The Presidential Debates Have Devolved Into Liberal Controlled And Hyped Media Events

Loading

We had our debate last night, and as was expected, Crowley made her partisan views and bias a significant factor in the debate: if you deny this obvious fact, you suffer from willful ignorance or you are so lost in your bias your sanity might be in question.

Crowley let it be known, before the debate, she planned to inject her influence into the debate; after all, she has a superior intellect and is a member of the elite cadre of media engaged in the reelection of Obama. How could anyone expect or ask that she be a neutral moderator, with such superior talent, she needs to be an active participant and personality within the debate. Who knew the debate, between men vying for the most powerful position in the world, required the participation of an obvious shill for Obama to clap for Obama and allow him extra time to make crucial points because they are “important.”

When the “approved questions by undecided voters, who show up decided, and then ask questions like “how are you different from Bush” the debate has ceased to be a debate and has become a Liberal media event. Forget the fact that Michelle Obama is allowed to break the rules and lead the questioners and Crowley in applause, the debate has lost its validity. The moderators have reduced the debates from important historical meetings that allow the public to view the candidates under stress competing against each other, to the level of another Liberal hosted talk show on the alphabet networks. Allowing Obama to interrupt with impunity and talk over Romney was only one of many examples of the debate taking on the appearance of a Liberal media event; this ruins the spirit of a legitimate debate. We deserve better.

The question of President Obama’s reluctance to use the word terror in reference to Islamic Fundamentalists is well known and has brought into question the dubious nature of his loyalties. In the Rose Garden speech on September 12, 20120, Obama used the word terror once near the conclusion of his speech:

“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.”

To those of us who study the often convoluted and purposely vague speeches of politicians and Obama in particular, such a generic statement regarding terror toward the end of a speech seems to reply to terror in general; but Crowley felt the obligation, as an Obama Bootlicker, to interject herself and correct Romney, based solely on her personal assumption and interpretation of this vague reference to terror. Whether the president meant to apply the term terror to Benghazi will be a matter of conjecture, but at best the president is guilty of being vague and indirect in designating Benghazi an act of terror, if indeed, he meant Benghazi to be considered an act of terror. Yet, Crowley, with her superior intellect, has said, “yes” that is what he was saying, and the Liberal world is commending her for her rudeness and pretension.

A computer with a timer could be used more effectively and without the shameless bias that America is expected to accept as “normal;” unless, the computer is programmed with this same devious propensity of Liberals towards cheating.

If the tables were reversed and the deck was stacked against a Democrat, the hue and cry of unfairness would be unceasing; yet, the hypocrisy to even admit the obvious bias of a moderator helping a debater who wanders off course or needs help with extra time is insignificant.

The debates are nothing more than a spectacle, designed for Romney to be handicapped and to allow Obama a chance to reassert himself in the race. Still the question remains and begs to be asked: if Liberals are content to cheat and be comfortable with the mantle of corruption associated with cheating, where may we assume they draw the line. In other words, if cheating is second nature to the Liberal, how far are they prepared to go in this corruption of cheating. Do they provide Obama with the question crib sheets so that he is more well prepared?

Yes, he showed remarkable improvement from the last debate are we to assume he gained a mastery of these specific topics in a few days, when he sounded like a blithering dolt during the last debate. The Liberals are asking us to believe in their sense of honesty and integrity, but like the drunk whore in church, the hypocrisy is more than obvious as is their tendency to use whatever means necessary to gain the upper hand.

Like a trained seal, the neutral moderator is clapping for her hero
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
167 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Randy:

So what is Obam’a plan now that the average middle class family income has been reduced by$4300, and gasoline prices have doubled, and for every job Obama has created, 10 people finally quit looking for a job that isn’t there?

Randy, if you watched or read the debate transcript, he answered all those questions. You have the information you need to decide whether you agree with his plans on the economy and energy. Is it a more progressive plan that perhaps you want? Sure, it could be, so you don’t have to vote for him. That’s a lot different than a candidate refusing to share large parts of his plans making it impossible for us to draw our own conclusions. I, for one, am not going to vote for a Republican to fix the economy based on “just trust me”. I have factual evidence that Republicans know how to wreck the economy. Fixing it? Not so much. In terms Romney would understand, that’s like hiring the guy who ran your limo into a tree as your chauffeur.

What Romney is discussing is a plan. He still needs to have the congress pass the bill.

What is the plan? Please share. He has told us about the tax cut part, the part that makes everyone feel good. What about the part that is going to pay for it? If I’m mistaken, please point me to toward where Romney’s plan is worked out in detail and how he’s going to pay for a 20% tax cut. What deductions are going away, what loopholes closed? This is like buying something by giving a salesman your credit card number, and leaving the store with the promise that you’ll find out the price when you open your credit card statement. .

