[Granny Bear]

^^
Geez Bob, I'm older than you are, so I can't remember the specifics....
We were talking about the election, and I said something along the lines of having enough confidence in the American public to NOT re-elect Obama. You said something like...if that happens, I'll eat crow...

Familiar??

[tvtimeout]

I liked the post debate coverage that CNN had. I really liked the fact checker almost immediately afterwords!

As I have said many times on this forum, the Commonwealth of Kentucky has been determined. It will send its electorial votes to Romney.

I did have a question though about Mitt's tax plan though according to CNBC this morning on Squak Box, Romney would not lower the rates for the top 5% as stated last night. Did you know that encompasses anyone that makes over 100K?
Is this a change of position, has this always been his position, and what about the small business owner? Did CNBC get this wrong?

Thanks in advance!

[Bob Seger]

^^
Geez Bob, I'm older than you are, so I can't remember the specifics....
We were talking about the election, and I said something along the lines of having enough confidence in the American public to NOT re-elect Obama. You said something like...if that happens, I'll eat crow...

Familiar??

lol.......Yeah, I do remember now. nicker:

But I did say , "GLADLY" eat crow.


Aint nuthin gets by you Granny.:Thumbs:

[Granny Bear]

Yes!! You did say "gladly".....

[Bob Seger]

I watched and I have not swayed my opinion, Romney is still my pick on election day. But last night, he looked BAD! He was flustered and many times stumbled through his responses! Yes, he had more substance than Obama and Obama did a horrible job stating facts, but on Romney's presence in front of America, he got his ass handed to him!

I didn't see it that way at all Dusty. Up until the Libya incident, I thought it the other way. I thought when it came to taxes and energy he made Obama look bad. After Candy's comment, I think I saw Romney become a little softer and I think was a little bewildered trying to understand exactly what had happened. He was exactly right in what he was trying to say, but perhaps said it a little wrong. I dont know who's coverage you watched, but on CNN, Candy later sort of retracted and said technically Romney was right, but perhaps used the wrong word. Other than for that moment I thought Romney nailed it pretty well all night long.

[TheRealVille]

I didn't see it that way at all Dusty. Up until the Libya incident, I thought it the other way. I thought when it came to taxes and energy he made Obama look bad. After Candy's comment, I think I saw Romney become a little softer and I think was a little bewildered trying to understand exactly what had happened. He was exactly right in what he was trying to say, but perhaps said it a little wrong. I dont know who's coverage you watched, but on CNN, Candy later sort of retracted and said technically Romney was right, but perhaps used the wrong word. Other than for that moment I thought Romney nailed it pretty well all night long.

She said this morning that she didn't retract anything.

[TheRealThing]

I didn't see it that way at all Dusty. Up until the Libya incident, I thought it the other way. I thought when it came to taxes and energy he made Obama look bad. After Candy's comment, I think I saw Romney become a little softer and I think was a little bewildered trying to understand exactly what had happened. He was exactly right in what he was trying to say, but perhaps said it a little wrong. I dont know who's coverage you watched, but on CNN, Candy later sort of retracted and said technically Romney was right, but perhaps used the wrong word. Other than for that moment I thought Romney nailed it pretty well all night long.

Not only that, did you notice that Obama's request to have Candy "read the transcript" was instantaneous? This was something that Obama and Candy already had discussed, not only was his request instantaneous, so was her very helpful (for the president) rebuke of Romney's assessment of the slow reaction time for this white house to admit Benghazi was a terror action. I mean, I've seen bang bang plays at first base and this was similarly devoid of any reaction time. After it all went down one could see it was a trap, Obama's words, "Continue Gov Romney" Obama's smirk and his lightning fast interruption when Romney tried to speak and Candy then immediately hit Romney hard while his words were yet ringing in the ears of listeners. It was a planned alright, they weren't going to let Romney speak to that issue. Obama on the other hand, got to make his rebuttals of Romney's comments. That's what made Romney appear a little less smooth. It's harder to debate the mod and the candidate, everybody with a brain knew what the republicans got themselves into with these debates presided over by liberals.

It will all be vetted over the coming days, Romney had it just right.

[Bob Seger]

She said this morning that she didn't retract anything.

Perhaps she was under pressure from her network and cohorts this morning to "retract her retraction", because she without a doubt did it last night. I watched her do it.

[Stardust]

I didn't see it that way at all Dusty. Up until the Libya incident, I thought it the other way. I thought when it came to taxes and energy he made Obama look bad. After Candy's comment, I think I saw Romney become a little softer and I think was a little bewildered trying to understand exactly what had happened. He was exactly right in what he was trying to say, but perhaps said it a little wrong. I dont know who's coverage you watched, but on CNN, Candy later sort of retracted and said technically Romney was right, but perhaps used the wrong word. Other than for that moment I thought Romney nailed it pretty well all night long.

