2012 debates

[kraychik]

I am going go ahead and offer you the same deal I have everyone else. I see no Co servative on this board with their crazy hyperbole, they don't actually believe has take me up on it. If you believe it was so bad and such a game changer put your money where you mouth is.

Here is the deal. Obama wins you can stop posting for two months. Romney wins I do the same. The or are you all talk? Just like most conservatives I bet you are all talk and when push comes to shove your beliefs crumble.

Although I have never even implied that Romney's victory is a sure thing (that is your strawman), allow me to make you a counteroffer. If Romney wins, you don't post here for six months. I Obama wins, I will never post here again.

[cybercoma]

Well said. Moderators are suppose to make sure the candidates are following the debate rules. It's not their job to judge the validity of a candidates answer. I'm not surprised that the Obama fanboys of the forum aren't aware of that.

He wasn't answering a question. Romney made a statement of fact. She was helping him by correcting a fact that he was clearly getting wrong. More to the point, she wasn't challenging the validity of his claim that Obama responded inappropriately to what happened in Benghazi. That's Romney's opinion. He's entitled to it and he's free to express it. What he's not entitled to is making up his own facts.

[cybercoma]

So just because you don't agree with what he said he's lying

No.

He's lying because he said Obama didn't call it an act of terror, when the transcripts show that he did.

[kraychik]

He wasn't answering a question. Romney made a statement of fact. She was helping him by correcting a fact that he was clearly getting wrong. More to the point, she wasn't challenging the validity of his claim that Obama responded inappropriately to what happened in Benghazi. That's Romney's opinion. He's entitled to it and he's free to express it. What he's not entitled to is making up his own facts.

Show me in the transcript where Romney ever challenged the fact that Obama used the language, on September 12 in the Rose Garden, "act of terror". Crowley did what you're doing now, she preemptively decided what Romney's line of dialogue would be. Both you and her are the ones "making up facts".

[kraychik]

Romney said that Obama, in his Rose Garden remarks, refused to call it a terrorist act.

But Obama did call it a terrorist act.

Either Romney is unaware of what actually transpired, but castigated the President for it anyway...or he was lying outright.

Those are the only two choices, since the demonstrable truth is available for anyone who wants to watch the recorded remarks.

Romney never said that. You heard what you wanted to hear.

[cybercoma]

No lies just the truth as seen through different eyes.

You don't get to just lie about facts. You can have different perspectives on those facts and different opinions about what they mean. But you don't get to just say someone didn't say something that they in fact did say because you have "different eyes."

[kraychik]

It's quite possible that Romny was trying to illustrate the subsequent contradictions from the government after Obama's September 12 statement which loosely associated the September 11 attacks on diplomatic missions as terrorism. Obama, in later days and weeks, would not clearly state that these were acts of terrorism (on The View, for example). Furthermore, many persons from his administration were directly contradicting Obama's initial statement, most prominently Susan Rice's Sunday morning talkshow circuit where she lied on five different shows about these terrorist attacks actually being "spontaneous" eruptions of rage from an obscure YouTube film trailer. It's likely Romney was going to demonstrate the duplicity of the administration, but Crowley seemed committed to shielding Obama from this line of criticism. Crowley later admitted that she was wrong to have intervened. She actually conceded it immediately after the debate.

[kraychik]

You don't get to just lie about facts. You can have different perspectives on those facts and different opinions about what they mean. But you don't get to just say someone didn't say something that they in fact did say because you have "different eyes."

Romney never said that Obama didn't make those comments on September 12. You are the one lying.

[Smallc]

Romney never said that Obama didn't make those comments on September 12.

Except that you're wrong. Romney said it tool Obama 14 days to call it terrorism. That wasn't true. That was flatly untrue, in fact. The moderator, who had the fact in front of her, pointed that out.

Romney was right that they didn't know/admit/make public that it was a planned terrorist act. Crowley never said otherwise.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Smallc

[kraychik]

Except that you're wrong. Romney said it tool Obama 14 days to call it terrorism. That wasn't true. That was flatly untrue, in fact. The moderator, who had the fact in front of her, pointed that out.

Romney was right that they didn't know/admit/make public that it was a planned terrorist act. Crowley never said otherwise.

A terrorist attack is planned out by definition. Anyways, you've completely missed what I said, again... Crowley should not have interjected, and she conceded that immediately afterwards. Crowley's own words on Romney after the debate, "He was right in the main, but I think he used the wrong word".

[bleeding heart]

If Romney's point was (or was going to be) the profound contradictions emanating from the Government about terrorist attacks, then doubtless he'd be correct.

Of course, while a matter of such significance should have some import, it really doesn't, not for an election campaign.