@Greg:

What the Obama administration has said about the Libya attack (CNN)

September 25 — President Obama on ABC’s “The View,” in response to interviewer Joy Behar’s question, “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”:

“We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there.” Obama also said “extremist militias” were suspected to have been involved.

There were a couple of things that were memorable, for me, at least, about last night’s debate that no one seems to be mentioning.

The first one was when Mitt Romney asked Obama a question, Obama turned his back on Romney, paused, turned around and spoke to Romney, then while Romney was talking, Obama turned his back on Romney again, walking away.
This is rude and not the behavior that I expect from the leader of the free world.

The second incident involved the Benghazi issue. Crowley told Romney that Obama had actually said “acts of terrorism” at which point Obama said “get the transcript.” Why, when the questions were to be from undecided voters, would Crowley have the transcript to that particular issue, i.e. Obama’s Rose Garden speech? Why not the transcripts from other issues that she new would come up? Why did Crowley decide to “fact check” this ONE issue, and not any other issue like the number of jobs created, the number of oil lease permits on federal land that have been granted under Obama, or any other issue important to the American voter?

Obama was clearly aware that Crowley had the transcript and would be able to quote from it. That requires a willing suspension of disbelief that Crowley had not earlier coordinated this with the Obama campaign. Also, the camera cut to Michelle Obama who seemed more than pleased when Obama said “get the transcript.”

@Skooks,

It’s clear from watching the debate she didn’t reference a transcript. I encourage you to seek out the video if you missed it. She made her statement from memory. Did she know Romney would make that blunder, raising that statement, and thus studied that paragraph in the speech in preparation? Or is it possible she remembered because she was at the Rose Garden speech and reported on it?

Yes she did, or did you fail to actually watch that part?

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.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-really-call-consulate-attack-in-libya-act-terror/#ixzz29bQieqm3

Only way for her to know what is in the transcript an to say, he did in fact, sir… Call it an act of terror.” Means she read and referenced the rose garden transcript because how else would she had known what he said in the garden.
Your opinion doesn’t nullify she had a copy of the transcript or referenced it in the debate.

@Tom:

Being the progressive you are (never really having to live under an oppressive government that progressives so willingly support), you are trying to conflate my point.

It is not that Crowley had the transcript in front of her, and recalled simply from memory what Obama said, it is that Obama thought Crowley had immediate access to the transcript which was quite clear to anyone with two grey cells bumping together. Obama clearly told her “get the transcript.”

Now, are you foolish enough t0 think that Obama thought the entire debate would be placed on hold until Crowley got someone to give her the transcript of his Rose Garden speech? Surely you are not THAT brain damaged.

@ Jack,

Only way for her to know what is in the transcript and to say, “he did in fact, sir… Call it an act of terror.” Means she read an referenced the rose garden transcript.

I think you missed my point. She was AT the Rose Garden during Obama’s speech. You think it more likely she read a transcript – at the speed of light – then that she remembers from being there and reporting on it?

Answer me this: how did she know Romney would make the assertion that let to the “check the transcript” moment?

@Retire,

you are trying to conflate my point.

I am? Where? I don’t recall writing to you at all.

Obama clearly told her “get the transcript.”

Hysterical! How desperate you must be to don the tin foil hat and invent this stuff. Obama was talking to Romney, looking right at him in the middle of a heated exchange! Why don’t you just admit you didn’t watch the debate live. There is no other explanation for what you’re saying. Like Obama is going to tell the moderator, on national TV, “check the transcript, like we secretly planned!” You obviously care little about credibility.

@Kevin, #53:

“I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

“We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it.”

That was hardly what any reasonable person would call a denial that Benghazi was an act of terror. The right seems to have wanted him to say what he didn’t really know with certainty. Failing to meet that expectation does not constitute a cover-up.

@Tom

Or it could be like the moderators before her, she read the content and materials over what would be asked about before the debate? Yes she was there, but to think a reporter isn’t goin to re-read a transcript or briefers on questions that will be asked is funny.

Clearly you’ve never been in an actual debate as one of the debaters or as the moderator…

And Greg keep thinking that while the White House staff has a recorded history of flipping and changing stores of what happened in Libya along with the testimonies of consulate staff that declare that the Administration denied increased security to Libya while giving no reason why the staff should be left exposed to a known hostile presecnce since the waning hours of the supposed “Arab spring.”

@Tom: Didn’t you give Obama a $4 trillion credit card and he failed to do anything with it. At least Romney has a track record of balancing large budgets. Obama has 4 years of failure. Why would 4 more years be any better? The economy is growing slower this year than last year. You lefties are so immersed in your ideology!

