The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I found this one kind of the same as the 1st one. Obama was more animated due to stress from losing the 1st debate so badly. Since it has been said that Romney didn't have many specifics about his plans for the future. I noticed that Obama had even less specifics. It's disturbing that a few times Obama refused to answer or ignored questions that should have been answered. At the same time though, I find it very amusing that Obama spoke of being president in the past tense when he said:


Hopefully this presidential failure knows something we don't with his past tense statement and his sorry ass will get booted out before it gets much worse. But I've pretty much accepted the fact the the entitlement crowd, freeloaders, and elitist bleeding hears liberal will prop him to receive their free shit and push their agendas.

I found last night annoying and a bit uncomfortable. I watched the first 40 minutes and didn't hear anything new so I turned it off.  I really didn't like how both guys pretty much ignored the questions to address their talking points. To be perfecty honest, I really don't know what a truely undecided person could have gained from that other than Obama acted more like he wanted to continue his job... which didn't come across last time.

I also wonder why these moderators seem to be cherry picked for the left. I mean that whole Libya exchange with that Crowley idiot getting in the middle of it. She knew Romney was right the whole time and she back tracked later and said Romney was right about what he was saying. WTF, is Obama screwing that ugly broad or something ? Moderator my ass, more like tag team partner. Just more crooked shit from Washington, par for the course. I pity us all.....

Agree. I heard that she attended the wedding of the Obama's. They go way back. Wonder how she got picked? Doesn't both sides have to agree? Worst job of moderating I ever saw. Ask the question and STFU.

Fact checkers have already verified that drilling permits on Federal land are down since Obama took over, disputing what Obama said.

Finally, we all know the White House blamed the video for the attacks on the consulate. It was not until just recently that they admitted it was a terrioist attack. Just another of many lies.  Meanwhile, Obama runs around the country pounding his chest that Bin Laden is dead. Not like that pissed them off or anything. lol

As an undecided vote, I just wish there was a moderator out there who could force someone to answer a question. That's what I would love to see. I've only watched a handful of these debates so that might have happened in the past, but I doubt it.

Outright and blatant lie. #1 Obama did indeed say terrorism #2 Crowley defended her psotion today. I'm not sure where you get your news from.

Please explain how it is a lie. Obama said "act of terror" and is on video. He said in the debate that he said so. You use of "White House" is a misrepresentation of facts. Now it is widely agreed members of the administration may have been saying the video, but Obama called it an act of terror and said that he did so. There is no lie in that.

Keep in mind I'm not for either side, but from the fact-checking I've seen, both are right. Just browsing Yahoo this morning:

Obama did mention “acts [plural] of terror”, but this followed references to “the 9/11 attacks” and “troops who made the ultimate sacrifice” against acts of terror. He was not describing the Libya attacks, that is clear.  Obama had gone before the U.N. thirteen days after the attacks, mentioning a video six times as the source of the violence and failing to mention terror in the same context once. And also the statement he made at the UN, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" which is in reference to the video that they claimed was the source of the attacks. Using the word terror one time in an ambiguous way is in no way an excuse. Obama thinks the US citizens are fools to believe this obvious lie to cover his ass.

^^^ Have you seen or read a transcript of the speech or are you just using talking points? I will grant you 9/11 is mentioned immediately before "acts of terror" but you omit that it immediately preceeds mention the four Americans lost in Libya. The UN speech also covered topics other than the Libyan attack so the video is not specifically attributed to it. Or by the fact that they were contained within the same speech are you also saying that Obama tied the video to a nuclear armed Iran?

Fact: people will hear what they want to hear.  badger clearly supports Romney and thus is under the impression that Romney won the debate.

Fact: Romney's "binder of women" story was made up.  Lies.  Never happened.

I had read the same thing. It was actually the headline of today's Daily Mail online.


 and the LA times

I know exactly what you are talking about but there was no backtrack. Did you guys watch the debate? Immediately behind her mentioning that President Obama did in fact say "acts of terror", which is exactly the debating point I remind you, she made mention that others in the administration did take weeks before dropping reference to the video.

