Debate?

[Forever_frost]

Obummer and his cabinet are excellent wordsmiths.

Only when the media prewrites things for him

[Trip McNeely]

Obummer and his cabinet are excellent wordsmiths.

[Forever_frost]

The mere fact this weak of an argument with full knowledge Obama was deceiving voters is your focus is proof enough for me to dismiss it. You even acknowledge it in your reply. Let's be adults here and acknowledge Obama is being deceptive. The point of the discussion is Obama knew the facts, and blamed a youtube video for two weeks. With full knowledge he hid the fact we were attacked with the intention being to deceive the American people and hide the failed to protect the ambassador. Yet here we are. The reason Candi Crowley jumped in on that discussion was because Obama was being embarrassed and caught in a lie. That is strictly against the rules as a moderator, and she was warned about that by both campaigns beforehand.

Depends on what your definition of "is" is

[Forever_frost]

He didn't say it. Hell on "The View" He even said it was about a video. And Susan Rice, etc, etc.. Obummer has straight up tangled himself in a knotted web of lies and its all unraveling.

And he mentioned the video 8 times at the UN

[Forever_frost]

So when fact check posts the Obama lies, those should be ignored as well or do we not call a media source bias when it benefits our party?

Not at all. What I'm saying is when you start pulling Snopes, look at who funds them

[Trip McNeely]

All I said was that calling somebody out on something about WHAT THEY SAID and being wrong about it bit Romney in the ass.

He didn't say it. Hell on "The View" He even said it was about a video. And Susan Rice, etc, etc.. Obummer has straight up tangled himself in a knotted web of lies and its all unraveling.

[GSRGuy94]

All I said was that calling somebody out on something about WHAT THEY SAID and being wrong about it bit Romney in the ass.

[CJ]

She confirmed that President Obama said "Acts of terror." If you watch the video and read the transcript, that is what he said. That is what Governor Romney said he did not say. If you want to argue semantics, that is fine. But the President repeated what he had said previously, and Romney said that he didn't say it.

The mere fact this weak of an argument with full knowledge Obama was deceiving voters is your focus is proof enough for me to dismiss it. You even acknowledge it in your reply. Let's be adults here and acknowledge Obama is being deceptive. The point of the discussion is Obama knew the facts, and blamed a youtube video for two weeks. With full knowledge he hid the fact we were attacked with the intention being to deceive the American people and hide the failed to protect the ambassador. Yet here we are. The reason Candi Crowley jumped in on that discussion was because Obama was being embarrassed and caught in a lie. That is strictly against the rules as a moderator, and she was warned about that by both campaigns beforehand.

[GSRGuy94]

She confirmed that President Obama said "Acts of terror." If you watch the video and read the transcript, that is what he said. That is what Governor Romney said he did not say. If you want to argue semantics, that is fine. But the President repeated what he had said previously, and Romney said that he didn't say it.

[CJ]

Is that something you are denying? Like it says, you can debate what he meant, but not what he said. Which is what Romney did, and why it bit him in the ass.

You do realize Mrs. Crowley was wrong. The democrats proclaimed Obama won. Unfortunately for them, with undecideds and independents he ran away with the show. He's jumped 2 pts in the Gallup overall poll since the debate, and most of that was pre-debate and projections are to get even higher. I expect it to even out a little. But currently we're at a never been done before point like you've heard mention the last 6 months. The statistics show from a historical standpoint, Romney will win this election. If he loses, many metrics will have to be revisited. For the last 6 months I've been reading polls and explaining why many of them were inaccurate, because they were based on incorrect assumptions and multipliers. Now that the election is nearing an end all the polling companies are adjusting to proper values to save face, and the polls are looking more and more accurate because the correct values are being used.

[A+]

So when fact check posts the Obama lies, those should be ignored as well or do we not call a media source bias when it benefits our party?

[GSRGuy94]

CNN Managing Editor Sends Staff Email Defending Crowley
Print Article Send a Tip
by Ben Shapiro 17 Oct 2012 489 post a comment
Late this afternoon, TMZ reported a leaked email from CNN Managing Editor Mark Whitaker to the staff of CNN, defending disgraced second presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley. It’s a full-throated list of Barack Obama talking points. Here’s the email:

Let's start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for a superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. She and her team had to select and sequence questions in a matter of hours, and then she had to deal with the tricky format, the nervous questioners, the aggressive debaters, all while shutting out the pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her. She pulled it off masterfully.

