[y66]

kenberg, on 2012-October-16, 10:37, said:

Here are some topics that I predict will arise tonight.:

Economy: It has not gone the way we hoped it would. OK, the past is past. What are the plans and expectations for the future?

The Middle East:: What is the role of the US? For two specifics, Syria seems to be heading toward (or achieved) chaos, Iran is heading toward a bomb. We should do what?

Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid: There really are issues of affordability. We should address this how?

Taxes and the debt: We will get the debt under control how?

No doubt there will be other issues, but it's hard to see these not arising. The candidates will be judged on whether they duck these issues or give answers that will stand up under scrutiny.

re: taxes and the debt ... here's a comparison of proposals and an analysis by Jackie Calmes

[luke warm]

Wild card tonite is candy Crowley. Look to whether or not she leans too heavily towards obama

[lalldonn]

Yes, it should be a shame if she acted like the last moderator and tried to make them answer the questions she asks.

[andrei]

I cant find where Obama defined Benghazi attack as terrorist on Sep 12.

http://www.whitehous...ssy-staff-libya

Word attack/attackers was mentioned 8 times, terrorist 0 times.

One general statement right before the end of the speech "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..." = "terrorist attack"?

But even the moderator agreed, so I must be missing something.

[mike777]

andrei, on 2012-October-16, 23:33, said:

I cant find where Obama defined Benghazi attack as terrorist on Sep 12.

http://www.whitehous...ssy-staff-libya

Word attack/attackers was mentioned 8 times, terrorist 0 times.

One general statement right before the end of the speech "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..." = "terrorist attack"?

But even the moderator agreed, so I must be missing something.

1) did not watch 90% debate


2) my best guess is none of this matters....none.....

my best guess is voters who are undecided cant find that city on a map

iF YOU FOUND the President is a leader in this debate ..you will vote for him.....

I saw tiny bit where the President said he is for huge oil and gass drilling......I did not see one tiny bit about other issues but you may have seen other....

I see Prez cut taxes...end war......tax rich.......give poor lots and lots of stuff.....

I see Romney...raise taxable income.....not end war..... not tax rich....give poor less and less stuff....

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2012-October-16, 23:39, said:

2) my best guess is none of this matters....none.....

No, I didn't see what the big deal was, or why the President should be expected to know all the details the day after the attack.

[mike777]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-16, 23:56, said:

No, I didn't see what the big deal was, or why the President should be expected to know all the details the day after the attack.

note your key word "all"

I mean you do know this attack was live...i mean live over 6 hours with phone..video...etc....but I agree


the president will never know all the facts......

I mean more than 30,days later the prez does not know all the facts.....expect this to be true in another 30 days.

btw this was 9/11 if that means anything.


-----


btw what did Nato do against this attack on US soil...just asking?

Nato was very very close to this.. I hope the USA told Nato but we are not told ......the prez does not know......

Again we are talking about usa amb....

[gwnn]

No New Girl this week for this?

[luke warm]

andrei, on 2012-October-16, 23:33, said:

I cant find where Obama defined Benghazi attack as terrorist on Sep 12.

he didn't, and having the obviously biased moderator confirming something that did not happen was uncalled for... but romney missed a big chance here, by not simply asking "if it's true you knew it was terrorism the day after, why did you spend the next 2 weeks blaming it on a video? you mentioned the video 6 times during your u.n. speech, terrorist attack zero times... why did you send susan rice out 5 days afterwards, blaming it on a video?"

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2012-October-17, 00:03, said:

btw what did Nato do against this attack on US soil...just asking?

Nato was very very close to this.. I hope the USA told Nato but we are not told ......the prez does not know......

Again we are talking about usa amb....

What attack against "US soil"?

Embassies and consulates don't automatically have extra territoriality unless it is specifically created via a bilateral treaty.

Talk about "does not know".