@Tom:

I understand you did not direct your response directly to me; instead you chose to direct your response to Skook in his response to me. So what? Sue me.

With the Benghazi attack, and the slaughter of four Americans at the hands of 7th century radical Islamists, being on the front page of any newpaper that is not openly hiding anything that might reflect badly on Obama, like the NYSlimes, everyone with an I.Q. above that of a paper weight, knew the subject would come up. They also knew that Obama was going to be questioned on the fact that he did not call that attack a “terrorist attack.”

Or do you think that David Axelrod is paid the big bucks because he’s stupid? Also, I reviewed the video of that little bit of Obama obfuscation and it is NOT clear that he is directing his “get the transcript” to Romney. Romney was standing in front of Crowley, but again, are we to assume that Obama wanted Romney to “get the transcript” while the networks put the debate on hold until it arrived?

Yes, I did watche the ENTIRE debate, in real time, although I find Obama one of the most disgusting politicians to have ever soiled the halls of the Senate and the Oval Office. But what pisses me off more than anything is the fact that you progressives seem to be under the misguided belief that every conservative is just stupid. Too stupid to catch your lies and spin. We are not. You think if you spin a fact (like Obama telling Crowley “get the transcript”) that we will simply believe you.

Unfortunately, Obama would NEVER say “like we secretly planned” anymore than he has been honest about anything else. He is the one most secretive man to ever hold the Office of President. And frankly, I do not understand why you, or anyone else, can continue to support The Won unless you don’t own a vehicle that you have to put gas in.

The Left must feel pretty silly about their brutally honest and self-reflective assessment of Obama’s performance in the first debate in light of the Right’s fanciful take on the second. Why admit the pain of reality when you can just explain things away with a wild conspiracy theory! It’s not like we haven’t seen it over and over and over before. It’s the iron clad law of Any Good News for Obama Must Be a Conspiracy

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/any-good-news-obama-must-be-conspiracy/57655/

But this inherent distrust seems to premeate every corner of the Obama record. Rather then argue that the President is out of touch with most Americans, some must go further and insist that he is not an American at all. Increased Democratic turnout sways the election? Voter fraud. Miscounting the size of a crowds at public events? The media is bending over backwards for their favorite liberal. Convention events canceled due to the weather? The National Weather Service does what they’re told. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decides a tough case in the President’s favor? He was blackmailed.

@retire05: I cringe when anyone calls them progressives. It is like calling the big bad wolf a philanthropist.

Well seems Tom is off his rocker by trying to paint people who he has no interest in understanding as nuts…

But what pisses me off more than anything is the fact that you progressives seem to be under the misguided belief that every conservative is just stupid. Too stupid to catch your lies and spin. We are not. You think if you spin a fact (like Obama telling Crowley “get the transcript”) that we will simply believe you.

I don’t think all conservatives are stupid. I think some are quite brilliant. Some on this site I have tremendous respect for. People who don’t have simplistic, cartoonish world views of course understand there are brilliant people all over the ideological spectrum. In your particular case, you’ve repeatedly given me no choice but to hold the opinion I have of you, this thread being a perfect example. But don’t worry, I am too much a gentleman to come out and say it.

So do you think aliens have anything to do with Transcriptgate?

@Tom:

So, instead of actually addressing the facts that I presented to you, you decide to take the low road. No surprise there, Tom, it’s part of your m.o. But when you try to baffle me with bullsh!t, I have no other option but to respond to your spin.

There are brilliant people on both sides of the aisle. Two of them would be Bill Clinton, the consumate stateman with the morals of an alley cat, and David Axelrod, who I believe is truely evil. As to any brilliant left wingers on this board, nope, nada, nil, nix. Just those who think they can baffle with bullsh!t thinking they are bedazzling with brillliance. That would be you, Greg, and Lib1. And when you have no answers, you call the questions “cartoonish” because it gives you an out.

Now, let’s get down to the nut cutting, shall we?

Do you agree that Obama’s handlers knew the Benghazi issue would come up?
Do you agree that his handlers also knew that the issue of Obama’s response to Benghazi (it was the vile video) would also come up?
Do you agree that Crowley basically bailed Obama out on that issue?
Do you agree that Obama said “get the transcript”? And if so, did he think the debate would be put on hold until someone got it or did he previously know that Crowley already had it? Which is it?

The questions are so simple even you should be able to understand them. So let’s have your answers.

@Tom:

Do you think first before you act? It seems the only one leaping in theories here are you. And why are you bringing up aliens? Do you and Greg share the same medication?