The reviews on Candy's performance have been overwhelmingly positive but Romney supporters are going after her on two points, no doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver. On the legitimacy of Candy fact-checking Romney on Obama's Rose Garden statement, it should be stressed that she was just stating a point of fact: Obama did talk about an act (or acts) of terror, no matter what you think he meant by that at the time. On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.

This is ridiculously biased, partisan, and stupid – or, as CNN might put it, brilliant.

Start with the line that Crowley did a good job “under the most difficult circumstances imaginable.” This wasn’t the Battle of the Bulge. It was a presidential debate. And Crowley put herself at the center of attention with repeated interviews, declarations that she would exceed her role, and finally, an ass-kissing for President Obama worthy of Chris Matthews. Whitaker’s elaboration on her role is simply absurd. Selecting questions is not difficult. Neither is the format. Debaters are supposed to be aggressive. And the notion that she “shut out the pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her”? Laughable. Obama intimidated her during the debate into repeating her false fact check of Mitt Romney on Libya.

But Whitaker continues this virtuosic manifesto of idiocy. He says that the reviews of her performance were “overwhelmingly positive.” But they weren’t. Even Politico, which is on the Obama Christmas mailing list, ripped her over her Libya gaffe. So did the Washington Post. So, in fact, did Candy Crowley.

But according to Whitaker, who apparently reads his talking points from Media Matters each morning over a breakfast of non-fat organic yogurt and Kool-Aid, the only people who thought Crowley brutalized the debate were “Romney supporters.” Why? “No doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver.

Thanks for that, Stephanie Cutter. Those objective journalists at CNN are doing a stellar job of keeping their biases hidden.

But it gets worse. Whitaker says that Crowley’s false fact check was “just stating a point of fact.” No, she wasn’t. She admitted as much later. So did much of the leftist, Obama-supporting media. She butchered the facts.

But it gets even worse. Whitaker on the dramatic time imbalance in favor of Obama: “On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.”

A word count?! If the number of words mattered more than the time count, Romney should have spoken incredibly slowly – he should have spoken at approximately two words a minute, then taken up 80 minutes of the debate. He’d have been gypped on time, according Whitaker – he’d only have spoken 160 words. If CNN is now going to account for speaking cadency, they’re punishing people who are articulate, and rewarding people who say “um” a lot. Call it Obama missing telemprompter affirmative action.

CNN’s a joke. Candy Crowley’s a joke. They’re perfect for each other.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...ending-crowley

Is that something you are denying? Like it says, you can debate what he meant, but not what he said. Which is what Romney did, and why it bit him in the ass.

[BlackSnake]

The rest of the country? Everything I have seen shows Obama winning the 2nd debate pretty decisively. I haven't seen a single thing that shows Romne won that one. In fact, the least damning thing I have seen shows it a deadlock, an that was only one place.

As for more harm than good.... Do you pay attention to anything but Fox News? Maybe that's why your head is in the sand. He didn't do enough, IMO, to sway the undecided voters. He was not nearly a convincing as he was in the first debate. He wasn't specific enough about certain issues. And he didn't call out Obama nearly enough on failed policies. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but one of the fact checkers said something like 70% of what he said were lies. When you consider the undecideds, all of that does not bode well for him.

While Romney is better for the country than Obama, he's still a joke, and not what we need.

We just need Republicans running the show again before we get into a dept we'll never recover from.

[jw33]

Are you questioning our dear leader? You god damned communist liberal obama supporter!

[bcoop]

You are aware that several of those 'fact checkers' are Democrat mouthpieces right?

Like I said, I have not had a chance to sit down and read it all to see what was factual and what was not.


As for Chicken Noodle Network, I agree. However, I pay attention to all of the media outlets and form my own opinion, rather than being spoon fed from one side or the other. Anyone who does otherwise is cheating themselves, and lacking in intelligence, IMO.