Presidential Debate #2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“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.”

LOL I know you’re in the majority of CAF posters on this subforum spinning Republican talking points. But yes he did. He spoke of acts of terror in light of the one we mourned that day. But believe as you wish.
WaPo isn’t part of the CAF forum, and they aren’t exactly pro-Romney. He even punted when the direct question was posed, 9 days later:
But Obama resists saying the ‘t’ word…
OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans. “And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it’s not representative of America’s views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20
washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-second-presidential-debate/2012/10/17/d6d3a7b4-17a3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html

WaPo’s conclusion:
In any kind of confused overseas event, initial reports are often wrong. But the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans were killed, including the ambassador, is a case study of how an administration can carefully keep the focus as long as possible on one storyline — and then turn on a dime when it is no longer tenable.
For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. With key phrases and message discipline, the administration was able to conflate an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi.
 
Washington Post: Moderator Crowley became focus of debate when talked turned to Libya
Candy Crowley’s signature moment as moderator of Tuesday’s rough-and-tumble presidential debate came when she was called upon to referee a dispute over President Barack Obama’s description of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya as an act of terror.When Republican Mitt Romney questioned whether the president had done so, Crowley said, “He did, in fact, sir.”
(Of course, the Post gets it partially wrong)

See Mediaite (believe it or not) for more (Crowley after the debate): Candy Crowley: Romney ‘Right’ That Obama Didn’t Call Libya Terror, But Thought ‘He Picked The Wrong Word’
CNN anchor and debate moderator Candy Crowley joined CNN’s panel after the debate to discuss a moment where she corrected Mitt Romney after he claimed that President Barack Obama had refused to characterize the attack in Libya an act of terror for 14 days. Crowley said that Romney’s was “right” in that the Obama administration spent weeks refusing to say that the attack was terrorism, but she thought at the time that “he picked the wrong word.”

“I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it,” said Crowley. “I knew that the president had said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand. Or, whatever the whole quote was.”

“Right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t,” Crowley added.

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.
So she decided to inject herself into the debate as a participant because Romney didn’t meet her “style guide” requirements?

BTW, Obama’s exact comments:
(snip)

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

**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.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
Now, were the words, “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 their context, referring to the attack on 9/11/12 or about the attack on 9/11/01???

The real loser from the debate was Candy Crowley: early reaction from the debate this morning is talking about the incident that she caused as a participant…and that shouldn’t be.
The Ambassador died and Obama/Clinton Lied.
 
My thoughts on the debate:

Obama did indeed come out swinging as I figured he would.

Romney missed a glorious opportunity in the pay equity question by failing to bring up the undisputed fact that in the Obama White House women are paid less then the Men.

Obama’s allegation that he used the T word with regard to Libya the day after. If the Pres. had indeed said it was a terror attack then why did his Ambassador say it was about the video?

Crowley was a terrible moderator.
 
OK I’ll bite. Why should we?
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Pledge all you want to that is not a reason. The real question you failed to answer is; why stay united with an oligarchy that has great distain for the people who it expects to pay for, bleed , and die to enrich the takers and the moochers and all those too big to fail businesses ,while being dictated to on what we can or cannot do by a bunch of bureaucratic mandarins?
Please try again.
 
It amounts to splitting hairs. Either way the event was, and is, being politicized.
Well, yes. :confused:

National security is, of its nature, a political issue. The safety of citizens is the #1 purpose of the “polis”; whence the word “politics” derived. When citizens, whose security is supposed to be sacrosanct in a foreign country, are murdered by those who would, if they could, murder us all, that’s a political issue, and ought to be.

Now, when the response of the ostensible guardians of that #1 purpose is contradictory as to that event and the conditions underlying it, it should be a topic of political discussion.
 
I didn’t watch all of the debate, but from what I saw it seemed the President was more engaged with the questions, and Mitt Romney did very well at expressing his ideas and thoughts.

This morning thought that Michelle Malkin has a good article up, fact checking one of the President’s comments about Planned ParentHood. The President said Planned Parenthood provides breast cancer screening. This isn’t the case though. P.P. doesn’t even have mammogram machines in their clinics.

“Hollywood’s Hysterical “Cancer Screening” Lie for Obama”

michellemalkin.com/2012/10/17/hollywoods-hysterical-cancer-screening-lie-for-obama/

snippet from her article:
As expected, President Obama poured on the #ladyparts pandering during the second presidential debate last night at Hofstra University. He falsely claimed that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms to “millions” of women — a lie that went unchallenged by female moderator and serial Romney interrupter Candy Crowley. Obama also referred several times to Romney/Ryan’s opposition to taxpayer subsidies for the abortion giant, at one point working it into an answer about the economy from a black male undecided voter.
Hollywood groupies ate it up, of course. Which brings us to my new column on a Tinseltown-disseminated “war on women” goblin that needs to be exposed, debunked, and buried once and for all.
 
