Why do Republicans agree to debates moderated by liberal partisans...because they're stupid...

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The 2012 debate had Candy Crowley help obama flat out lie about benghazi and Romney didn't even question it!

Because it didn't happen.

Sure it did. What's more, she basically set up Obama to admit the video excuse was a total lie. And Romney still didn't sieze the chance.

You must have watched a different debate. Romney was losing in every poll and lost the election. The media didn't do anything to hurt him anymore than he hurt himself with his convention, going to Poland in the middle of the race, picking a very unpopular running mate, trotting out the same failed policies of tax relief for the rich, and chastising nearly 1/2 the country as people who were of a closed mind.

Either you have a faulty memory or you're being dishonest.

 

[AntiParty]

this practice of allowing democrat activists from the media wing of the democrat party moderate political debates has to stop...and the ones who need to stop it is Republicans...here is a list of the democrat partisans...

Articles Trading Places It s Time to Trim the Debate Moderators Role

Easy.

Because more and more every day, Republicans who stand for any kind of thought and any kind of taxation are painted as "Liberals". When you paint Republicans and Democrats as both being "Liberals" you not only destroy the definition of the word itself, you destroy the idea of someone educated hosting a debate.

Liberal means "more of" and is not a party reference. What's even more sick is parties owning the term. Everything in life is better with Moderation and thought.

 

[AntiParty]

this practice of allowing democrat activists from the media wing of the democrat party moderate political debates has to stop...and the ones who need to stop it is Republicans...here is a list of the democrat partisans...

Articles Trading Places It s Time to Trim the Debate Moderators Role

I want to bite though. I know Fox News has been furious that one of the last moderators actually corrected Mitt Romney on his lies and Sean Hannity states that it was no place of hers. Interjection is your issue. You can't have moderator that interjects if you want to keep the people stupid enough to steal from, (R)ight?

So who would you want to moderate a debate my friend?

 

[2aguy]

Brit Hume, or Bret Beir, they would actually be fair...if you had to pick news people...

 

[BULLDOG]

Brit Hume, or Bret Beir, they would actually be fair...if you had to pick news people...

Of course you would. Is there a single non fox associated person you would pick? I thought not.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Brit Hume, or Bret Beir, they would actually be fair...if you had to pick news people...

Of course you would. Is there a single non fox associated person you would pick? I thought not.

Since the thread is about repubs it would be a logical suggestion. Like Matthews and Olbermann would have been perfect for a dem debate, see.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why do Republicans agree to debates moderated by liberal partisans...because they're stupid.."

It's because republican policy positions are for the most part untenable and ridiculous, whether the moderator is 'liberal' or not.

 

[candycorn]

The 2012 debate had Candy Crowley help obama flat out lie about benghazi and Romney didn't even question it!

Because it didn't happen.

Sure it did. What's more, she basically set up Obama to admit the video excuse was a total lie. And Romney still didn't sieze the chance.

You must have watched a different debate. Romney was losing in every poll and lost the election. The media didn't do anything to hurt him anymore than he hurt himself with his convention, going to Poland in the middle of the race, picking a very unpopular running mate, trotting out the same failed policies of tax relief for the rich, and chastising nearly 1/2 the country as people who were of a closed mind.

Either you have a faulty memory or you're being dishonest.

Feel free to quote whatever it is the hell you think happened. All of what I pointed out with the exception of putting the word "nearly" in front of "every poll" is verifiable truth; as always.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The 2012 debate had Candy Crowley help obama flat out lie about benghazi and Romney didn't even question it!

Because it didn't happen.

Sure it did. What's more, she basically set up Obama to admit the video excuse was a total lie. And Romney still didn't sieze the chance.

You must have watched a different debate. Romney was losing in every poll and lost the election. The media didn't do anything to hurt him anymore than he hurt himself with his convention, going to Poland in the middle of the race, picking a very unpopular running mate, trotting out the same failed policies of tax relief for the rich, and chastising nearly 1/2 the country as people who were of a closed mind.

Either you have a faulty memory or you're being dishonest.

Feel free to quote whatever it is the hell you think happened. All of what I pointed out with the exception of putting the word "nearly" in front of "every poll" is verifiable truth; as always.

It's not what I think happened. It happened. Hack said he called it terrorism on 9-12 after he spent two weeks after that date insisting it was a riot spawned by a video. And no one challenges him on it. And you fall for it and excuse it.

 

[candycorn]

Because it didn't happen.

Sure it did. What's more, she basically set up Obama to admit the video excuse was a total lie. And Romney still didn't sieze the chance.

You must have watched a different debate. Romney was losing in every poll and lost the election. The media didn't do anything to hurt him anymore than he hurt himself with his convention, going to Poland in the middle of the race, picking a very unpopular running mate, trotting out the same failed policies of tax relief for the rich, and chastising nearly 1/2 the country as people who were of a closed mind.

Either you have a faulty memory or you're being dishonest.

Feel free to quote whatever it is the hell you think happened. All of what I pointed out with the exception of putting the word "nearly" in front of "every poll" is verifiable truth; as always.

It's not what I think happened. It happened. Hack said he called it terrorism on 9-12 after he spent two weeks after that date insisting it was a riot spawned by a video. And no one challenges him on it. And you fall for it and excuse it.

Your President called it terrorism the next day; as everyone knows.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Sure it did. What's more, she basically set up Obama to admit the video excuse was a total lie. And Romney still didn't sieze the chance.

