2nd Debate

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:
DC your perspective is welcome here.

And Obama said the word terror in his comments but it was right after he spoke of 9/11 and was referring to terror attacks not Libya. It's clear if you read the transcript.

Your bias has severely clouded your judgement on that.

"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."

It is blatantly obvious that he was talking about Libya... not 9/11.

 

[DC Grad]

He was not talking about Libya. After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack.”[/I]

Do I have to pull the transcripts of Jay Carney?? Susan Rice??? President Obama's U.N. Speech. I'll stick with my colleagues in my profession. Keep watching the slanted incompetent news media for inaccuracies. The evidence will come out to prove the incompetence.

This post was edited on 10/19 10:16 AM by DC Grad

 

[shu09]

Merge, it really is amazing how some folks on here are so polarized that they can't even perform basic reading comprehension. He says "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." In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, he mentions FOUR Americans and then says justice will be done. if he was talking about 9/11, he'd have said 3,000 and mention that he ordered Bin Laden killed (i.e. justice already being done).

Obama has not handled this issue well but this is another example of people getting caught up in semantics and not real issues. Who cares what it was called? Four Americans died and that's the bottom line. That's what we need to get to the bottom of, not the words that were used in a statement. This is coming from a person (me) who is now legitmately undecided. A few months ago that would have been unthinkable to me but as the election gets closer I have been unimpressed with Obama's campaign. Romney has done very well at the debates and I may very well vote for him.

 

[Section112]

At best maybe, maybe it's implied. At best. And I am a very good reader. And the great moderator said both men were right? So which is it. Believe her if you don't believe me. All she said was he used the word terror. He did not call this a terrorist attack or he would have called it a terrorist attack.

But 09 is right. It would be great if we could find out the truth but again I doubt very much that will happen because that is not what governments do (both Dem and Repub).

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by shu09:

Merge, it really is amazing how some folks on here are so polarized that they can't even perform basic reading comprehension. He says "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." In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, he mentions FOUR Americans and then says justice will be done. if he was talking about 9/11, he'd have said 3,000 and mention that he ordered Bin Laden killed (i.e. justice already being done).

Obama has not handled this issue well but this is another example of people getting caught up in semantics and not real issues. Who cares what it was called? Four Americans died and that's the bottom line. That's what we need to get to the bottom of, not the words that were used in a statement. This is coming from a person (me) who is now legitmately undecided. A few months ago that would have been unthinkable to me but as the election gets closer I have been unimpressed with Obama's campaign. Romney has done very well at the debates and I may very well vote for him.

Politically motivated reading comprehension? haha..

I think there are valid criticisms on this issue, but during the debate Romney got hung up on semantics.

I could have been persuaded by Romney as well, especially since Obama has not been able to work with the republican congress... but Romney hasn't shown me anything that suggests he will be willing to work with a democratic senate besides pissing them all off on "Day 1" .

Romney shifted too far to the right on several issues for me to consider him, but I live in NJ so my vote is fairly insignificant anyway.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Section112:

At best maybe, maybe it's implied. At best. And I am a very good reader. And the great moderator said both men were right? So which is it. Believe her if you don't believe me. All she said was he used the word terror. He did not call this a terrorist attack or he would have called it a terrorist attack.

But 09 is right. It would be great if we could find out the truth but again I doubt very much that will happen because that is not what governments do (both Dem and Repub).

Agreed...the sad thing about the whole episode was that Obama never came close to answering the original question, which I thought was an excellent one.

On another front, I had a an opportunity to speak last night with a President of a large Massachusetts-based corporation and during the conversation he mentioned that he had dinner with Romney several years ago while he was Governor. He said they asked him how he managed to get things done as a Republican Governor in a Democratic state. First of all, he hired and surrounded himself with some exceptionally smart Bain people, instead of system politicians. Second, he told them a joke (which thankfully for Mitt, is not on videotape...lol), which was the story of a group of girls that were skinny dipping in a pond, when an old man came walking down to the edge with a bushell of apples. The girls told him that he would never see them naked and that they would stay in the pond until he left. The old man's response was that he didn't come down to the pond to see them naked...he brought the apples down to feed the alligators....his way of managing Massachusetts politics.