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-17, 03:50, said:

>I cant find where Obama defined Benghazi attack as terrorist on Sep 12.

he didn't, and having the obviously biased moderator confirming something that did not happen was uncalled for... but romney missed a big chance here, by not simply asking "if it's true you knew it was terrorism the day after, why did you spend the next 2 weeks blaming it on a video? you mentioned the video 6 times during your u.n. speech, terrorist attack zero times... why did you send susan rice out 5 days afterwards, blaming it on a video?"

Talk about obviously biased

Here is transcript from last night

Quote

ROMNEY: I think (it's) interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
OBAMA: That's what I said.
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?
OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror.

And here is a quote from from Obama's Rose Garden speach the day after the attack:

Quote

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.

Here is a second Obama quote from the following day

Quote

I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world, anybody who would do us harm, no act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.

The big difference between this week and last is that Obama was prepared to call Romney out on his lies.

[y66]

Nice to see Obama making an effort and Romney looking somewhat less smug. I can't believe this race is so close.

[PassedOut]

y66, on 2012-October-17, 06:44, said:

Nice to see Obama making an effort and Romney looking somewhat less smug. I can't believe this race is so close.

I thought that both made their points last night. Obama had prepared a lot better this time.

Constance and I did burst out laughing at Romney's "binders full of women."

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-17, 07:18, said:

Constance and I did burst out laughing at Romney's "binders full of women."

Romney's binder's full of women turns out to be another lie

http://www.theatlant...mething/263740/

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-17, 04:59, said:

Talk about obviously biased

agree... even crowley said afterwards that romney was right and that his speech was speaking of "acts of terror" in a generic, and not libya-specific, sense... and if you actually believe obama's rose garden speech was an admission that the attack was terrorism, maybe you can explain why in every appearance for a 2 week period he blamed, stupidly, a video and called it a riot of sorts

hrothgar, on 2012-October-17, 07:24, said:

Romney's binder's full of women turns out to be another lie

http://www.theatlant...mething/263740/

lies? you want lies?

Quote

"I told you I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and I did. I told you I’d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have."

even the huffington post found that hard to swallow

Quote

"He called the Arizona law a model for the nation."

the cnn transcript shows that romney was speaking specifically of the e-verify section, which he pointed out in the debate - another one, by the way, where the prez was given a large time advantage

Quote

"They rely on it for mammograms."

this was about cutting funding for planned parenthood... the trouble is, pp does not perform mammograms

concrning the drop in oil/gas productin on fed lands, obama said

Quote

"And the production is up....What you’re saying is just not true."

however, even greenwire admitted as much, going so far as to confirm romney's statistics... there are many more examples of obama's lies

y66, on 2012-October-17, 06:44, said:

Nice to see Obama making an effort and Romney looking somewhat less smug. I can't believe this race is so close.

maybe the state of the economy has something to do with it? some people seem to think so

[Flem72]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-17, 04:59, said:

Talk about obviously biased

Here is transcript from last night

And here is a quote from from Obama's Rose Garden speach the day after the attack:

Here is a second Obama quote from the following day

The big difference between this week and last is that Obama was prepared to call Romney out on his lies.

Hilarious. I guess he just doesn't have the speaking skills to say "the attack was organized and carried out by al-Queda-linked terrorist forces and we know that because we had eyes on in real time." After all, the American people, really, just deserve vagaries and platitudes.

Oh, but what to do about the State Dept. official(s) who was (were) observing the attack in real time? Or Ms. Crowley's hasty retraction ? Or Ms. Rice's appearances on the talk shows? And what was BHO being told when he "got on the 'phone right after being informed about the attack"? Something like "Mr. President, these demonstrators had mortars and rpgs, isn't that weird"? I was kind of hoping Hilary would stand up, call him out and refuse to be made the scapegoat....

What I think: BHO knows Libya is his. My understanding from folks in service is that this attack was not happening without the complicity of Libyan security assets (ambassador supposedly on the move in/to secret location). BHO doesn't want to have to admit that he's no better at figuring out how not to put his trust in Middle Eastern bad guys than anyone else and thereby ruin what the BHO Broadcasting System has been touting as a "regime change success."

