The Candy Crowley Tipping Point

Candyass's quick defense response to the Libya comment is proof she worked with the Obamination goons prior to the debate....

Most Americans have figured out the game that is played with the media and DNC, but the nobody liberals like the ones here ignore that fact.
 
Another great article dealing with the ill effects of a biased media. I had forgotten about JournoList...

Shortly after Obamacare was passed and signed by the President, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute noted a sudden plethora of articles that had begun to appear in a wide variety of MSM outlets about the probable ill-effects of "reform." This prompted him to ask, "Where were these reporters before the passage of the health care bill?" The answer to this question is now pretty obvious. They were colluding, via JournoList and other such forums that we don't know about, to make sure that no one screwed up and told the truth before that morass of taxes and regulations became the law of the land. To the nation's cost, their self-censorship succeeded.

What If Crowley and Her Accomplices Succeed?
 
Another great article dealing with the ill effects of a biased media. I had forgotten about JournoList...

Shortly after Obamacare was passed and signed by the President, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute noted a sudden plethora of articles that had begun to appear in a wide variety of MSM outlets about the probable ill-effects of "reform." This prompted him to ask, "Where were these reporters before the passage of the health care bill?" The answer to this question is now pretty obvious. They were colluding, via JournoList and other such forums that we don't know about, to make sure that no one screwed up and told the truth before that morass of taxes and regulations became the law of the land. To the nation's cost, their self-censorship succeeded.

What If Crowley and Her Accomplices Succeed?
Time to grow up, sugar tits.
 
Only the losers whine about the umpires.

Guess you don't know the difference between an umpire and a moderator.

An umpire is supposed to be impartial but they're supposed to control the game by controlling the time keeping and throwing flags for any illegal actions on the field.

A moderator is simply supposed to keep the time and run the debate making sure that both candidates receive equal time. They're not supposed to throw a flag or fact check for one side or the other. And above all else they never take sides.

Crowley did and thus she de-legitimized the entire debate.
 
Only the losers whine about the umpires.

Guess you don't know the difference between an umpire and a moderator.

An umpire is supposed to be impartial but they're supposed to control the game by controlling the time keeping and throwing flags for any illegal actions on the field.

A moderator is simply supposed to keep the time and run the debate making sure that both candidates receive equal time. They're not supposed to throw a flag or fact check for one side or the other. And above all else they never take sides.

Crowley did and thus she de-legitimized the entire debate.

Well stated!

But the larger point needs to be addressed. Crowley is part of the larger problem. Our Press is no longer Free in that they have become nothing more then cheerleaders for liberal politics... THAT is the real tragedy in what played out in the second debate. And unlike liberals on here are attempting to claim...Romney did not lose the debate, but America did lose the debate thanks to Crowley.
 
It was a clear win for Obama. Mitt lost it, he broke the first rule of debating, keep a cool head. He was attempting to run over the president and when that failed, he started in on the moderator. He's a bully but it didn't work this time.

Mittens lost, it hurts, huh?


No one thinks Mitt lost, only that Obama improved from his abysmal first performance...but I digress, this thread is about the unethical behavior of the moderator.

Crowley was correct to call Romney on his fibs

About time don't ya think?

My favorite part...

Romney thinking he had the President on his claim

Obama cooly looking up and saying.....Proceed Governor

What a spanking

Yes, such a spanking (eye-roll). Then of course there was Crowley admitting she was wrong AFTER the fact.

That you have no problem with her interference and bias is truly at the heart of what has gone wrong in this country.
 
Another great article dealing with the ill effects of a biased media. I had forgotten about JournoList...

Shortly after Obamacare was passed and signed by the President, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute noted a sudden plethora of articles that had begun to appear in a wide variety of MSM outlets about the probable ill-effects of "reform." This prompted him to ask, "Where were these reporters before the passage of the health care bill?" The answer to this question is now pretty obvious. They were colluding, via JournoList and other such forums that we don't know about, to make sure that no one screwed up and told the truth before that morass of taxes and regulations became the law of the land. To the nation's cost, their self-censorship succeeded.

What If Crowley and Her Accomplices Succeed?
Time to grow up, sugar tits.

Yes, OK, tiny dick... :D
 
I thought Candy Crowley did a fine job. I don't know where all of these accusations of bias are coming from.

So interfering, fact checking and taking sides when your moderating is not an indication of bias? Got it.



She couldn't help herself.

P.s., "fact checking" sounds so innocuous how you say it right there. What made the offense so offensive was of course that her "fact checking" was incorrect.
 
I thought Candy Crowley did a fine job. I don't know where all of these accusations of bias are coming from.

So interfering, fact checking and taking sides when your moderating is not an indication of bias? Got it.



She couldn't help herself.

P.s., "fact checking" sounds so innocuous how you say it right there. What made the offense so offensive was of course that her "fact checking" was incorrect.

Candy was correct
 
Best CIA theory now is that it was terrorists, but the attack was basically spontaneous when they heard about all the protests in Egypt and around the Arab world in response to that gd RW fundie video, which the most Popular RW fundie Islamist talk show type in Egypt had gone ballistic about.

But carry on with your brainwashed idiocy, Rush/Beck/Pub/Fox/etc etc/ Propaganda bots.
 
Her bias was so obvious and pervasive during the debate making it a sham- that she very well may have helped Romney more then her unethical interference helped Obama.



The American Spectator : The Candy Crowley Tipping Point

It was a clear win for Obama. Mitt lost it, he broke the first rule of debating, keep a cool head. He was attempting to run over the president and when that failed, he started in on the moderator. He's a bully but it didn't work this time.

Mittens lost, it hurts, huh?


No one thinks Mitt lost, only that Obama improved from his abysmal first performance...but I digress, this thread is about the unethical behavior of the moderator.

Seems like it's more about your excuses for Mittens' loss. You're whiney.
 
I thought Candy Crowley did a fine job. I don't know where all of these accusations of bias are coming from.

So interfering, fact checking and taking sides when your moderating is not an indication of bias? Got it.



She couldn't help herself.

P.s., "fact checking" sounds so innocuous how you say it right there. What made the offense so offensive was of course that her "fact checking" was incorrect.

True that! Of course her feeble admission of her error after the debate was supposed to make her interference OK...
 
Obamination's debate strategy is to lie his ass off about his record and Romney's plan, then rely on the moderator to save his ass.
 
Something about a big fat white woman delivering debate questions with a strange sounding tone.
I feel she overdramatizies the questions she asked. Who was helped? I don't know.
What is her specialty?. Is she a news anchor on a daily basis?.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top