Your opinion means very little to me, but I’m shocked you’ve spent so much time actually putting a thought together of me. It shows you care. :3

@Greg wrote:

That was hardly what any reasonable person would call a denial that Benghazi was an act of terror. The right seems to have wanted him to say what he didn’t really know with certainty. Failing to meet that expectation does not constitute a cover-up.

I didn’t say that Obama denied Benghazi was an act of terror, I said that Obama refused to categorize Benghazi as an act of terror when asked point blank by Barbara Walters. Obama basically said, “We don’t know yet.” That’s a fine answer, but it impeaches his statements at the debate.

Benghazi could not possibly be included in the “acts of terror” in Obama’s 9/12 speech because he subsequently refused to categorize it as an act of terror when asked pointedly. Obama can’t have it both ways. Words have meaning.

Perhaps Crowley didn’t know any better, but Obama was deliberately deceitful at the debate. Sadly, several “fact checkers” continue to perpetuate confusion.

FYI if you were a gentleman Tom, you’d taken the time not to try and insult others or as retired has pointed by taking low road blows against people that present material or challenges to your opinions.

You’re fully entitled to your opinions and I’m currently working in an industry that builds the very machines of war that is used by the United States military to defends your right to hold such thoughts and opinions of me and frankly I wouldn’t have it any other way. But one thing you are not entitled to is to be left unchallenged on issues by any of the other posters here and frankly opinions do not trump facts. You’ve been using opinions as facts and that is in itself cartoonish so you turn around and bring in aliens into this? Do you have xenophbia against German heritages or Scottish heritages? If so I’m sorry for scaring you.

Have argued the debatable point over what the meaning of the word “is” is in other threads…but the Problem with Crowley interjecting herself into the debate conversation was …She’s not running for president. And any statements or judgements or opinions or misstatements from “her” have huge consequences for the candidates when 60 million people are listening to HER when she says it….and 1 million might be watching her when she tries to clarify it.

Crowley claims she said both men were correct in their points…she went on to explain it in detail AFTER the debate when nobody was watching that “Romney had a valid point”. But, what did she actually SAY in the heat of the moment on stage? Lets look:

CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

She even got Romney’s point WRONG! Romney was saying Obama and his WH were pushing the meme that this was a spontaneous attack based on the film, and that it took them 2 weeks to admit that it was an act of “terrorism”. Candy gets tongue tied on it and says the opposite and then says…lets move on leaving “her” point stuck on Romney.

Now, it’s one thing if a Candidate steps on their tongue or trips over their shoes in a debate in front of 60mil people. It’s another thing for a moderator to step in and do it for them. To make it worse…Candy is going around networks telling folks that she said something totally different!

So, does she then give Romney a chance to clear it up? Lets look:

ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how —

OBAMA: Candy, I’m —

ROMNEY: — this was a spontaneous —

CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me —

OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation —

CROWLEY: I know you —

OBAMA: — about foreign policy.

CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to — I want to move you on and also —

OBAMA: OK. I’m happy to do that, too.

CROWLEY: — the transcripts and —

OBAMA: I just want to make sure that —

CROWLEY: — figure out what we —

OBAMA: — all of these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered.

CROWLEY: Because what I — what I want to do, Mr. President, stand there a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzalez, who brought up a question that we hear a lot, both over the Internet and from this crowd.

Given that…it should have been left to the candidates to hash out their arguments, the voters to decide and Candy and company could have hashed it around all they wanted AFTER the debate on CNN at their roundtable.
She thought she was making both candidates points but didn’t (screwed it up) and then moved on leaving Romney stuck with her tongue tied statement. I think it was a great disservice and I hope it will never be repeated.

I’ve got a question, while candy was winning her debate with mitt,

What was barack doing?

@ Mr Irons,

Please point out where I insulted you, and then please point out where you’ve similarly admonished anyone for bad manners who isn’t lumped into the “Lib/Prog” camp, for example Retire above. I have no problem with you wanting to ride a high horse, but a double standard is something else entirely.

@Greg:

That was hardly what any reasonable person would call a denial that Benghazi was an act of terror.

OK, so Obama mentioned “act of terror” is his Rose Garden statement. Why did Susan Rice come out two days later on all the Sunday talk shows and say it was the video? Did she not get the memo?

Rice to Face the Nation~
RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of– of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy.

emphasis added mine
Why did Biden say it was protests at the VP debate?

MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that’s exactly what we were told —

MS. RADDATZ: By who?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That’s why there’s also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat in the — from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there were any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again. But —

@Tom:

I asked you six questions. You obviously don’t want to answer them. Why? Are they too complicated for you? Is English your second language and you didn’t understand them? Or are you dodging the answers because the answers would not favor Obama?