All she did was clarify that she had indeed added that to the discussion. My thoughts are most people were so shocked at her input that they completely missed the rest of it and that is  what some media outlets are hoping for.

Then why are you arguing semantics? You obviously realize he took two weeks to get off of the video thing regardless of saying "terror".  this argument, as wel as most of the others between the candidates are stupid.

Each person should get 1 hour to explain their plan on National TV. Maybe do it twice.  No commercials. No debates. No propaganda, etc.  Politics are nothing more than a job for the manipulative. Basically it gives liars something to do other than being lawyers.

I am not arguing semantics at all. Obama said "acts of terror" the next day. He was accused of lieing about that which is false and the evidence proves it. He is accused of giving a UN speech where he attributed the attacks to the video which is also incorrect. I am correcting those lies, whether they be from innocent repeating of the talking heads or outright lies here.

I said others in the administration and you also turned it into Obama. Are we discussing what Obama said, which I have pointed out you guys are incorrectly attributing or are we discussing what others said? Choose one and stay there.

If you don't remember the White House blaming the video for protests and the killings, I have to wonder what planet you are from. It was headlines from day 1. Hillary made a statement the next day if you recall and then there was a big search to find the guy would did the supposed movie.

Not really important and I am not going to research it for you. I have been reading about it everyday since it happened.

In the end for us to bail out Libya's sorry ass and then not get protection for our own embassy is disgusting. We won't even talk about the debate on the consulate asking for more protection and being denied shortly before the attacks.

Seriously, this guy has lied since day one and has did his best to turn our country into socialist and now wants to cut our military while bowing to the muslims...all by adding almost 6 trillion to the debt and keeping a 1 trillion dollar deficit.

What else do you need to know?   Hey, I voted for him (Obama) last time. No one is more disappointed than me!

----------------

How would you know, or any of us? What has  Obama done to deserve your vote? Are you black?  Obama has never accomplished nothing in his entire life and never made a nickel that was not funded by the taxpayer. Time for that professional politician to go. 

By the way, cannot to see what lie Obama tells when Romney asks him why he went on Letterman and  The View instead of meeting with the PM of Israel to discuss the threat of nuclear arms from Iran.

Let's see...Barbra Walters or preventing WW3? lol

He was not even discussing the Libyan attack. I'm not sure why the rant here?

I was referencing the oil comment, not the diplomat killing.

Funny, Obama is a professional politician. He entered the politcal arena in 1997. Romney on the other hand first entered the political arena in 1994. Since Romney wasn't effective at getting elected I guess we can call him an amatuer politician?

Good point Cathal and that has been mentioned before. I have been watching debates for several years and the 3rd debate in 2008 between McCain and Obama swung my vote to Obama.

Obama said he would make strategic cuts, cut government and spending and cut the deficit in half. ALL LIES.

I would rather see them answer 4 or 5 key questions and have several minutes of back and forth debate instead of moving on with more questions answers.

BTW, that was the worst, most biased moderating I have ever seen. Ok, I am voting for Romney this time (fool me once....), but for her to interrupt Romney 28 times to Obama's 6 is ridiculous.

Here is more facts.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57534438/conservatives-assail-debate-moderator-candy-crowley/

I'll tell you what Obama has accomplished. He learned in grade school that you never use a double (or in this case quadruple) negative in a sentence. So there's that.

You know what else he accomplished ?  He lied to, fooled, and manipulated virtually all the black people into voting for him while not giving a fuck about them to begin with. Now he is doing it again. You are bought and paid for, joke is on you sucker, ha ha.........

Duh...Fox News. They have a nightly clone download app.

So wait, are you saying that they blamed the video for 2 weeks after the incident ? Or are you saying that they were saying it was a terrorist attack from the beginning ?

This quote after the rose garden speech and before the UN speech would contradict the one time arbitrary use of the word terror as an excuse.


Or at the UN:


It is more than clear that they were blaming the attacks on the video and intolerance toward Islam and not terrorist activity.

