up every campaign since Kennedy was murdered. You have two buckets of $hit and you vote for the one that stinks the least. As for me the only exception was Mr. Reagan and I would vote for his corpse today if he were on the ballot. I blame the fact that we get such poor candidates on the primary system. It starts too early and depends too heavily on raising money. The money doesn't come from true believers but rather from those that want to be with the winner, who ever that may be. T_O_B Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Saying "act of terror" does not mean he called the event an act of terror. Calling an event an act of terror in a speech about that event doesn't mean that he called the event an "act of terror." Do you people even listen to yourselves? Is this representative of what the present GOP is? Simply unbelievable. Do you know how to read, I mean really use some reasoning. If the president called it an act of terror, why 2 weeks later was he unwilling to call it the same. No . . . please continue saying that when Obama called it an act of terror that he didn't call it an act of terror. It's really quite convincing. Men and (binder) women of Huskerboard.com-- While it's painfully obvious what the President said about these attacks and that Romney was dead wrong, it still doesn't help Ziggy. We, as a community, are failing Ziggy right now, because we are failing to create a reality that conforms to his predetermined beliefs. Above all else--facts, information, critical and rational thought, we need to make sure that Ziggy's butthurt is soothed and that he's cared for. If that means we need to make up an entirely new transcript for the debate or change the interpretation of the basic English language to help him feel better, then let's do it! Look--at the end of the day, isn't real life difficult enough with having to engage in critical or rational thought? So, why don't we show our 'Husker spirit, and be the best friends we could be for Ziggy in his time of need? If Ziggy needs an alternate reality to believe, then Gawd Dammit let's roll up our sleeves, pitch in, and make this alternate reality happen! This post is sponsored by Brwando, the Thirst Mutilator. It's got electrolytes. 5 Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 All that said, I just about drove off the road when the moderator actually fact checked on the fly in the middle of the debate. That was completely out of line and unprofessional. I have never in my life heard a moderator flat out correct a candidate in the middle of a debate. That isn't her place. Quite simply, you're wrong. This is exactly what we need from journalists. Lies need to be called out as lies. Immediately, if possible. That is exactly her place. Quite simply, I'm not. When this is done on the fly like that, it is easy for the "moderator" to be wrong. Her job is to ask questions and keep the debate within the rules that were agreed to. All fact checking can go on after it is over. Once its over, its OVER. Good for her. T_O_B Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 When this is done on the fly like that, it is easy for the "moderator" to be wrong. She wasn't wrong. Her job is to ask questions and keep the debate within the rules that were agreed to. All fact checking can go on after it is over. Again, I think she did Romney a favor by cutting him off. Who knows how far he would have gone with it. What we're seeing now isn't "fact checking." What we're seeing is desperate spin by the conservative media machine that Obama didn't really say what he said. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 While it's painfully obvious what the President said about these attacks and that Romney was dead wrong, it still doesn't help Ziggy. We, as a community, are failing Ziggy right now, because we are failing to create a reality that conforms to his predetermined beliefs. "You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day" Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Romney should have bet Obama $10,000 that he was right. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 When this is done on the fly like that, it is easy for the "moderator" to be wrong. She wasn't wrong. Her job is to ask questions and keep the debate within the rules that were agreed to. All fact checking can go on after it is over. Again, I think she did Romney a favor by cutting him off. Who knows how far he would have gone with it. What we're seeing now isn't "fact checking." What we're seeing is desperate spin by the conservative media machine that Obama didn't really say what he said. Where did I say it wasn't a favor to Romney? She is still wrong for doing it. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Where did I say it wasn't a favor to Romney? She is still wrong for doing it. I don't think that I said the former and you're still wrong about the latter. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 She is still wrong for doing it. She's the Moderator. Romney agreed to her, and if he didn't like it that she was the Moderator of the debate, he should have vetoed her when the Moderators for these debates were chosen. You dance with the girl you brought. Despite Mitt's acquiescence to Crowley as a Moderator, he did try to railroad his way into more time, violating the rules he agreed to. But I guess it's OK when Mitt does the interrupting and the on-stage fact-checking? Mitt Romney Interrupts Candy Crowley as She Tries to Rein Him In In a back-and-forth with moderator Candy Crowley tonight, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney tried to piggyback on one of President Obama’s follow-ups, in which he said Mitt Romney wanted to eliminate wind jobs in Iowa. “That’s not an energy strategy for the future.” “He actually got the first question so I get the last question, the last answer…” “Actually, as a follow-up, it doesn’t quite work like that … The next question is for you, but I don’t want to leave all these guys sitting here…” But that didn’t seem to railroad Mitt Romney, who continued unfazed, saying, “Candy, Candy, Candy I don’t have a policy of stopping wind jobs in Iowa…” He went on until Crowley thanked him, and President Obama attempted to re-enter the conversation. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Where did I say it wasn't a favor to Romney? She is still wrong for doing it. I don't think that I said the former and you're still wrong about the latter. Really??? Do you read your own posts??? Again, I think she did Romney a favor by cutting him off. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Where did I say it wasn't a favor to Romney? She is still wrong for doing it. I don't think that I said the former and you're still wrong about the latter. Really??? Do you read your own posts??? Again, I think she did Romney a favor by cutting him off. BRB . . . I never said that you said that it wasn't a favor to Romney. Compare the two posts. Slow down if necessary. I'll even bold the relevant parts if it helps. I guess it's no wonder that some people think that Obama didn't say acts of terror when he said acts of terror. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I had little problem with her until the on the fly interruption of Romney. If you're a Romney supporter you should be quite grateful that Ms. Crowley interrupted Romney. Personally, I wish that she would have let him dig a little deeper before pointing out that he didn't know the facts. That's what Obama did. Never interrupt your opponent when they're digging. Ever. I have to ask though, what makes her right? Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I have to ask though, what makes her right? Video, trancscripts, etc. You know . . . facts. Link to comment
Recommended Posts