One should be surprised that the typical liberals, and liberal/progressives, who post here are still insisting that Obama “won” the debate. I say that because of the continuing “fact-checking” of Obama’s statements in the debate repeatedly show outright lying and misleading falsehoods.

And some commenters (Tom) still want to claim that Romney’s statement about Obama failing to call it an “act of terror” for two weeks, was a “blunder” on Romney’s part. This after Crowley herself acknowledged, immediately after the debate, that Romney was “right in the main”, meaning, Romney’s point that he made was, in fact, correct.

Speaking louder, or more often, or a combination of both, doesn’t necessarily make a person a debate winner. Particularly when the person presents as many inaccurate, or outright lies and falsehoods, as Obama presented.

@retire05:
In answer to your six questions:
Do you agree that Obama’s handlers knew the Benghazi issue would come up? – Yes

Do you agree that his handlers also knew that the issue of Obama’s response to Benghazi (it was the vile video) would also come up? – I agree that Obama knew that Romney would portray it that way, yes.

Do you agree that Crowley basically bailed Obama out on that issue? – Crowley corrected Romney who was making a fool out of himself. I am fine with the criticism that moderators should refrain from fact checking. I am not fine with conspiracy theories, backed by zero evidence, that imply she is an Obama accomplice.

Do you agree that Obama said “get the transcript”? – Yes, obviously to Romney.

And if so, did he think the debate would be put on hold until someone got it or did he previously know that Crowley already had it? Of course I don’t think that. It’s preposterous to think that Obama would think such a thing would not be viewed as highly suspect and irregular.

So now that I’ve answered your questions, perhaps you can do me the courtesy of answering a few of mine:
Why is your first instinct in every situation where Obama might receive credit to immediately latch on to whatever ridiculous conspiracy is floated without taking the time to research other much more likely explanations?
Do you feel any accountability for supporting discredited conspiracy theories, such as “Obama will never be tough on Islamic terrorism because he’s a secret Muslim” or “Obama was not born in the US” or “Unemployment did not really fall last month”?
Have you ever acknowledged publicly – here for instance – you were wrong and expressed regret for spreading theories that were later disproven? Or do you just like to pour gasoline on fires irregardless of the damage, and then move on to the next opportunity to do so?
What would a person with integrity do when she discovers she was actively spreading malicious slander?
Can you look people out of work in the eye considering the falsehoods about the President you’ve habitually and actively participated in spreading have resulted in a toxic atmosphere in Washington, where many Tea Party Republican Reps feel compelled to parrot those same lines of attack about Obama, while actively working against any of his initiatives, regardless of whether or not they will help the economy?

@johngalt:

And some commenters (Tom) still want to claim that Romney’s statement about Obama failing to call it an “act of terror” for two weeks, was a “blunder” on Romney’s part.

Not true. The blunder was attempting a “gotcha” sound bite moment through insisting that Obama didn’t use the term “act of terror” in the Rose Garden speech. That obviously is not true, so instead of scoring points legitimately, Romney appeared foolish and unfamiliar with the speech. That’s a blunder in my book.

@Tom:

I will admit that Romney didn’t handle it correctly. But the point Romney was attempting to make, that Obama never called the attack in Benghazi specifically “an act of terror” until two weeks after it happened, was upheld by no less than Crowley herself, right after the debate.

The only blunder on Romney’s part was not making his point clearer. And I blame him for that more so than anything else.

@Tom:

Not true. The blunder was attempting a “gotcha” sound bite moment through insisting that Obama didn’t use the term “act of terror” in the Rose Garden speech. That obviously is not true, so instead of scoring points legitimately, Romney appeared foolish and unfamiliar with the speech. That’s a blunder in my book.

Romney did not claim the term was not used in the speech, he claimed that Obama didn’t call Benghazi an act of terror, and he was right.

I was disappointed in some of Romney’s other answers, but I don’t blame Romney for this deception. Crowley should have been clearer and not quickly changed the subject.

@Tom:

I am more than happy to answer your questions, unlike your fellow progressives who run from them:

Why is your first instinct in every situation wehre Obama might receive credit to immediately latch on to whatever ridiculous conspiracy is floated with taking time to research other much more likely explanations?

To begin with, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t hang on Alex Jones’ every word, don’t subscribe to the “grassy knoll” philosphy, don’t think my telephone is tapped by the NSA and have never seen a black helicopter hovering over my house. But some things are so blatantly obvious that even those with limited mental capacity have to acknowledge that there is something wrong.