BTW - that fat ass Crowley bitch had no business getting into the debate or supporting either participant in any way. But then again, some people were saying last week that she should have never been a moderator and would try to pull this shit. Hopefully it will backfire...

Both you and Fins4ever's thinly veiled racism has grown tiresome.

The only thing getting tiresome is you pulling the race card continuously. Who said anything racist this time ? Oh yeah, I forgot anyone that opposes or disagrees with a negro is a racist. How original.

Go be a victim of your blackness some more and cry about it while I laugh at the fool in the link below forecasting his political future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdlgTHjAJzQ&t=0m8s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdlgTHjAJzQ&t=0m8s)

^^^^WTF YOU IDIOT, YOU ARE STILL THE PRESIDENT. AT LEAST FOR NOW DUMB ASS !!!!

You seriously believe that Romney won that debate?  Even Fox News was complaining about the moderator seconds after it ended.  And as we all know, when you complain about the moderator, that means you lost.

Romney got hammered.  He got fact-checked by the moderator.  He was the butt of several laugh lines ("my pension isn't as big as yours" and "if we follow his policies, maybe the economy will crash again and we'll go back to deep-recession-gas-prices").  Just look at the optics after the debate: Obama is greeting the crowd (like a person who actually likes people) while Romney huddles with his family and then hightails it out of there.

And the closing statement, where Romney lobbed out a "I care about 100% of people" softball for Obama to smash to deep center, during the ONLY part of the debate where Romney would have no chance to respond?  Just amateurish.

But that's fine.  When the Republicans win a presidential debate (and based on polling, they've lost something like 9 of the last 10), it's an Amazing Game-Changer.  But when they get roughed up, somehow it's still a win (or at worst, a draw) and really it's all the moderator's fault.  To be fair, though, some of the more hardcore lefties were in denial the day after the first debate... maybe you guys will come around.

One thing that I found very interesting, though: all of the right-wing echo chamber talk about the teleprompter-powered collegiate-underachieving affirmative action president seems to have gone silent for today.  That says volumes about Obama's performance.

Smashed, really ? That's not what the polls say. Furthermore, you seem to relish in the fact that the moderator seemed to pick sides with Obama and the liberal tilt of the questions she asked that were hand picked by her.

Wednesday morning, Correspondent Chuck Todd of NBC’s Today, hardly a conservative media outlet, said : “The President also benefitted from many questions posed by the so-called undecided voters, covering issues near and dear to his liberal base....”. Enough said.

Not to mention that Obama was saved by the Old Crowley from the questions about the fast and furious. Also, you may think that the "My pension isn't as big as yours" comment went for Obama. That was Obama's week attempt at humor to deflect attention away from Romney's question. The fact is that Obama attacked Romney for having investments in China. Romney noted that his assets are in a blind trust, which include overseas investments, and asked Obama about his pension which also includes overseas investments. Obama wouldn't answer the question. His lack of an answers indicates dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Do the polls say that Romney received "a monumental ass kicking"?

Apples to apples, after all.

No, the polls say anything from a draw to a slight edge for Obama. The only "monumental ass kicking" was the first debate. Whatever you say or how you spin it, there was a much much wider margin in the first debate than in this one. Go fact check that !!!

By saying it is wrong to engage in hate speech, he now supports terrorism?

I guess that means every single person who opposes abortion thus also support the bombing of abortion clinics?

It is quite possible to both feel the video was bad AND oppose the reaction to it. 

No, I'm saying that for 2 weeks they blamed the attacks on the video for inciting the attacks when they knew or should have known that they were pre planed terrorist attacks. Last night Obama lied and said that he called them terrorist attacks the day after, he most certainly did not.

Obama won the debate.

Romney screwed up on Libya, which should've been a power area for him.  He came off looking petty, arguing about Obama's choice of words.  On top of that, moderator help or not, Romney got told and Obama got applause.  -- Romney kinda looked stunned and never recovered from this point.