This executive, who by the way voted for Obama in 2008, had an interesting thought about taxes and the deficit. (He is in the 1% obviously). He said he would pay an additional 3-5% in income tax if they would guarantee that it would go only to paying down the deficit. His major concern is giving more, that is only going to be wasted by more spending programs. Interesting thought.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

This executive, who by the way voted for Obama in 2008, had an interesting thought about taxes and the deficit. (He is in the 1% obviously). He said he would pay an additional 3-5% in income tax if they would guarantee that it would go only to paying down the deficit. His major concern is giving more, that is only going to be wasted by more spending programs. Interesting thought.

I think most reasonable people would be on board with that... and to be clear, I am saying reasonable tongue in cheek because of the "pledge".

 

[Pirate6711]

Going back to the votes in Congress in 2001 and shortly thereafter regarding the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, you have to remember the emotional state of this nation. A politician's top priority is to get re-elected. A politician would have no chance of getting re-elected if he or she voted against a measure that could have been construed as anti-Sept. 11th. That's why all of those measures were passed so easily by both parties.

 

[shu09]

Ron Paul voted against both the Iraq War and the Patriot Act and was re-elected every two years since then. Alas, he was the only one. LOL.

 

[Section112]

Ron Paul is the man. Folks are afraid of him because he speaks the truth and actually has ideas.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:

Ron Paul is the man. Folks are afraid of him because he speaks the truth and actually has ideas.

I like Paul, I just have a fundamental disagreement with his views on the role of government.

 

[HALL85]

If Ron Paul won the nomination, I wouldn't have to have watched any of the debates. He would have my vote the minute he accepted the nomination.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

If Ron Paul won the nomination, I wouldn't have to have watched any of the debates. He would have my vote the minute he accepted the nomination.

Romney did not have your vote?

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:

If Ron Paul won the nomination, I wouldn't have to have watched any of the debates. He would have my vote the minute he accepted the nomination.

Romney did not have your vote?

Not coming out of the convention....

 

[SPK145]

Even CNN now acknowledges that the White House knew but Obama lied to American people in days after the attack and in 3 debates about Libya terror attack.



People Died, Obama Lied

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SPK145:
Even CNN now acknowledges that the White House knew but Obama lied to American people in days after the attack and in 3 debates about Libya terror attack.

I don't want to give the Romney campaign too much credit here, but perhaps part of the overall strategy to be conservative and not attack Obama during last debate, to A) Keep the focus from Romney on the economy and B) Knowing that Obama lied about the attack and State Department also denied requests for stepped up security...let others take on that fight.

I predict you will see a number of Republican leaders with foreign policy experience in the final few weeks speak out loudly on Obama's lies and failure, but Romney and Ryan will stay focused on the economy messaging in their campaign stops. I can already see a wave of negative ads coming.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:
Even CNN now acknowledges that the White House knew but Obama lied to American people in days after the attack and in 3 debates about Libya terror attack.

We had intelligence of a phone call from al-queda telling al-sharia to follow the demonstrations in Cairo and attack the consulate.

There is an interview of a Libyan militia leader who was there during the attack and attributes the attack to a video.



"The film which insulted the Prophet was a direct attack on our values and if America wants good relations with the Muslim world it needs to do so with respect," Abu Khattala said. "If they want to do it with force, they will be met with force."http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-libya-consulate-attack-idUSBRE89H19P20121018

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by SPK145:
Even CNN now acknowledges that the White House knew but Obama lied to American people in days after the attack and in 3 debates about Libya terror attack.

I don't want to give the Romney campaign too much credit here, but perhaps part of the overall strategy to be conservative and not attack Obama during last debate, to A) Keep the focus from Romney on the economy and B) Knowing that Obama lied about the attack and State Department also denied requests for stepped up security...let others take on that fight.

I predict you will see a number of Republican leaders with foreign policy experience in the final few weeks speak out loudly on Obama's lies and failure, but Romney and Ryan will stay focused on the economy messaging in their campaign stops. I can already see a wave of negative ads coming.

You are right. Obama would have been prepared for an attack as he was during the second debate.
Best not to give him an opportunity there, and go after him in avenues where he can not respond.

Very smart move by the Romney campaign.