Do you feel any accountability for supporting discredited conspriracy theories, such as “Obama will never be tough on Islamic terrorism because he’s a secret Muslim” or “Obama was not born in the US” or “Unemployment did not really fall last month”?

To begin with, you cannot present any example of where I have supported any of the conspiracy theories you listed. Do I think Obama is tough on radical Islam? No. And please provide any statement from me where I made the claim Obama is a “secret Muslim” because it will not be easy for you to do. Do I think Obama is a Muslim? No, and have said that before, but what I do think is he is is an opportunist, not really devoted to Christian tenents and simply used Jeremiah Wright, Jr.’s church as a political stepping stone in a community that was not really trusting of outsiders, which Obama was. If anything, I think Obama is most likely an antheist, in the mold of his mother.

As to the unemployment rate dropping last month, how convenient was it that California did not provide the BLS of their numbers? Ironicially, it was just reported that this weeks unemployment numbers took a jump to 388,000 from the expected 364,000, which would account for the 27,000 not reported in last month’s figures by California. I also can do the math; when you drop people from the workforce completely, it reduces the unemployment rate. That has been a consistant practice of the BLS since June, 2009. Example: you have 100 people in the workforce. 90 are employed and 10 or not. The unemployment rate is then 10%. But if you drop that number unemployed to 8 because 2 has been dropped from the workforce, you now have 98 in the workforce, 8 unemployed and that makes the unemployment rate 8.16%. It is all smoke and mirrors and I am amazed a smart guy like you can’t see it.

Have you ever acknowledged publicly — here for instance — you were wrong and expressed regret for spreading theories that were later disproven?

What theories did I spread that were later disproven?

Or do you just like to pour gasoline on fires irregardless of the damage, and then move on to the next opportunity to do so?

That is not a question, it is an accusation with a question mark behind it and not really worthy of any response.

What would a person with integrity do when she discovers she was actively spreading malicious slander?

What slander did I spread? That Candy Crowley obviously tried to help Barack Obama in the last debate? That was clear to anyone who can see. Or that Obama said “get the transcript” which, no matter how you try to spin it, was not directed at Mitt Romney. Which can only lead rational thinking adults to the conclusion that Obama was under the impression that Crowley had the transcript.

Can you look people out of work in the eye considering the falsehoods about the President you’ve habitually and actively participated in spreading have resulted in a toxic atmosphere in Washington, where many Tea Party Republican Reps feel compelled to parrot those same lines of attack about Obama, while actively working against any of his initiatives, regardless of where or not they will help the economy?

Wow! there is a lot built into that question, but few/no specifics, which is par for the course with progressives like you. Just blanket accusations.

So, to begin with; what “falsehoods about the President” have I habitually and actively participated in spreading? Link those comments of mine that substantiate that accusation. Tea Party Republican Reps compelled to parrot those same lines of attack about Obama? What lines? Be specific. Vague inuendos ain’t gonna cut it. Help the economy? What exactly do you think Obama has done to help the economy which is seeing smaller growth this year than last, and 2010 was smaller than 2009 growth?

You use questions simply as a method to make accusations but you give no specifics. I am more than happy to address specific points but you don’t do that. You are like the typical left winger who throws sh!t simple to see if it will stick.

So I have answered every specific question you have asked, but I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you over non-specifics that you can then turn and spin. You want to know how I feel specifically on ANY issue. Ask outright.

@retire05:

Apologists for Obama will have a lot to self-reflect on when the truth is outed. That is, if they can somehow summon back whatever intellectual honesty they use to have before Obama was elected.

@retire05:

You claim not to be a conspiracy theorist, but within the last month alone you’ve jumped 0n the unemployment conspiracy and this Candy Crawley conspiracy, both of which you still defend as rational. I wonder if any of this rings a bell for you:

people who believe in one such theory tend to believe in many other equally improbable and often contradictory cabals. This observation has recently been confirmed empirically by University of Kent psychologists Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton in a paper entitled “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories,” published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science this past January. The authors begin by defining a conspiracy theory as “a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal” that is “notoriously resistant to falsification … with new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming evidence.” Once you believe that “one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy, [it] suggests that many such plots are possible.” With this cabalistic paradigm in place, conspiracies can become “the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system.”

For some reason, I amnot seeing as many Obama signs and bumper stickers here in Colorado as I did in 2008. Also, I heard there was an Obama Bumper Sticker removal kit that has been selling well. Does this mean anything? Are people who supported Obama afraid to admit they voted for him now? I know it was very difficult to find anyone who voted for Carter during the Carter reelection campaign!

It seems to me that if we take Obama at his word, that he did identify the action at Bengazi an “act of terror” (terrorism implied), then his position on the subsequent events becomes even more tenuous.