I think Romney was overly aggressive with asking the president about his own finances and Obama's laugh line worked -- even Romney laughed a little.

The one part where Obama looked bad to me was when they were talking about an assault weapons ban and Obama turned that into something about teachers that was long and rambling.  It just seemed way off topic, like he was meandering.

But the best line of the night was when Obama looked Romney in the eye with a cold stare and talked about how he was the one who had to greet those coffins when he came home.  I think it showed how serious he is and it diminished Romney, in my opinion, as someone trying to score on the tragedy.

He wasn't arguing about Obama's choice of words. He was asking why they weren't called terrorist attacks from the get go. As far as Romney getting told, according to most that I've read. Despite the unfair tag team job, is that Crowley and Obama were wrong. The applause wasn't for Obama, it was for what Crowley said. If she would have said nothing there would have been no applause. And for the record, there was supposed to be no applause during the debate. Which of course Obama's manly looking wife was seen violating.


So if Obama attacks Romney over having foreign investments. And Obama in fact has those same type of investments, Romney shouldn't aggressively call him out on it ? Of course he should. The real underlying fact is that Obama never answered the question.


You bet your ass it looked bad. Messing with the 2nd amendment wasn't a smart thing to do any way you slice it.


Pure bad acting job. Obama didn't give a shit about those who were killed. He cares about his agenda, that's all.

Direct questions from one candidate to another were also not allowed. But that didn't stop Willard.

Jimmy Kimmel did a bit where he asked people "who won the debate last night" the day before the debate happened.  People were so ready to declare their favorite candidate the winner, based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

badger is blinded by his hatred for all things Obama, and cannot look at this objectively.  This and other threads are only driving him farther to the right. 

He will be crying in his soup and threatening to move to Mexico come election night due to his sheer blindness.

It's not just badger. There are plenty of Obama people in here that are exactly the same.  That's been my argument (as well as many other people) from the beginning. There are only about 5-10% of people who actually ponder which way to go and that is who decides each election.  This site is a microcosm of the country.

If a fucking video of him saying it is not enough proof for you that he did, there is no more to discuss.

Guess what?  Politicians lie to get into office. It's a fact of life. Obama lied about certain things to get in last time...cutting the deficit in a major recession. He knew that you can not cut Government spending in a deep recession or it would turn it into a depression.

And Romney is lying as well to get in. He has changed his positions so many times on several issues and will not release any details of his tax plan because he knows that if he does during the election process if would hurt his chances.

Politicians lie....and they will continue to lie because stupid/gullible people believe them. Sadly, we just have to decide who will lie the least.

I feel like I am able to look at situations objectively, regardless of who I support. I am not an undecided voter, but I can admit my candidate's shortcomings.  Some people refuse to recognize something as insignificant as their candidate lost a debate.

I think I can be objective based on what I watch since I'm not registered for any party. This is why I don't like discussing politics, it really brings out the nastiness in people. If only everyone could work together to just improve the country.

I agree with Brian Fein.  I support Obama because I believe in more liberal ideas, but I think I'm able to recognize when things are good or bad for specifics candidates, separate from how I feel.

 

If you say so. You might want to look in the mirror before the minorities that you support need a new mirror and take it from you. 


Want to bet $1000 on that ?

Most people simply aren't that way. Most of the Republicans I know watch Fox for political things. Most Democrats I know watch MSNBC for their perspective. Most people are not looking for differences ... they are looking for affirmation and or excuses.

^ I guess.

Even though I like Obama, I can see that he got out-debated in the first debate.  But I also see that he out-debated Romney in the 2nd.

Pointing out someone's political (not policy) downfalls should be separate from how you feel about their policies.

Romney looked like an idiot on Libya, when he should've looked strong.  He set a trap for Obama and it sprung on himself, because he focused on semantics, when he should've focused on ideas.

I could be wrong, but I venture to say that you probably agree more with what I think than most of the Obamites around here. But, like I said I could be wrong....