Pledge all you want to that is not a reason. The real question you failed to answer is; why stay united with an oligarchy that has great distain for the people who it expects to pay for, bleed , and die to enrich the takers and the moochers and all those too big to fail businesses ,while being dictated to on what we can or cannot do by a bunch of bureaucratic mandarins?
Please try again.
If we force all those with a different opinion out, that’s no longer called a democracy. And while you point out ‘a bunch of bureaucratic mandarins’, it seems there are some placed in higher regard than others. The beat goes on, no matter who is in control, it’s the same for everyday working people.
 
Again,

Anyone notice how Romney dodged the question regarding the child tax credit?
For a guy who supposedly has all the “facts and figures” why does he use imaginary numbers when describing tax credits?
And so, in terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be say everybody gets — I’ll pick a number — $25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use. Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth, you can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions.

Read more: politico.com/news/stories/1012/82484_Page3.html#ixzz29YxzzBhD
 
Well, yes. :confused:

National security is, of its nature, a political issue. The safety of citizens is the #1 purpose of the “polis”; whence the word “politics” derived. When citizens, whose security is supposed to be sacrosanct in a foreign country, are murdered by those who would, if they could, murder us all, that’s a political issue, and ought to be.

Now, when the response of the ostensible guardians of that #1 purpose is contradictory as to that event and the conditions underlying it, it should be a topic of political discussion.
Events have, and will, happen under various administrations. Partisanship is driving force behind the disdain being displayed. I’m not so sure it’s even about safety of citizens anymore. If it is, it’s hidden in the smokescreen.
 
To be fair, he mentioned the non-abortion services that PP provides such a mammograms and paps.
It is my understanding that Planned Parenthood only provides referrals for those services. They are in business to provide contraception and abortion.
 
It is about the political and chattering class lying in order to keep the rest of us bleeding.
ocregister.com/opinion/president-371406-say-america.html
I didn’t read it all. It’s clearly a biased opinion piece that helps drive a wedge between Americans, and for the sake of partisanship.

As I said in a another post, events have and will occur under various administrations. Those with strong political ties, stronger than any affiliation through citizenship, will cry foul even at the risk of the collective citizenry.

United we stand, divided we fall…
 
Events have, and will, happen under various administrations. Partisanship is driving force behind the disdain being displayed. I’m not so sure it’s even about safety of citizens anymore. If it is, it’s hidden in the smokescreen.
The safety of citizens is always hidden under a smokescreen. The events surrounding and leading up to 911 is proof of that.

I watched the U.S. Presidential Debate last night on CNN. Seemingly the biggest overriding reason American Catholics would choose Governor Romney over President Obama is due to Romney’s refute on the HHS mandate on (Planned Parenthood).

But are U.S. Catholics that convinced that Romney as President has the power to bring down the HHS mandate? That to me is the big question. Some think Planned Parenthood is already paved in evil gold.

If Obama does get a second term it may be by a slim margin.
 
Luigi, any of my CA friends:

I traveled to Florida yesterday and caught the debate, but I am just now signing on to the forum for the first time this morning. It would take forever to read all the previous pages in this thread, not to mention the other threads.

What is the general consensus on the results of the debate?
 
If we force all those with a different opinion out, that’s no longer called a democracy. And while you point out ‘a bunch of bureaucratic mandarins’, it seems there are some placed in higher regard than others. The beat goes on, no matter who is in control, it’s the same for everyday working people.
*I hear this argument thrown out there so many times and I have had my own round about arguments in my head about it and the problem that I always come up with in using this for an argument is this: A lot of people believe murdering someone just walking down the street minding their own business is ok. But a lot more people believe it is not ok. We as a nation do not allow murder and will be brought to justice and found guilty of it in different degrees. I believe these degrees are referred to as manslaughter. So my question always is why is it ok to enforce that murdering someone is wrong in many different degrees but we are not supposed to enforce this belief on anyone. The argument it’s self is like an oxymoron. If we take the argument of not enforcing “our” beliefs on “anyone” then one would have to apply it to everything and then there would be no laws what-so-ever. But wait…there would still be the law of “not enforcing a law.”

Hope that came out right and makes some sense…*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top