On the 11th anniversary of 9/11, an outpost of US sovereign territory is successfully invaded and razed leaving a US ambassador and the other US servicemen dead. Did Obama schedule a primetime address to the American people? No he chose to conflate a known terrorist attack with an unrelated riot in another country, thus starting the spin cycle. He so softpeddled the announcement of the terrorist attack that no-one in the universe heard it until the CYA team dredged it up. Certainly not the Whitehouse spokesman two days later. Certainly not the UN ambassador 5 days later. Not even the president himself two weeks later when he was sitting in as eye candy for the gals on the View rather than having substantive, face-to-face discussions with world leaders in a time of crisis.

After softpeddling the biggest acknowledged terrorist strike on American soil since 9/11, this president continued his day by skipping (again) his daily threat briefing. Then hopping aboard Airforce One for a taxpayer funded jaunt to Vegas for some elbow rubbing.

Yesterday, the “Al-quida is on the run” talking point disappeared from Obama’s stump speech. But he got a full month of use out of it by not being honest with the American people up front.

Obama has never considered Bengazi as anything other than a political issue. The true tragedy in all this is that he set the Muslim world on fire purely for political cover. No-one in the Muslim world was paying attention to the outrage of the day in Cairo. But when an American Ambassador is assassinated in an Arab city, they ALL tune in to hear what the US President has to say about it.

@retire05:

That was clear to anyone who can see. Or that Obama said “get the transcript” which, no matter how you try to spin it, was not directed at Mitt Romney. Which can only lead rational thinking adults to the conclusion that Obama was under the impression that Crowley had the transcript.

Why would Obama, in a back and forth with Romney, in response to a question by Romney that makes perfect sense within that context, break off and say something directly to the moderator that doesn’t really make any sense? How would Obama know that Romney would grow insistent to make an incorrect point, and thus would have Crawley prepped to point out he’s wrong? Why would Obama need to stop the debate and have the moderator fact check something when hundreds of media outlets and twitter are fact checking the debate real-time? Your scheme disintegrates under the most cursory scrutiny.

It wasn’t a right or wrong question. Anyone who read the president’s speech knows that he never actually said “Benghazi was a terrorist act”….which is what the president says he said — and Crowley confirmed as accurate. Those words are not in the speech in that way. He is using an “inference” from the use of the phrase (no act of terror shall ..etc) in speaking about 9/11 within that speech to propose that he was implying that or inferring that to be also about Benghazi attack.

But if you actually watch the speech…he references directly the Benghazi attack at least 7 times and each time..uses different words to describe it…including referencing the video …religious freedom, etc. When spoke directly about the attack, he never used the word terror or terrorism nor suggested directly that it was an act of terrorism. He put it in the context of the protests over the video, and then called it other things.

The point is…it’s a debatable point. Personally, I think it’s obvious the president was parsing words to try and throw a curve into the narrative that they pushed for 2 weeks . And if you were take the president’s side in this (as Crowley did) then it brings up an even larger question which is….if they believed this was a direct act of terrorism as the president suggests…then why did they push a different meme for 2 weeks and specifically say that it was not (to the best of their knowledge) a terror attack?

This is entirely a debatable point where there is inference that can be taken either way. And I think the larger point is…that “any” debatable point should be left to candidates and voters to decide and not have a moderators POV interjected into to take sides on. Specifically, when they get it wrong, and then wrongly try to rephrase one sides argument.

If the president had said the factual truth….that he used the “word” terror in his speech when speaking about 9/11 and we should therefore infer that this meant he was talking about the Benghazi attacks (even though he specifically defined that otherwise in the same speech)……he would have sounded like an idiot. So, what the president said….the he called Benghazi attack an act of terror….is an inference. What Romney said…that the president related Benghazi attack to the film/protests is factually true and in that speech that way. Further, that the presidents office continued to push that meme for 2 weeks before calling it a terrorist act is also factually true and not an inference.

The president was parsing words and Romney took the bait and stumbled in to the debate over the word “terror”. That was his mistake (on him). But, Crowley’s interjection into this was completely wrong…and she’s lucky this hasn’t become a defining moment issue for that debate..least she get sued. You can bet CNN is also aware of it…as they have her on every talk show she can find….saying she was just trying to move things along..and rewriting what she actually said in the debate.

Fortunately for Mitt, the only thing the liberals want to talk about are Big Bird and Binders (while their numbers slip away…even among women).

@Tom:

Similar questions can be asked, showing that there was, indeed, collusion from the start between Obama and the moderator. Why on earth would the moderator have the transcript? How would Obama know she had the transcript?