See the word "ACTS", that is plural. The Libya attack was one incident. The use was ambiguous and not aimed at the Libya situation.


^^^This quote after the rose garden speech and before the UN speech would contradict the one time arbitrary use of the word terror as an excuse. Where are the words terror, acts of terror, or pre-planed terror ? They aren't there because the administration blamed the attack on the you tube video, simple as that.

Who don't know that ? I guess that since I am a racist that Obama is also. Welcome to Government slavery, good day sir !!!

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?  You wonder why you're getting called a racist.  Every post you make is discussing racial boundaries and minorities, when no one else is discussing that at all!

"The minorities you support" just strengthens the perspective that you hate Obama because he's black.

Who can't recognize that their candidate lost a debate ? I'm pointing out facts that "the fix was in" with that idiot Crowley. Of course Romney lost the debate. But it was close, and without the direct help from the moderator and her biased cherry picked questions, Romney could have won the debate.

Here is the full paragraph.


Yes, the first sentence is in pural. But there have been multiple acts of terror against our nation.  He is simply pointing out that this act nor any other acts will shake our resolve.  But your not intested in reality, you want to play word games.  

He's black ? That's racist in itself. He is half white you know. So why isn't anyone calling him white or of mixed heritage ? Because the minorities won't allow it. You will cry about anything just like a little boy. Please go through puberty and grow a pair.

Well then maybe you can explain why that is the only time that the word "terror" is used for two weeks ? And also while you are at it, please explain what is this two weeks worth of talk about a you tube video, outrage, and "intolerance" toward Islam all about ?

On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. He then added, "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."



You just like to make up false claims.  I am not going to give you a day by day account of his use of the word terror.  But your claim is false.

So you are saying that for 2 weeks they didn't blame outrage in Libya on a you tube video and intolerance toward Islam ? Is that what you are saying, yes or no ?

Pretty soon el badger is going to debate what the definition of the word "is" is.  How very Clinton of him.

It was a simple question.

Who are "they"? Once again you are trying to attribute things others said to Obama. That is not the discussion but you want to try and make it that so you sound right. No one here is saying that no one linked the two. We are saying that Obama called it an "act of terror" and you have even included the quote yourself. He does not have to say it every day. He does not need to continue saying it. Even if the video was involved in the reason for attack or not, it does not preclude it from being an act of terror.

Yes, I am saying that. Obama never blamed the video for the attack, nor said it justfied the attack.

It did take  sometime to figure out if the terrorist attack was a spontanous riot or
preplanned.  

And I don't have a problem at all with the last part.  I am sure the prior administration would have only taken about 2 seconds to declare it a preplanned attack rather than actually take the time to check the various intelligence sources validity.  But I actally like the fact the Obama administration double checks the data, rather than makes decisions on completely fabricated reports like trillion dollar mistake Bush made by going to war with Iraq looking for non-existant WMD.  

WOW.  I am speechless about that comment. obama said it on tv that the video was the reason for the attack.

On the off-chance that you simply can't spot a trend, the above quotes point out a big one for ya...

Wow...just, wow!

Thank you for stating the truth.

I never heard him say that.  Do you either have a clip or a word for word quote.  

Otherwise your claim is the same as someone claiming Mitt Rmoney's job plan is "I like to fire people."

Was this the quote you were refering to....

Obama


He is NOT blaming the video for the terrorist attacks. He is blaming the terrorist for taking advanage of the outrage over the video. 

Pfffft, yea, yea, yea, I'm the biggest racist in America. No, in the world. Just call me Hitler.

My god. Do you live under a rock without a tv.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kklWr1CnAXs

around 7:50 to 8:40, in obama's own words, And this is just ONE source.

You could google obamas UN speech too.

I already pointed out that at the UN speech he never attributes the Libya attack to the video. I have not watched your link yet but this is misinformation and has already been addressed.

I just watched your video link and interestingly the President used the word "terrorists" while discussing the Libyan attack during the specific block of time you pointed out. I don't think it helps your cause.

I just listened to his own words. It is not close to what you claim.