You must have watched a different debate. Romney was losing in every poll and lost the election. The media didn't do anything to hurt him anymore than he hurt himself with his convention, going to Poland in the middle of the race, picking a very unpopular running mate, trotting out the same failed policies of tax relief for the rich, and chastising nearly 1/2 the country as people who were of a closed mind.

Either you have a faulty memory or you're being dishonest.

Feel free to quote whatever it is the hell you think happened. All of what I pointed out with the exception of putting the word "nearly" in front of "every poll" is verifiable truth; as always.

It's not what I think happened. It happened. Hack said he called it terrorism on 9-12 after he spent two weeks after that date insisting it was a riot spawned by a video. And no one challenges him on it. And you fall for it and excuse it.

Your President called it terrorism the next day; as everyone knows.

If you want to believe the Hack's general reference to the term terrorism is the same as declaring the specific incident was terrorism then go ahead. But that would be an admission that his ensuing campaign declaring the incident a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islamic video was an utter lie. Which lie is the one you like best?

 

[daws101]

The 2012 debate had Candy Crowley help obama flat out lie about benghazi and Romney didn't even question it!

Benghazi is a non issue. They know the job was dangerous and the embassy understaffed long before Obama took office....

Cop out. Benghazi was a failure of epic proportions. Willful and abject failure of duty by a detached narcissistic president. Woefully unprepared on the most obvious of dates. To the extent of the deaths of Americans. Add a coverup and a coverup to coverup the coverup. Makes Watergate look like J-walking.

delusional much ....

I guess your memory lacks.

false, Benghazi was done before any one could react ....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The 2012 debate had Candy Crowley help obama flat out lie about benghazi and Romney didn't even question it!

Benghazi is a non issue. They know the job was dangerous and the embassy understaffed long before Obama took office....

Cop out. Benghazi was a failure of epic proportions. Willful and abject failure of duty by a detached narcissistic president. Woefully unprepared on the most obvious of dates. To the extent of the deaths of Americans. Add a coverup and a coverup to coverup the coverup. Makes Watergate look like J-walking.

delusional much ....

I guess your memory lacks.

false, Benghazi was done before any one could react ....

Benghazi deserved extra fortification on that date. Instead it received very little and was largely ignored. That is an abject failure of duty by this inept administration. Then the multiple coverups ensued.

 

[daws101]

Benghazi is a non issue. They know the job was dangerous and the embassy understaffed long before Obama took office....

Cop out. Benghazi was a failure of epic proportions. Willful and abject failure of duty by a detached narcissistic president. Woefully unprepared on the most obvious of dates. To the extent of the deaths of Americans. Add a coverup and a coverup to coverup the coverup. Makes Watergate look like J-walking.

delusional much ....

I guess your memory lacks.

false, Benghazi was done before any one could react ....

Benghazi deserved extra fortification on that date. Instead it received very little and was largely ignored. That is an abject failure of duty by this inept administration. Then the multiple coverups ensued.

Benghazi was done before any one could react .

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Cop out. Benghazi was a failure of epic proportions. Willful and abject failure of duty by a detached narcissistic president. Woefully unprepared on the most obvious of dates. To the extent of the deaths of Americans. Add a coverup and a coverup to coverup the coverup. Makes Watergate look like J-walking.

delusional much ....

I guess your memory lacks.

false, Benghazi was done before any one could react ....

Benghazi deserved extra fortification on that date. Instead it received very little and was largely ignored. That is an abject failure of duty by this inept administration. Then the multiple coverups ensued.

Benghazi was done before any one could react .

Benghazi was not fortified as it should have been in the first place. That is the issue. That is the failure of duty.

 

[daws101]

delusional much ....

I guess your memory lacks.

false, Benghazi was done before any one could react ....

Benghazi deserved extra fortification on that date. Instead it received very little and was largely ignored. That is an abject failure of duty by this inept administration. Then the multiple coverups ensued.

Benghazi was done before any one could react .

Benghazi was not fortified as it should have been in the first place. That is the issue. That is the failure of duty.

false, besides the defense of any us out post is the job of the dod not the president.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I guess your memory lacks.

false, Benghazi was done before any one could react ....

Benghazi deserved extra fortification on that date. Instead it received very little and was largely ignored. That is an abject failure of duty by this inept administration. Then the multiple coverups ensued.

Benghazi was done before any one could react .

Benghazi was not fortified as it should have been in the first place. That is the issue. That is the failure of duty.

false, besides the defense of any us out post is the job of the dod not the president.

The president is their boss. If he was not culpable he wouldn't 'to have generated the multiple coverups. You're a Nixon apologist.

 

[daws101]

false, Benghazi was done before any one could react ....

Benghazi deserved extra fortification on that date. Instead it received very little and was largely ignored. That is an abject failure of duty by this inept administration. Then the multiple coverups ensued.

Benghazi was done before any one could react .

Benghazi was not fortified as it should have been in the first place. That is the issue. That is the failure of duty.

false, besides the defense of any us out post is the job of the dod not the president.

The president is their boss. If he was not culpable he wouldn't 'to have generated the multiple coverups. You're a Nixon apologist.

there were no cover ups!
but thanks for coming out to every one that a conspiracy theorist..
as to Nixon he got caught red handed ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans need to stop being such ******* pussies

We won, you Dems have to use our Moderators

 

[daws101]

Republicans need to stop being such ******* pussies

We won, you Dems have to use our Moderators

NOPE !