The Candy Crowley Tipping Point

[Cecilie1200]

Debate winners don't cry about the moderator.

But by all means Republicans, keep up this sore loser act. After all, America loves a sore loser.

What kind of person calls someone a sore loser when they're not losing?

The kind of person we already know leftists to be . . . delusional.

They still believe they're in the shallow, style-over-substance, politicians-as-celebrities world they've tried for so long to create, and almost succeeded in making. Unfortunately for them, reality has bitten most Americans in the ass, and they've woken up to the fact that that kind of shit is going to turn us into Greece, with a nuclear Iran looming over us. This is why the hardcore leftists are babbling about Obama winning based on nothing more than an increase in aggression over his first debate, but the polls are showing no post-debate "bounce" for him.

For everyone else in the country, this has gone from being a game to being deadly serious, and the left still hasn't caught on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

A morally healthy person would think that fact checking is exactly what a moderator should do. It's the moderator's job to get to the truth. A moderator who allows one side to lie with impunity is taking the side of the liar.

That's what Clevergirl wants. She's enraged that for the first time, a moderator didn't take the Republican side by giving the Republican a free pass on lying. She and all the Republicans here understand how badly they're screwed if they keep getting called out on lying.

Conservatives do tend to be rather dishonest people. That stems from their moral relativism, their "The ends always justify the means for my side!" prime directive. Since all those lies help the cause of TheParty, conservatives define those lies as good and holy things.

That's also one of reasons why they hate liberals so much. The moral relativist conservatives despise the way the moral absolutist liberals will reject PC, and instead dare point out how true and false exist, right and wrong, that all viewpoints are not equally valid, and that not everyone actually does it.

The word for your stunted, incorrect vocabulary is not "moral"; it is "illiterate". (I can see how someone as limited as you in this area would be confused, though.)

Debate moderators are not investigators or judges. It is NOT their job to "get to the truth", particularly since that can be a very subjective thing in politics. A debate moderator's job is, in fact, to be unbiased and to make sure that both sides get equal time to respond to questions, not to decide what those answers should be.

Which means that every single pompous, self-righteous thing you said about conservatives actually describes you, Einstein. Congratulations on your unintended irony.

 

[J.E.D]

Crowley showed why moderators shouldn't be "fact checking" in the middle of the debate.

Because it proved Romney's a liar? Yeah, that is a bit embarrassing.

She walked her comment back on CNN after the debate. She acknowledged it took Obama 14 days to say it was a premeditated terrorist attack.

Now who's playing semantics? Romney said that Obama didn't call it a terrorist act. He was wrong. The day after the attack Obama stood in the Rose Garden and called it an act of terror. That he waited 14 days (assuming you're correct) to call it a "premeditated terrorist attack" is irrelevant. What we have here is conservatives committing an extreme act of hair-splitting because they're sore losers. The debate is over. Obama won that exchange. It's not the moderator's fault. It's Romney's fault for pushing it. He pressed Obama on it, bullied the moderator, and got his response. I wish just once that you guys could own up to something instead of making excuses.

 

[Unkotare]

Romney said that Obama didn't call it a terrorist act. He was wrong.

No, he wasn't.

 

[Unkotare]

The day after the attack Obama stood in the Rose Garden and called it an act of terror.

No, he didn't.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not only did obama not call it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden, he got up in front of the United Nations and said that the attack was because of a movie. If you believe that he called it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden, was he lying when he spoke before the UN?

 

[J.E.D]

Romney said that Obama didn't call it a terrorist act. He was wrong.

No, he wasn't.

Yes, he was.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/politics/questions-and-answers-on-the-benghazi-attack.html?_r=0

Mr. Obama applied the “terror” label to the attack in his first public statement on the events in Benghazi, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House at 10:43 a.m. on Sept. 12, though the reference was indirect. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” he said. “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

 

[J.E.D]

The day after the attack Obama stood in the Rose Garden and called it an act of terror.

No, he didn't.

Yes, he did.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror' - CNN.com

The claim: "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened," Obama said. "That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."

The counterclaim: "It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror," Romney responded moments later.

The facts: On September 12, the day after the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Obama said in comments in the Rose Garden that he had learned about the attack on the consulate the night before.

The conclusion: Romney's precise comment was false. Obama did describe the killings in Benghazi as an act of terror twice in the two days after the attack. In an interview two weeks after the incident, though, he appeared to reserve judgment, and some Obama administration officials, including Carney and Rice, suggested in the days after the attack that the United States had no indication that it was a planned assault.

 

[J.E.D]

Not only did obama not call it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden, he got up in front of the United Nations and said that the attack was because of a movie. If you believe that he called it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden, was he lying when he spoke before the UN?

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” -- President Obama, Sept 12, 2012

Try again, champ.

 

[J.E.D]

Republicans: Obama didn't call the attack an act of terrorism

Everyone else: Yes, he did. Here's he tape.

Republicans: Well, he didn't specify what he was talking about when he said "act of terror". He could have been talking about anything.

Everyone else: So, what else would he have been talking about when he used the phrase "acts of terror" during a speech the day after the attack, which was given specifically because of the attack?

Republicans:.......uh......he didn't say it was an act of terror.