[luke warm]

Flem72, on 2012-October-17, 09:19, said:

Hilarious. I guess he just doesn't have the speaking skills to say "the attack was organized and carried out by al-Queda-linked terrorist forces and we know that because we had eyes on in real time." After all, the American people, really, just deserve vagaries and platitudes.

Oh, but what to do about the State Dept. official(s) who was (were) observing the attack in real time? Or Ms. Crowley's hasty retraction ? Or Ms. Rice's appearances on the talk shows? And what was BHO being told when he "got on the 'phone right after being informed about the attack"? Something like "Mr. President, these demonstrators had mortars and rpgs, isn't that weird"? I was kind of hoping Hilary would stand up, call him out and refuse to be made the scapegoat....

What I think: BHO knows Libya is his. My understanding from folks in service is that this attack was not happening without the complicity of Libyan security assets (ambassador supposedly on the move in/to secret location). BHO doesn't want to have to admit that he's no better at figuring out how not to put his trust in Middle Eastern bad guys than anyone else and thereby ruin what the BHO Broadcasting System has been touting as a "regime change success."

libya will come up at the next debate... i'm surprised nobody mentioned this gem by obama: "When I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse."

say what? then he went on to say that romney could probably get gas back to that price, but at the cost of putting us "back in the same mess"... so let me see if i have this right... lower gas prices because the economy was in the crapper, and the key to getting those prices lower than today is to put it *back* in the crapper? geez

[Flem72]

luke warm, on 2012-October-17, 09:39, said:

i'm surprised nobody mentioned this gem by obama

Just want to air a long-time gripe: Why does no one look these guys in the eyes and say "Tax rate cuts don't have to be "PAID FOR" except in the imagination of a liberal static-model idiot who calculates everything against projections based on the way things are right now"?

[awm]

Obama has clearly cut taxes for both middle-class families and small businesses. Luke Warm's own link verifies this! The specific count of "cut taxes 18 times for small businesses" uses dubious accounting (it includes extensions of temporary tax cuts, and includes passage of some temporary tax cuts that have now expired, and in any case many of the individual tax cuts are small and targeted) -- of course, I have frequently heard Republicans in congress use similar accounting of votes to raise/lower taxes and it's not clear exactly how such a count should be made (or why it would be meaningful, since one big tax break could easily be more impactful than dozens of small ones).

On the Arizona law, Romney has said a lot of things. The particular "model for the nation" statement was only about E-Verify (Romney's right on that) but it's also true that Romney said he would stop challenging the Arizona law in the courts, has generally supported states having their own immigration laws such as this, and appointed a big supporter of the Arizona law as his immigration expert. Obama's general point (that Romney supports the "papers please" law) seems to hold.

Planned Parenthood provides a wide spectrum of reproductive health services including breast exams. It does not provide mammograms. However, it's easy to see how someone could confuse this (even their website is not very clear) and Obama's general point that millions of women rely on planned parenthood for health care and that planned parenthood does a lot for low-income women (and not just abortion services) is true. His point that Romney wants to eliminate all federal funding for planned parenthood is also true.

On the oil/gas issue, Obama stated that oil/gas production on federal land is up. This is true if you measure from the beginning of Obama's time in office, as there were substantial year-over-year increases in both 2009 and 2010. Romney's statement that it's down 14% is true if you simply compare 2011 to 2010, but this is primarily because of a temporary moratorium on off-shore drilling permits imposed after the Deepwater Horizon spill (this moratorium has now expired). If you read Obama's statement as applying to his entire time in office (and he never specified "just 2011") then he's right.

Even on the four examples Luke Warm chose specifically to call Obama out, two are completely true and while the other two are technically false, the larger overall points still hold. I doubt Romney would do so well...

[WellSpyder]

Flem72, on 2012-October-17, 09:51, said:

Just want to air a long-time gripe: Why does no one look these guys in the eyes and say "Tax rate cuts don't have to be "PAID FOR" except in the imagination of a liberal static-model idiot who calculates everything against projections based on the way things are right now"?

Perhaps because it wouldn't be true?

No, on reflection that is hardly likely to make much difference, is it?