The Oct. 16, 2012 Presidential debate thread

reply to post by karen61057


This is what was said in the video

www.whitehouse.gov...

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.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

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. 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.

As you can see, he clearly says "BENGHAZI".

Beezer is just trying to spread lies.

Originally posted by beezzer
Is it Romney - - who's a whiz at saying what he's going to do - - by saying nothing?If Romney does the opposite of Obama, then that'll be good enough to start.

I find it amusing that NOW the left asks for specifics, when Obama got hired with just "hope and change".

Originally posted by Annee
That's very childish.

Because they are correct its childish.. Obama supporters like to think he won this debate he did not. It IS grasping at straws afer first debate.

reply to post by popcornmafia


Ummm...yes, Obama won the debate.

Sorry, better luck next time.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by beezzer

 

Yep, that's exactly what he said, which proves Crowley correct.

It's hilarious that you won't admit it, keep on spinning.

Reality - The sky is blue
Right Winger - Nope

You mean you watched the video?

C'mon. Now you're just being dishonest.

I think a lot of people are desperate to make an issue about the embassy attacks. They would have happened on anyone's watch because America is getting blowback from our activities.

The Obama administration acted responsibly but was clearly in the dark until some investigations. If the CIA ever did their jobs -- this wouldn't be the case. The coverup accusations are silly -- they really didn't KNOW and in fact, many of the people from Libya didn't know what half of their own protests were about (I suppose angry people just draw a crowd down there). If the State Department or White House said something incorrect; big fricken' deal. It all comes down to what their response is.

This wasn't a "Bin Laden determined to attack" moment. Every other US Embassy needs more security because our militarism in support of crony capitalists has made people angry. I'd prefer someone re-instate the Carter doctrine and try members of the Bush administration for war crimes -- but we lowered the bar.

I've watched all the videos of comments after the attacks - and they were all responsible and whatever errors were in them, it was a mistake of trying to give people some kind of answer and speculating. And obviously, there is a certain lady ambassador who was probably a "favor hire" -- though this probably had no impact whatsoever on security.


I sometimes wonder why I come to this site -- the "open minds" seem so closed at times and for silly reasons. Obama is part of a conspiracy -- it's they same one Romney is part of. But it has squat to do with an embassy bombing. I still suspect that was to try and push the US into going after Iran -- but I don't have enough info, and every BAD THING isn't a Mossad operation. Every OTHER BAD THING may be -- but I keep an open mind.

reply to post by HostileApostle


No. I must respectfully disagree.

Susan Rice, 5 days after the attacks said it was not a terror attack.
Hillary Clinton also stated that her department did not tell the White House that it was a terror attack.
Jay Carney, the White House spokesman also stated for two weeks that it was not a terror attack.

Are you calling them liars as well?

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


It is a conspiracy. The US/UN wants bases in Libya. Hence, the responce from the US (possible).

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HostileApostle

 

No. I must respectfully disagree.

Susan Rice, 5 days after the attacks said it was not a terror attack.
Hillary Clinton also stated that her department did not tell the White House that it was a terror attack.
Jay Carney, the White House spokesman also stated for two weeks that it was not a terror attack.

Are you calling them liars as well?

We aren't talking about Susan Rice, are we?

We are talking about what Obama said in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12th.

Nice attempt at trying to spin your way out of it.

Crowley was right, Romney was wrong. Romney looked like a fool for not having his facts straight and Crowley having to set him straight.

reply to post by Valhall


Really? That's all you got? The only republican response anyone can seem to come up with when the word 'babymaker' comes up? So helping single women isn't a good thing? Not everyone abuses welfare, actually the number is small by percentage, so you argument is about the same thing as Romney saying shutting down PBS would add more funding to our troops. Welfare is a necessity and this country wouldn't survive without it, I agree it has to be scrutinized but acting as if welfare is a MAJOR problem is fallacy. Again the problem financially with this country is war and Romney wants increase spending to it, just like Bush did, that's where the debt started and where the debt will end. Also I'd like to keep the president who has spent the least amount of money in 30 years in there, a fact republicans seem to overlook. Obama 2012.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HostileApostle

 

No. I must respectfully disagree.

Susan Rice, 5 days after the attacks said it was not a terror attack.
Hillary Clinton also stated that her department did not tell the White House that it was a terror attack.
Jay Carney, the White House spokesman also stated for two weeks that it was not a terror attack.

Are you calling them liars as well?

AND more security was requested BEFORE this happened and it was denied. The ball was dropped.. then kicked under the table. Its not just Obama that is being disingenuous.. he isnt the source of the issue, but a player.. and the buck DOES stop with him. Being a figurehead includes the responsibility for a lot, and not just the good stuff

Im NOT a Romney supporter, the guy gives me the heebie jeebies.. but the truth is the truth. Im probably a shill or whatever too though on a nefarious disinfo conspiracy along with FF up there though.

