They need this pretty bad, Gyrate. We don’t need to be churlish about it. Not to worry, today, tomorrow, Mitt will open his mouth again.
Both have Secret Service assigned to them.
I like the idea of someone from the BBC moderating, but I don’t have a suggestion on who.
When I say she’s intellectually dishonest, I don’t mean she makes things up or reports untrue things. Just that, she spins things that conservatives say/do dishonestly.
One recent example was something that was talked about right here a few weeks ago, with Romney’s comment about why windows don’t go down in airplanes. It was an obvious joke, but the way she reacted to it was stupid and predictable, and dishonest. I don’t think in her heart she didn’t know it was a joke, or an attempt at a joke, but she didn’t make fun of him for making a bad joke or delivering it poorly, she attacked him as if he honestly believed that windows should go down on planes.
That’s the kind of stuff that Hannity and friends do on Fox News, and it pisses me off.
Don’t watch her. She’ll get over it. Oh, sure, it will be hard at first, it will take patience and courage…
What a stupid response. drewtwo99 was simply pointing out that she’s too biased to be an effective moderator and this is your response. Do you even read for comprehension?
I watched that segment too.
Yes, it’s possible it was a joke. But she discussed that aspect and concluded that Romney wouldn’t be joking, in that context, about a near death experience his wife had just 24 hours prior to his comments, while she was standing right there.
Regardless, she prefaced her entire segment by saying that she knows this particular quote won’t resonate with the electorate like the “47%” from a few days before. She was basically saying “look, I understand that, in the grand scheme of things, this really isn’t that big of a deal, but…”
Apparently he would. In your face, Maddow!
Pretty much anybody with 1)access to a switch to cut off the microphone and/or administer an electric shock when somebody goes over their alloted time and 2)the gumption to use it.
We could experiment, you could try writing for comprehension, and we’ll see if that’s an improvement.
Again, nonsense from you. This is becoming a trend.
“QUESTION. When you say ‘no,’ do you actually mean ‘yes’?”
“QUESTION. Should the President be able to fire Congress?”
“QUESTION. Is only being ready to fight two world wars simultaneously really sufficient to protect our Homeland?”
Colbert would do an amusing job, but Jon Stewart is better at being serious when the situation calls for it.
I’ll hold to Reali. He keeps everyone in check on Around the Horn and is a man who lives and dies by the facts.
Paxton is amazing, too.
Enough already. Please let this go or take it to The BBQ Pit.
The moderator should’ve been Judge Judy.
I had two different ideas:
- Give some kid off-stage a carton of Twinkies and a paintball gun. The paintball gun’s safety is automatically engaged, but is disengaged by the moderator if the candidate goes on past their assigned times.
- The moderator gets a super-soaker, and when a candidate exceeds his time, the moderator sends a steady stream into the candidate’s forehead until the candidate shuts up.
Either would be fine.
I don’t get why talking at length is a problem. Rather, the problem is not staying on topic.
“This debate isn’t Nam, there are rules.”
If the speech jammer is good enough for an Ig Nobel, it’s good enough for the presidential debates.
Or we could just borrow Miss Sweetie Poo from their awards ceremony: “a little girl who repeatedly cries out, “Please stop: I’m bored,” in a high-pitched voice if speakers go on too long.”
R. Lee Ermey. That would be fun.