Sure you can claim it was just the moderator being prepared, in having the transcript. But how do you explain Obama looking directly at Crowley and telling her to “Get the transcript”, if there wasn’t any collusion? There was never any admittance from Crowley prior to that point that she had it. How did Obama know?

Sorry, but your “scheme” falls apart due to that last question. How did Obama know? Occam’s razor suggests that because Obama knew Crowley had the transcript of the speech, that she and the Obama campaign were colluding during the debate.

And this;

How would Obama know that Romney would grow insistent to make an incorrect point, and thus would have Crawley prepped to point out he’s wrong?

You italicized “incorrect”, Tom. Answer this: Do you think Romney’s point was incorrect?

Reminder: Crowley herself noted after the debate ended that Romney was “right in the main”, referring to his point about Obama and his admin NOT calling it an act of terrorism.

@Tom:

You admitted that the Obama team not only knew that the Benghazi issue would come up, but that the handling of that issue, by the administration, would come up. But now you want to pretend (spin) that the Obama campaign team did not think far enough ahead to prepare a canned statement, demanding proof via the transcript? You do want to stretch credulity to absurd levels, don’t you?

So……………………………….

answer this: if the Obama had, in fact, meant Benghazi when talking about “acts of terror” (although Benghazi was only ONE act of terror, not act[s]) why did both Obama, and Hillary Clinton, repeatedly refer to the video in their speeches at the hanger that received the bodies of the slain Americans on Sept. 14th? Why did the administration allow Susan Rice to appear on not one, but five, Sunday talk shows claiming Benghazi was a reaction to a video? Why did Jay Carney, in numerous pressers, said that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous attack due to the video? Why did Obama and Hillary Clinton create a TV commercial blaming the Benghazi attack on a video that appeared only on foreign stations?

If Obama knew this was a terrorist attack that took the lives of four Americans in Benghazi during his Rose Garden speech on Sept 12, why two days later was the reason completely changed to reflect that the attack was due to a video?

Answer that, if you have the cajones.

“Get the transcript’— Directed to Crowley who was IN POSSESSION of it?

How utterly ridiculous does that seem?

I saw an ’08 Obama bumper sticker the other day. The car was all beat up, not well maintained..and smoking badly, coughing and surging, barely making it down the road with the back loaded down with what looked like his belongings filling up the window in the back. The bumper sticker was old, cracked, and faded, with the corners peeling up……Hope and Change. Obama 08.

Mitt could not get better advertisement than this guy driving around.

@Richard Wheeler:

How utterly ridiculous does that seem?

Yes, Rich, how utterly ridiculous is that. Considering, if no collusion, that Obama COULDN’T have known that Crowley had the transcript, yet, he specifically tells her to “Get the transcript”.

How does he know she had it? Answer that question Rich.

@johngalt:

Reminder: Crowley herself noted after the debate ended that Romney was “right in the main”, referring to his point about Obama and his admin NOT calling it an act of terrorism.

Yes, the problem with that is….65 million people saw the debate. 1 million saw her correct herself on that point.
The other part is this….BOTH things could NOT inherently be true at the same time. The president could not have both called it an act of terrorism and “not” called it an act of terrorism until 2 weeks later. Which is further evidence she was also “wrong” to definitively call an inference that is arguable a factual statement.

John ” Get the trannscript” is like “roll the tape” It doesn’t necessarily mean right now.He meant lets confirm at some point what I actually said.
If you Actually believe that BHO thought Crowley was in possession of the transcript of the Rose Garden speech, and was gonna break it out, you must think your Wolverines pulled out a win over The Irish this year.

Re the debates Obama lost #1 big.#2 thought they both were lousy-no winner.

@Richard Wheeler:

Rich, your continued apologizing for Obama and the media is really astonishing.

Obama looked directly at Crowley and stated “Get the transcript”. He said it like he knew she had it with her. I watched the debate. I’ve watched that portion many times, as it’s been played over CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the rest, and it is exactly how I described it.

Obama did not state that request to the audience. He didn’t look up, or over anywhere else. He looked directly at Crowley and said that. He even motioned with his hand for her to do so. All while looking directly at her.

How did he know, Rich?

@Skook:

Skook, it wasn’t “Get the script”.

It was, “Get the transcript”. All while looking directly at Crowley, and motioning with his hand for her to do so.

How does he know that she has it?

@johngalt:

I just checked about 6 photos of the debate and her desk.
I was looking for a lap top.
Otherwise she would have had to have a physical copy of that set of remarks by Obama on her desk.
No lap top.
Did Obama think Candy was really slim and hiding all sorts of papers in her clothes a la Sandy Berger???