Everyone else:

 

[Amelia]

You make Orwell proud.

Saying "no acts of terror" after referencing 9/11/2001 is not the same as calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror much less a terrorist act.

People are bending over backwards to give Obama credit for something he didn't explicitly say and which people who listened to that speech on the day didn't believe he was saying then. It was totally clear to people listening on that day that Obama was saying the attack was prompted by the film.

 

[Cowman]

It is facepalm worthy indeed. Right in their faces, and they just want to play semantics.

 

[Cowman]

You make Orwell proud.

Saying "no acts of terror" after referencing 9/11/2001 is not the same as calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror much less a terrorist act.

People are bending over backwards to give Obama credit for something he didn't explicitly say and which people who listened to that speech on the day didn't believe he was saying then. It was totally clear to people listening on that day that Obama was saying the attack was prompted by the film.

It wasn't a reference to 9/11/2001, it was referencing 9/11/2012.

 

[Amelia]

Obama and you guys are the ones playing semantics.

We know what Obama meant and that was to throw a filmmaker under the bus to protect his administration from accusations that they fumbled the ball.

 

[Amelia]

You make Orwell proud.

Saying "no acts of terror" after referencing 9/11/2001 is not the same as calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror much less a terrorist act.

People are bending over backwards to give Obama credit for something he didn't explicitly say and which people who listened to that speech on the day didn't believe he was saying then. It was totally clear to people listening on that day that Obama was saying the attack was prompted by the film.

It wasn't a reference to 9/11/2001, it was referencing 9/11/2012.

It followed this part of Obama's speech, a clear reference to 9/11/2001.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House

 

[Amelia]

And so the semantic games continue. Did he or didn't he. The "no acts of terror" reference certainly was not direct enough for Crowley to jump in with a "correction".

The overriding point is that Ambassador Stephens was not safe, that Libya was a known hotspot which was not adequately protected on the anniversary of 9/11, and the Obama administration spent two weeks trying to paint the attack as a response to an anti-Muslim video instead of being straight with the American people.

 

[J.E.D]

You make Orwell proud.

Saying "no acts of terror" after referencing 9/11/2001 is not the same as calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror much less a terrorist act.

People are bending over backwards to give Obama credit for something he didn't explicitly say and which people who listened to that speech on the day didn't believe he was saying then. It was totally clear to people listening on that day that Obama was saying the attack was prompted by the film.

It wasn't a reference to 9/11/2001, it was referencing 9/11/2012.

It followed this part of Obama's speech, a clear reference to 9/11/2001.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House

Right.

"...then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for"

Amelia, you're normally reasonable. How you can't see that he was obviously referring to the embassy attack is beyond me. Maybe he was speaking in general terms; but clearly, he was referring to the attack on the embassy as an "act of terror".

 

[J.E.D]

And so the semantic games continue. Did he or didn't he. The "no acts of terror" reference certainly was not direct enough for Crowley to jump in with a "correction".

And it wasn't ambiguous enough for Romney to use as an attack. Look, Romney tried it; Obama had a good counter punch. it didn't work out for Romney. Instead of blaming the moderator, you guys should pull your pants up and move on. This is a rather pathetic display.

 

[Cowman]

And so the semantic games continue. Did he or didn't he. The "no acts of terror" reference certainly was not direct enough for Crowley to jump in with a "correction".

The overriding point is that Ambassador Stephens was not safe, that Libya was a known hotspot which was not adequately protected on the anniversary of 9/11, and the Obama administration spent two weeks trying to paint the attack as a response to an anti-Muslim video instead of being straight with the American people.

Your sphincter is in spasms over her correction because you know that Romney was wrong, so it upsets you that he was called out on it.

Candy Crowley was hardly biased, and was very blunt with both of the candidates.

If Romney just blurted out something else that would be retarded, such as declaring himself Jesus Christ, you'd like for the viewers to decide? Instead of the moderator calling out such absurdity?


Sorry, but if your candidate wasn't trying to blatantly lie, there would be no need for the moderator to step in. There wasn't bias, there was just idiocy on the part of Romney. If Obama had done the same, she would have done the same.

 

[clevergirl]

Crowley showed why moderators shouldn't be "fact checking" in the middle of the debate.

Because it proved Romney's a liar? Yeah, that is a bit embarrassing.

Have you always been an idiot or do you just get this way at election time?



Candy Crowley: He Was Right
Moderator: Romney was 'right in the main' on Benghazi, but 'picked the wrong word'

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
October 16, 2012 11:41 pm

After the debate, debate moderator Candy Crowley said Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word” on the Obama administration’s immediate response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

Crowley interrupted Romney during the debate, insisting that President Obama had in fact called the attack an “act of terror.”

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

In a statement given in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, Obama emphasized an anti-Islam video, before saying that “no acts of terror would shake the resolve of this great nation.”

The administration’s narrative on the attack over the next two weeks was muddled.

On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice attributed the attack on the U.S. Consulate to violent protests stemming from a “heinous and offensive” video.

On Sept. 25, the president himself declined to call the attack an act of terrorism during an interview with “The View,” saying that an investigation was still ongoing.

Candy Crowley: He Was Right | Washington Free Beacon