Sorry Bob, after the Libya fiasco, which Romney actually missed the opportunity to BURY Barack, his facial bewilderment cast a shadow over the rest of his night. Obama came out on the offensive, and though he skirted every topic, his presence was tremendously more polished than Mitt! I'm certainly not looking to cast doubt on Mitt. I want more than anything for him to convey "Presidential Presence" to those undecided! Mitt did early, but he lost his presence when he looked like he was wrong. He even was questioning himself! Mitt was correct, He caught Barack in a Lie, and Candy misspoke - but Mitt lost it and never recovered his same confidence for the rest of the debate. It's OK to look confused, GW did enough of that! But if we want the undecideds to vote properly, you can't lose composure or look unsure of yourself as a President!

[TheRealVille]

Perhaps she was under pressure from her network and cohorts this morning to "retract her retraction", because she without a doubt did it last night. I watched her do it.

To be fair, she was playing to both sides. She acknowledged the fact that Obama named the terrorists in the rose garden the very next morning, and also acknowledged that it was 2 weeks until they called it an organized terror act. She wasn't back tracking, at least I didn't see it that way, it looked to me like she was agreeing with both.

[Bob Seger]

Sorry Bob, after the Libya fiasco, which Romney actually missed the opportunity to BURY Barack, his facial bewilderment cast a shadow over the rest of his night. Obama came out on the offensive, and though he skirted every topic, his presence was tremendously more polished than Mitt! I'm certainly not looking to cast doubt on Mitt. I want more than anything for him to convey "Presidential Presence" to those undecided! Mitt did early, but he lost his presence when he looked like he was wrong. He even was questioning himself! Mitt was correct, He caught Barack in a Lie, and Candy misspoke - but Mitt lost it and never recovered his same confidence for the rest of the debate. It's OK to look confused, GW did enough of that! But if we want the undecideds to vote properly, you can't lose composure or look unsure of yourself as a President!

I readily admit that. In fact I think I made mention of that, and I dont disagree.

But I still think that he made Obama look bad in the issues of taxes and energy, and while the Libya situation is an important issue, I think that that still lags behind what the importance of what most Americans feel are more important issues at hand. I think the 4 CNN sub polls that address those issues readily confirm my statement, even though the debate numbers favored Obama. Also remember that there was a whopping 15% of the vote that was not included in the tally. I'm curious to what category those votes fell in?

[tvtimeout]

Bob,

Could you answer this question on taxes that I have?

Mitt's tax plan though according to CNBC this morning on Squak Box, Romney would not lower the rates for the top 5% as stated last night. Did you know that encompasses anyone that makes over 100K?
Is this a change of position, has this always been his position, and what about the small business owner? Did CNBC get this wrong?

[TheRealVille]

Sorry Bob, after the Libya fiasco, which Romney actually missed the opportunity to BURY Barack, his facial bewilderment cast a shadow over the rest of his night. Obama came out on the offensive, and though he skirted every topic, his presence was tremendously more polished than Mitt! I'm certainly not looking to cast doubt on Mitt. I want more than anything for him to convey "Presidential Presence" to those undecided! Mitt did early, but he lost his presence when he looked like he was wrong. He even was questioning himself! Mitt was correct, He caught Barack in a Lie, and Candy misspoke - but Mitt lost it and never recovered his same confidence for the rest of the debate. It's OK to look confused, GW did enough of that! But if we want the undecideds to vote properly, you can't lose composure or look unsure of yourself as a President!

He didn't catch Obama in a lie, and Candy didn't misspeak. In the rose garden the next day Obama did in fact say,

OBAMA: Good morning.
Every day all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.
And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. Already many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens' body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had tied.
It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage and resolve he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.
When the Qaddafi regime came to an end Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy. And I think both Secretary Clinton and I have relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.
He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. As (ph) today the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.
I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who loved them back home. Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.
Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory and let us continue their work in seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost, and may God bless the United States of America.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/...z29ZUcow98

I put a link that most of you won't doubt, btw. Like I said, Candy acknowledged that Obama did in fact call it an act of terror, but she also sided with Romney that it was 2 weeks before Obama acknowledged that it was an "organized" act of terror.

[TheRealVille]

Sorry Bob, after the Libya fiasco, which Romney actually missed the opportunity to BURY Barack, his facial bewilderment cast a shadow over the rest of his night. Obama came out on the offensive, and though he skirted every topic, his presence was tremendously more polished than Mitt! I'm certainly not looking to cast doubt on Mitt. I want more than anything for him to convey "Presidential Presence" to those undecided! Mitt did early, but he lost his presence when he looked like he was wrong. He even was questioning himself! Mitt was correct, He caught Barack in a Lie, and Candy misspoke - but Mitt lost it and never recovered his same confidence for the rest of the debate. It's OK to look confused, GW did enough of that! But if we want the undecideds to vote properly, you can't lose composure or look unsure of yourself as a President!