Originally posted by HostileApostle

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HostileApostle

 

No. I must respectfully disagree.

Susan Rice, 5 days after the attacks said it was not a terror attack.
Hillary Clinton also stated that her department did not tell the White House that it was a terror attack.
Jay Carney, the White House spokesman also stated for two weeks that it was not a terror attack.

Are you calling them liars as well?

We aren't talking about Susan Rice, are we?

We are talking about what Obama said in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12th.

Nice attempt at trying to spin your way out of it.

Crowley was right, Romney was wrong. Romney looked like a fool for not having his facts straight and Crowley having to set him straight.

Is Hillary Clinton a liar?
Is Susan Rice a liar?
Is Jay Carney a liar?

Please answer the questions.

Oh, and ON TOPIC -- Obama clearly won this last debate.

I saw bits of the first one -- and Obama was trounced.

He pointed out a lot of Romney's "Errors in Fact" and landed a lot of blows. Romney's accusations were all rebutted --and then he's yet to defend his offshoring of jobs, tax dodging, nearly worst record on jobs as Governor in the country, his 47% "entitled losers" comment and so, so much more.

But these debates are annoying little pissing contests. People who don't look at a politician's record, and hope that "landing blows" in a debate will decide who should be the leader are, well, those are the low-information swing voters who probably won't decide until 5 minutes before pushing the voting button and based on what they ate for breakfast.

I'll admit that Romney seems like a "stronger leader" -- but I'm not a huge fan of that notion. I'd much rather a better policy wonk like Joe Biden who is smoothing the waters and focused on making the country run.

Republicans have stood in the way of Stimulus, and a litmus test for people who are clueless about the economy are people who disagree with Paul Krugman. He's been right more often and for longer than all these Austerity fans have been claiming to be successful. Where are all the "win stories" for the Supply-siders and Austerity Measure fans? Nowhere. You might as well ask all the countries who privatized their versions of Social Security (Like England, Argentina, Columbia etc,.) and now wish they hadn't.

I can't stand supporting Republican Lite's over Rabid Republicans. We need an FDR again. Heck, I'd take Nixon over anyone we've been offered -- and that's scraping the barrel.

reply to post by beezzer


Spin and more spin.

I'll just go ahead and post the video and the transcript again.

The topic is "Did Obama call the Benghazi attacks a terrorist act the day after the attacks". The answer is a big YES.

Romney didn't have his facts straight, sorry, your guy dropped the ball.



www.whitehouse.gov...

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. 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.

I know you desperately want to move to a different topic because you have been proven wrong. But this thread is about the debate, and they didn't talk about what Rice said, or Clinton said, or Carney said. They were talking about what Obama said.

It'd be easier if you just admitted to yourself that Obama did in fact call it an act of terror and move on with your life, stop being so dishonest and lying to yourself. Are you losing sleep over this?

Originally posted by Advantage

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HostileApostle

 

No. I must respectfully disagree.

Susan Rice, 5 days after the attacks said it was not a terror attack.
Hillary Clinton also stated that her department did not tell the White House that it was a terror attack.
Jay Carney, the White House spokesman also stated for two weeks that it was not a terror attack.

Are you calling them liars as well?

AND more security was requested BEFORE this happened and it was denied. The ball was dropped.. then kicked under the table. Its not just Obama that is being disingenuous.. he isnt the source of the issue, but a player.. and the buck DOES stop with him. Being a figurehead includes the responsibility for a lot, and not just the good stuff

Im NOT a Romney supporter, the guy gives me the heebie jeebies.. but the truth is the truth. Im probably a shill or whatever too though on a nefarious disinfo conspiracy along with FF up there though.

The security arrangements for an embassy, just like a Drug Sting in Texas, probably don't make it to the White House planning meetings. I'm sure every other embassy is making requests for more security -- however, in Libya and Syria I WOULD HAVE supported those requests.

But we haven't seen the Devil in the Details yet. This country was left a shambles after Bush -- I mean, it's lucky we survived. We've outsourced a lot of security to private agencies that can't be trusted. We've got people with careers in government who cannot be gotten rid of, who's only qualifications is devout belief and a diploma from Liberty University.

This is a mess, but I don't think it would be run any better with the "other guys" - they'd just accuse anyone who complained of being unAmerican and have better support on Fox News. At least we've got a reprieve from that nonsense.

reply to post by HostileApostle


Actually you have answered my questions.

You have proved my point.

You have strengthened my position.

By not answering, by avoiding the truth, you have supported my position.

*applesauce*

Ok, so Obama knew it was terrorism on day 2, September 12th.