They've all been blathering lies and nonsense about terrorism since Sept 11, 2001 (probably well before, but leave that aside from now).

Listening to Official Pronouncements about terrorism, and taking them seriously, is akin to being a child with sub-standard intelligence.

I don't fault Romney for giving it a try, mind you, even if it's in the campaign bloodsport and so is divorced from principle or a demand for the truth.

[Smallc]

"He was right in the main, but I think he used the wrong word".

She didn't say that she was wrong though.

[Pliny]

She didn't say that she was wrong though.

She didn't say that she was wrong though.

Getting a human being to admit they are wrong is hard to do. You pretty much have to rub their nose in their shit, Big L.

[Smallc]

Or, since she wasn't wrong, and he did in fact call it an act of terror, you're being obtuse. Probably that.

[kraychik]

She didn't say that she was wrong though.

She didn't say she was wrong, what she did say was that Romney was largely correct.

I know that Crowley is on the left, but she does have a lot more credibility than most other "journalists" at her network. I have some respect for what she does and I've seen her many times ask honest and straightforward questions that were placed Democrats and other leftists in uncomfortable positions. In this instance, though, she inappropriately interjected and shortly afterwards acknowledged that. It is not the role of the moderator to play the role of "fact checker" on the the fly, for reasons that I hope I don't need to explain.

Here's a clip that compares Crowley's initial "correction" of Romney's statement during the debate to her post-debate statement. Notice how after the debate, she was more lucid in explaining Obama's liability on his (mis)handling of the terrorist attack on th consulate in Bencghazi.

Start watching at :50 and watch until about 2:40 if you don't want to see the full thing:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-focus-group-explodes-over-candy-crowleys-debate-moderation/

[Smallc]

During the debate she said that Romney was correct in his assertion that they called it a random attack, but that Obama did call it an act of terror the next day. You're nitpicking for absolutely nothing.

[kraychik]

During the debate she said that Romney was correct in his assertion that they called it a random attack, but that Obama did call it an act of terror the next day. You're nitpicking for absolutely nothing.

The Obama administration DID call it a spontaneous attack in response to the film "Innocence of Muslims". Obama implied that quite clearly not only in his September 12 address, but also in subsequent statements he delivered personally and via his surrogates. For example, on September 25, Joy Behar asked Obama on The View whether it was a terrorist attack. His response was, "it's still under investigation". This is to say nothing of the intentional deception from Carney, Clinton, Rice, and other administration officials in the following weeks directly contradicting Obama's Rose Garden statement from September 12. Of course, this line of discussion was shut down successfully by Crowley who ran interference for Obama, possibly inadvertently.

[Smallc]

Except that she was right, Obama did call it an act of terror. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time admitting that. What followed for the next two weeks was a changing explanation as more facts became available. As he said, it was still under investigation.

[kraychik]

Except that she was right, Obama did call it an act of terror. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time admitting that. What followed for the next two weeks was a changing explanation as more facts became available. As he said, it was still under investigation.

When have I ever stated that Obama didn't describe the attacks as an "act of terror" on September 12? Nowhere. It's just more strawman argumentation, because you're committed to a narrative rather than simply being honest about discussing these events. Clearly I'm wasting my time with you, BigL.

[Smallc]

When have I ever stated that Obama didn't describe the attacks as an "act of terror" on September 12?

Then the case is closed. Romney was right in that it was not known that it was an actual terrorist attack for certain, and so no one said it was, but, he wasn't right in that Obama labelled it an act of terror, an attack on the United States that would have a decisive response, immediately after.

[punked]

Then the case is closed. Romney was right in that it was not known that it was an actual terrorist attack for certain, and so no one said it was, but, he wasn't right in that Obama labelled it an act of terror, an attack on the United States that would have a decisive response, immediately after.

Isn't that really the thing. The response to the attack is the same so why not wait until you have the facts straight on the attack instead of thumping your chest and going to war in Iraq over a terrorist attack somewhere else......Who am I kidding Republicans wouldn't be stupid enough to do that....No wait that is just what Republicans did because they didn't want the President to wait two weeks to get the facts straight.

[Shady]

New Gallup numbers. Romney 52 Obama 45!

[punked]

New Gallup numbers. Romney 52 Obama 45!

What is the Registered voter numbers and region break down? I think you are going to wake up a sad Shady on Nov 6th if you keep this up. I am not worried and neither is anyone else.

Edited October 18, 2012 by punked

[kraychik]

What is the Registered voter numbers and region break down? I think you are going to wake up a sad Shady on Nov 6th if you keep this up. I am not worried and neither is anyone else.

Take my offer, then. If Obama wins, I will leave MLW permanently. If Romney wins, you take a vacation for six months.

[bleeding heart]

More than fair, by definition.