He didn't catch Obama in a lie, and Candy didn't misspeak. In the rose garden the next day Obama did in fact say,

OBAMA: Good morning.
Every day all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.
And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. Already many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens' body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had tied.
It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage and resolve he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.
When the Qaddafi regime came to an end Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy. And I think both Secretary Clinton and I have relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.
He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. As (ph) today the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.
I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who loved them back home. Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.
Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory and let us continue their work in seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost, and may God bless the United States of America.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/...z29ZUcow98

I put a link that most of you won't doubt, btw. Candy was acknowledging that Obama did say that "no acts of terror" in the speech the next day, and also acknowledging that Romney was also right, in that it took 2 weeks to call it an "organized" act of terror. Does it really matter, in the scheme of things, when it was officially called an organized act of terror? It takes time to find out facts. Why is Romney politicizing something that even Chris's dad doesn't want used as a political "talking point"? Some things need to be looked at without red, or blue, glasses, and see it for how it is.

[TheRealThing]

He didn't catch Obama in a lie, and Candy didn't misspeak. In the rose garden the next day Obama did in fact say,

I put a link that most of you won't doubt, btw. Candy was acknowledging that Obama did say that "no acts of terror" in the speech the next day, and also acknowledging that Romney was also right, in that it took 2 weeks to call it an "organized" act of terror. Does it really matter, in the scheme of things, when it was officially called an organized act of terror? It takes time to find out facts. Why is Romney politicizing something that even Chris's dad doesn't want used as a political "talking point"? Some things need to be looked at without red, or blue, glasses, and see it for how it is.

Oh it was politicized by the Obama admin alright, and from the very first official comments that were made. The story was, according to Hillary and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, "the violence was the reaction to an anti-Islamic video posted on the internet". Susan Rice went on to catagorically deny any possibility that the attacks 9/11 were planned or had anything to do with 9/11, LOL. :please: Hillary and Jay Carney later confirmed their complete support of the Susan Rice statement which aired on 5 different Sunday news shows. Fifteen days after Chris Stevens lay dead, Obama appeared at the United Nations and repeated the cover story in his speech, mentioning the video as being responsible for the "spontaneous violence" 6 times. Only the dizziest of spinners would try to say this administration called the actions taken on our embassy an act of terror until 14 days had ticked by. These matters are a matter of public record.

And speaking of which, on to your post. When Obama said--- "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None." He was making an obvious reference to the infamous video. Now, you're telling me he knew innediately about the video that now even he admits couldn't have had the first thing to do with the benghazi attack, but he didn't know about Ambassador Stevens letters and oft requests for beefed up security?

In his generic remarks in which he defines what it means to be an American, he later said this--- "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," that, along with other statements. He never said the Benghazi attack was an act of terror until 14 days later and then it was Jay Carney who actually said that during an prepared statement to the press. I didn't hear Obama address the matter outside of the video context until Joy Behar asked him why the official White House position was different from the position of Secretary of State Clinton, when he danced all around it yet again----Real Clear Politics Quote; Nevertheless, President Obama, when asked by Joy Behar whether the attack was a terrorist act, replied that it “wasn’t just a mob action.” He would not call it terrorism. LINK--- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...15599.html

Anybody not biased for this administration in view of the soon coming election day, can see right through the smoke screen.

[nky]

"No acts of terror" was this in reference to 9/11 or the Benghazi attack?
If the President was using this in reference to the Benghazi attack why did he say this 14 days later on the View?
[YOUTUBE="Something isn't adding up"]JxI3qd-Ztqw[/YOUTUBE]

[nky]

or still blaming the video at the UN 14 days after the attack
(10:48- 14:45 of the video)
[YOUTUBE="Was Romney Wrong?"]Q_ijBilki-I[/YOUTUBE]
"NO act of terror" What was the President referring to?
By the way you better believe a speech given by the President of the United States at the UN is vetted upside down and side ways there are no words that are not scrutinized

[TheRealThing]

or still blaming the video at the UN 14 days after the attack
(10:48- 14:45 of the video)
[YOUTUBE="Was Romney Wrong?"]Q_ijBilki-I[/YOUTUBE]
"NO act of terror" What was the President referring to?
By the way you better believe a speech given by the President of the United States at the UN is vetted upside down and side ways there are no words that are not scrutinized

You got that right. It's possible Romney ceeded the point temporarily to his opponents, