Anybody wondering why Candy had the Rose Garden Transcript....

[AmyNation]

Are we sure she had the transcript? I'm sure she had an ear piece, it would be easy for production staff to feed her the lines when it became contested between Obama/Romney.

 

[catzmeow]

He did say "act of terror", but he then want around saying it was a goddamn movie for the next 2-3 weeks.

From the New York Times (10/15/2012):

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence...

To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

There was a Libyan journalist, working for the New York Times, on the ground when the assault occurred, and he was told by members of the group that the video influenced their decision to attack the embassy. That's where the connection to the video comes from, and that connection continues to exist from interviews and public comments by the group who was responsible.

 

[Oddball]

....and why Obama knew she had it?

Too funny.

Because the "debate" was a complete sandbag job.

 

[Amazed]

....and why Obama knew she had it?

Too funny.

Because the "debate" was a complete sandbag job.

Well it did not have it's desired effect, Obama did not "win" the debate.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

....and why Obama knew she had it?

Too funny.

Because the "debate" was a complete sandbag job.

Well it did not have it's desired effect, Obama did not "win" the debate.

It isn't POSSIBE to "win" a debate. Since partisanship overrides common sense, you will always have people say their guy won no matter what occurs.

It's called confirmation bias. Look it up.

 

[Oddball]

Classic liberals are progressives.

Um....No they aren't.

Liberalism

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit. Today we cannot call this philosophy liberalism because the term has been appropriated by the democratic totalitarians. In an attempt to recover this philosophy for our own time, we give it a new name, classical liberalism.

An American Classical Liberalism

 

[Amazed]

Because the "debate" was a complete sandbag job.

Well it did not have it's desired effect, Obama did not "win" the debate.

It isn't POSSIBE to "win" a debate. Since partisanship overrides common sense, you will always have people say their guy won no matter what occurs.

It's called confirmation bias. Look it up.

Yawn.

Go be silly somewhere else.

 

[Amazed]

Classic liberals are progressives.

Um....No they aren't.

Liberalism

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit. Today we cannot call this philosophy liberalism because the term has been appropriated by the democratic totalitarians. In an attempt to recover this philosophy for our own time, we give it a new name, classical liberalism.

An American Classical Liberalism

I already tried this, she ran away.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Well it did not have it's desired effect, Obama did not "win" the debate.

It isn't POSSIBE to "win" a debate. Since partisanship overrides common sense, you will always have people say their guy won no matter what occurs.

It's called confirmation bias. Look it up.

Yawn.

Go be silly somewhere else.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not exclusive to any party. But I'm sorry you find psycological study to be silly.

 

[Conservative]

She tossed him a life-line while people were viewing the debate. Then recanted after. It all seemed pretty phoney to me.

She didn't recant. Your post is false.

Crowley says she did not backtrack on Libya 'acts of terror' debate moment – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

Crowley responds, “No… Did the President say this was an act of terror? The President did not say.... He said ‘these acts of terror,’ but he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi so I don’t think that’s a leap.”

Actually, the transcript shows he didn't even say that. He said 'No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation...' in a VERY general sense.

Full Transcript of Obama's Rose Garden Speech After Sept. 11 Benghazi Attack - October 16 12 10:31 EDT - ForexTV.com

In tonight's presidential debate President Obama maintains that he called the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi a "act of terror", which turns out to be accurate. However, the President is using a play on words. The full transcript below supports that assertion, which the moderator, Candy Crowley vehemently confirmed the President did do. However, the legal term of "act of terrorism" is never used. Furthermore, the President clearly implies the attack was a result of the reaction to an anti-Muslim film released on YouTube in the transcript the Whitehouse released with the video below.

Under the video is a press release later distributed by the Whitehouse that includes the word "terror" used in the generic sense, not referring to "terrorism" or "terrorist act". The choice of words is not a trivial matter in White House parlance, and the word "terrorist act" has an historic and specific meaning. Nor did any of the official Whitehouse statements in the following two weeks refer to "terrorist act." Nor did President Obama tonight refer to the attack as a "terrorist act." We maintain that there was a meaningful distinction in the use of the word that could have easily been dispelled and/or clarified tonight...it was not.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Act of terror=act of violence from the protest. He then turned it around for over 2 weeks blaming the fucking video.

Goddamn you socialist are liars.

 

[catzmeow]

She tossed him a life-line while people were viewing the debate. Then recanted after. It all seemed pretty phoney to me.

She didn't recant. Your post is false.

Crowley says she did not backtrack on Libya 'acts of terror' debate moment – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

Crowley responds, “No… Did the President say this was an act of terror? The President did not say.... He said ‘these acts of terror,’ but he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi so I don’t think that’s a leap.”

Actually, the transcript shows he didn't even say that. He said 'No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation...' in a VERY general sense.

Full Transcript of Obama's Rose Garden Speech After Sept. 11 Benghazi Attack - October 16 12 10:31 EDT - ForexTV.com

In tonight's presidential debate President Obama maintains that he called the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi a "act of terror", which turns out to be accurate. However, the President is using a play on words. The full transcript below supports that assertion, which the moderator, Candy Crowley vehemently confirmed the President did do. However, the legal term of "act of terrorism" is never used. Furthermore, the President clearly implies the attack was a result of the reaction to an anti-Muslim film released on YouTube in the transcript the Whitehouse released with the video below.

Under the video is a press release later distributed by the Whitehouse that includes the word "terror" used in the generic sense, not referring to "terrorism" or "terrorist act". The choice of words is not a trivial matter in White House parlance, and the word "terrorist act" has an historic and specific meaning. Nor did any of the official Whitehouse statements in the following two weeks refer to "terrorist act." Nor did President Obama tonight refer to the attack as a "terrorist act." We maintain that there was a meaningful distinction in the use of the word that could have easily been dispelled and/or clarified tonight...it was not.

You didn't even read the transcript, but stopped with the analysis by Fox.

Here are his exact comments:

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.

He then made similar comments, linking the term "acts of terror" with the deaths of embassy officials during speeches he delivered in Golden, Colorado and Las Vegas, Nevada on 9/13. In both cases, the term "acts of terror" was in the same paragraph as the comments about the deaths of state department employees.

Use of the term four more Americans in the context of the paragraph links those deaths to the acts of terror on 9/11 described in previous paragraphs and the sentence in front of it (No acts of terror).

If he wasn't referring to these deaths in the context of the acts of terror committed on 9/11 and since that time, he would not have used the term more.

 

[Amazed]

It isn't POSSIBE to "win" a debate. Since partisanship overrides common sense, you will always have people say their guy won no matter what occurs.

It's called confirmation bias. Look it up.

Yawn.

Go be silly somewhere else.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not exclusive to any party. But I'm sorry you find psycological study to be silly.

Not at all, I find one's over dependence upon it silly....especially when one is trying to show that one's dick is bigger than anothers.

Of course debates can be won or lost, and your denial is patently silly.

 

[Sarah G]

....and why Obama knew she had it?

Too funny.

She probably had a lot of transcripts knowing how Romney lied throughout the last debate. People wanted her to jump in and set that guy straight.

Btw, Obama won last night's debate.

Obama came off as frustrated and hateful, in the audience Michelle had the same attitude. I think many folks may have been turned off by it.

These are the kind of headlines I'm seeing:

Obama Punches Hard, and Hits the Mark

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- Not a close call. President Obama won the second presidential debate as clearly and decisively as he lost the first. For anyone who disagrees, three simple words: “Please proceed, Governor.”

This icy invitation to Mitt Romney came amid an exchange about the killings of State Department officials in Libya. Obama noted that in his initial Rose Garden remarks, he classified the attack as an act of terror. Romney, perhaps misinformed by the right-wing propaganda machine, tried to insist that the president waited weeks to call the incident terrorism. “Get the transcript,” Obama said.

Moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and noted that Obama was correct. (Indeed, according to the transcript, Obama classified the attack as among “acts of terror” that would not deter or deflect U.S. foreign policy.) Having embarrassed himself, Romney had the good sense to move on.

It was a moment that encapsulated what Obama accomplished Tuesday night: He punched hard, and he punched with facts.

In these debates, superficialities can be important. Downcast and mopey in the first encounter, this time Obama was sharp and combative throughout. He went after Romney directly and personally; I lost track of the number of times Obama charged that some Romney assertion or another was flatly untrue. He quoted Romney’s past statements that directly contradict what Romney is saying now. All evening, he was in Romney’s face.

Obama Punches Hard, and Hits the Mark | RealClearPolitics

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Yawn.

Go be silly somewhere else.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not exclusive to any party. But I'm sorry you find psycological study to be silly.

Not at all, I find one's over dependence upon it silly....especially when one is trying to show that one's dick is bigger than anothers.

Of course debates can be won or lost, and your denial is patently silly.

I wouldn't think that Penis size had much relevance to the discussion. But let me hilight the point. In the first presidential debate, some people said that Obama still won.

that's patently ridiculous, of course, Obama performed very poorly in the first debate. Polls not relying on confirmation bias should have scored it near 100-0 for Romney.

and now you prove my point, by saying that Obama didn't win the debate, despite polls that indicate otherwise. Fact is, peoples preconcieved ideals are far more important a qualifier for poll outcomes, and even elections, than information or performance will ever accomplish.

 

[Amazed]

She probably had a lot of transcripts knowing how Romney lied throughout the last debate. People wanted her to jump in and set that guy straight.

Btw, Obama won last night's debate.

Obama came off as frustrated and hateful, in the audience Michelle had the same attitude. I think many folks may have been turned off by it.

These are the kind of headlines I'm seeing:

Obama Punches Hard, and Hits the Mark

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- Not a close call. President Obama won the second presidential debate as clearly and decisively as he lost the first. For anyone who disagrees, three simple words: “Please proceed, Governor.”

This icy invitation to Mitt Romney came amid an exchange about the killings of State Department officials in Libya. Obama noted that in his initial Rose Garden remarks, he classified the attack as an act of terror. Romney, perhaps misinformed by the right-wing propaganda machine, tried to insist that the president waited weeks to call the incident terrorism. “Get the transcript,” Obama said.

Moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and noted that Obama was correct. (Indeed, according to the transcript, Obama classified the attack as among “acts of terror” that would not deter or deflect U.S. foreign policy.) Having embarrassed himself, Romney had the good sense to move on.

It was a moment that encapsulated what Obama accomplished Tuesday night: He punched hard, and he punched with facts.

In these debates, superficialities can be important. Downcast and mopey in the first encounter, this time Obama was sharp and combative throughout. He went after Romney directly and personally; I lost track of the number of times Obama charged that some Romney assertion or another was flatly untrue. He quoted Romney’s past statements that directly contradict what Romney is saying now. All evening, he was in Romney’s face.

Obama Punches Hard, and Hits the Mark | RealClearPolitics

Oooo, ooooo,ooooo I can play too!!!

Rom’s blow for leadership staggers Comeback Kid



Michael Goodwin

It’s the future, stupid.

If the test of last night’s showdown is whether President Obama was more aggressive and energetic than he was in the first debate, then he wins the Comeback Kid award. But if the standard is who is more focused and better prepared to create jobs and improve the American economy in the next four years, then the winner was Mitt Romney.

He looks and sounds increasingly like a man who is ready to take on the enormous challenges of being president.


Rom’s blow for leadership staggers Comeback Kid - NYPOST.com

Unfortunately unlike the first debate nobody won this one.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Your idea's just make everyone poorer and make human advancement impossible. Is that what you want???

It's only natural for some people to become successful.

 

[Amazed]

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not exclusive to any party. But I'm sorry you find psycological study to be silly.

Not at all, I find one's over dependence upon it silly....especially when one is trying to show that one's dick is bigger than anothers.

Of course debates can be won or lost, and your denial is patently silly.

I wouldn't think that Penis size had much relevance to the discussion. But let me hilight the point. In the first presidential debate, some people said that Obama still won.

that's patently ridiculous, of course, Obama performed very poorly in the first debate. Polls not relying on confirmation bias should have scored it near 100-0 for Romney.

and now you prove my point, by saying that Obama didn't win the debate, despite polls that indicate otherwise. Fact is, peoples preconcieved ideals are far more important a qualifier for poll outcomes, and even elections, than information or performance will ever accomplish.

Too funny.

Golly olly, I don't think my guy won the debate last night...there goes your theory.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Not at all, I find one's over dependence upon it silly....especially when one is trying to show that one's dick is bigger than anothers.

Of course debates can be won or lost, and your denial is patently silly.

I wouldn't think that Penis size had much relevance to the discussion. But let me hilight the point. In the first presidential debate, some people said that Obama still won.

that's patently ridiculous, of course, Obama performed very poorly in the first debate. Polls not relying on confirmation bias should have scored it near 100-0 for Romney.

and now you prove my point, by saying that Obama didn't win the debate, despite polls that indicate otherwise. Fact is, peoples preconcieved ideals are far more important a qualifier for poll outcomes, and even elections, than information or performance will ever accomplish.

Too funny.

Golly olly, I don't think my guy won the debate last night...there goes your theory.

The polls, numbskull. the polls. They are very partisan. I don't give a rip what you think about who won the debate. Classic spin doctoring will indicate that both did, when you look at all polls and opinion pieces.

 

[Sarah G]

Obama came off as frustrated and hateful, in the audience Michelle had the same attitude. I think many folks may have been turned off by it.

These are the kind of headlines I'm seeing:

Obama Punches Hard, and Hits the Mark

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- Not a close call. President Obama won the second presidential debate as clearly and decisively as he lost the first. For anyone who disagrees, three simple words: “Please proceed, Governor.”

This icy invitation to Mitt Romney came amid an exchange about the killings of State Department officials in Libya. Obama noted that in his initial Rose Garden remarks, he classified the attack as an act of terror. Romney, perhaps misinformed by the right-wing propaganda machine, tried to insist that the president waited weeks to call the incident terrorism. “Get the transcript,” Obama said.

Moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and noted that Obama was correct. (Indeed, according to the transcript, Obama classified the attack as among “acts of terror” that would not deter or deflect U.S. foreign policy.) Having embarrassed himself, Romney had the good sense to move on.

It was a moment that encapsulated what Obama accomplished Tuesday night: He punched hard, and he punched with facts.

In these debates, superficialities can be important. Downcast and mopey in the first encounter, this time Obama was sharp and combative throughout. He went after Romney directly and personally; I lost track of the number of times Obama charged that some Romney assertion or another was flatly untrue. He quoted Romney’s past statements that directly contradict what Romney is saying now. All evening, he was in Romney’s face.

Obama Punches Hard, and Hits the Mark | RealClearPolitics

Oooo, ooooo,ooooo I can play too!!!

Rom’s blow for leadership staggers Comeback Kid



Michael Goodwin

It’s the future, stupid.

If the test of last night’s showdown is whether President Obama was more aggressive and energetic than he was in the first debate, then he wins the Comeback Kid award. But if the standard is who is more focused and better prepared to create jobs and improve the American economy in the next four years, then the winner was Mitt Romney.

He looks and sounds increasingly like a man who is ready to take on the enormous challenges of being president.


Rom’s blow for leadership staggers Comeback Kid - NYPOST.com

Unfortunately unlike the first debate nobody won this one.

Only an idiot would quote the NY Post..