"So Obama Knew It Was Terrorism on Day Two... - Michael Walsh, NRO"

Don’t Worry, Be Happy By Michael Walsh October 17, 2012 12:20 A.M

Whatever marginal help President Obama got from Candy Crowley’s wrong-headed intervention re Libya will dissipate in the morning air, as the stenographers in the MSM contemplate the question: If Obama knew it was terrorism on Day Two, then why did his administration continue to blame the video for days afterward? Amusing to see CNN rush to her defense by quoting, out of context, the president’s reference to “terror,” but such Clintonian legalistic parsing won’t wash once the parade of contradictory TV clips starts appearing on blogs, in YouTube ads and on Fox tomorrow. Context is everything, and Obama’s “terror” reference clearly was CYA boilerplate that had nothing to do with the substance of his remarks.

www.nationalreview.com...

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HostileApostle

 

Actually you have answered my questions.

You have proved my point.

You have strengthened my position.

By not answering, by avoiding the truth, you have supported my position.

*applesauce*

Can you dodge anymore?

You lost the argument, so you tried to change the subject.

Poor form, even for you.


As a side note, I love that I have so much influence over your positions.

Originally posted by HostileApostle

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HostileApostle

 

Actually you have answered my questions.

You have proved my point.

You have strengthened my position.

By not answering, by avoiding the truth, you have supported my position.

*applesauce*

Can you dodge anymore?

You lost the argument, so you tried to change the subject.

Poor form, even for you.


As a side note, I love that I have so much influence over your positions.

edit on 17-10-2012 by HostileApostle because: (no reason given)

Your rabid adoration and adherence to talking points and memes created by the White House make any argument from you rather simple to defend.

All I have to do is use the truth.

You can only rely on rhetoric.

reply to post by alternateuniverse


I'll try to explain something to you very slow.

Just knowing that something is an act of terror doesn't mean you know what CAUSED that act of terror.

In the weeks after the attack, the job was to figure out what CAUSED the act of terror. And the initial information they had suggested the video had something to do with it, just like it had to do with the protests in Egypt (you do admit they video was the cause of the protests in egypt, right?).

When they gathered more information and found out that this was a seperate planned attack, they came out and declared it that.

Do you see how that works, as they got more information, they revised their official position. This is what responsible people do.

What irresponsible people do is try to use the deaths of 4 Americans as political pawns for a Presidential campaign. What intellectually dishonest people is ignore the FACT that from day one Obama called it an act of terror.

What logical people do is look at this and think, "Are they really bickering about what the attack was called"?

The president was stronger than in the previous debate, to the surprise of no one, and that will cheer the rabid partisans over at MSNBC, and all 125,000 of their viewers. But those folks were already going to vote for Obama. The question is whether anyone in a swing state either changed their vote or gained intensity for voting, and I don't think that happened.

For instance, calling Romney a liar doesn't gain the vote of undecided female voters in swing states. It cheers Chris Matthews, but that is as irrelevant as Chris Matthews is.

Romney was able to match Obama's strength, however, which is what he needed to do. He was equally aggressive with Obama, which prevented Obama from accomplishing anything that would disrupt Romney's momentum.

Curiously, in the Benghazi question, the table was set for Romney to hit a grand slam, and somehow he didn't. He hit a single, which is still okay, but I'm surprised he didn't hit it out of the ballpark given the obviousness of the question coming up. Benghazi is a giant scandal for the Obama administration. Someone is lying to the American people, and it's someone who matters - it's not some underling. Romney could have done better on that question, and I remain puzzled why he didn't.

Regarding Candy Crowley, I thought some conservatives were being unfair in assuming that she would favor Obama, but sure enough, she did. She gave almost four minutes more speaking time to Obama than to Romney, and she corrected Romney on a factual matter. There were at least a dozen incidents where Crowley could have corrected Obama on factual matters, but didn't. She should not have assumed that responsibility. I think it was a bad night for her. Guess she'll end up at MSNBC or NPR.

In order to restore some balance in the third debate, they'd have to let Ann Romney moderate.

Obama's close was particularly weak. At this point no one believes Obama talking free-market. His track record is clear, and the narrative is fixed. He believes in government, not the private sector. He believes in redistribution, not growth and prosperity. So he wasted his close, at least in my opinion.

I would be very surprised if the debate changes the fundamentals of the campaign, or the Romney momentum. It was not a game changer, and Obama desperately needed a game-changer. Good for Obama isn't good enough. Obama can do no better than he did, and it wasn't good enough to change anything.

reply to post by beezzer


Ah yes, the truth.

I'm glad you asked about it again. Just in case you missed it.

www.whitehouse.gov...

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. 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.

Yep, that's Obama talking about the Benghazi attack the day after the attack.

So, personal question for you. Do you feel bad at all in using 4 dead Americans as pawns in trying to push your agenda?