Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (679365)	10/17/2012 11:59:10 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572095

Romney "picked the wrong word!" And for that sin the the referee ran onto the field and tackled the other guy! This is a scandal; a total and complete media scandal committed by a woman who promised to violate her contract and to insert herself into the debate. All she did for weeks was brag about how she intended to grab the spotlight -- and boy did she ever. Absolutely disgraceful. We're done with the second presidential debate, but it was apparent 45 minutes in that between the questions Crowley chose and her handling of who was allowed to speak and when, that this debate was a total and complete setup to rehabilitate Barack Obama. If these are truly undecided voters, they're apparently undecided between Obama and the Green Party. Moreover, as I write this, Obama's already enjoyed four more minutes of speaking time than Romney. In a ninety-minute debate, that's a big deal. The lowest and most dishonest part of Crowley's disgraceful "moderation" was when she actually jumped into the debate to take Obama's side when the issue of Benghazi came up. To cover for his and his administration's lying for almost two weeks about the attack coming as the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, Obama attempted to use as cover the claim that he had called the attack a "terrorist attack" on that very first day during his Rose Garden statement. Romney correctly disputed that. Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama's side and the crowd exploded. Here's what Obama said that day: 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. Context matters and the context here is that Obama connected this "act of terror" to … a mob action over a YouTube video -- not a deliberate terrorist attack. Obama was using the term generically and it would be almost two weeks before he used it again. Let's not forget that Susan Rice said declaratively on the five Sunday shows four days later that it was NOT an act of terror. And during those two weeks the Obama administration lied like a rug. For Crowley to step in and attempt to correct Romney on a statement that is at best arguable, was completely out of line. The debate over this debate has only begun.

To: combjelly who wrote (679365)	10/17/2012 12:13:31 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572095

>> That wasn't what she said. Okay. Well, if you look at the facts, she was clearly wrong. Dead wrong, in fact. She was wrong for interjecting herself into the debate. And she was wrong on the facts. I don't know how much more wrong she could possibly have been.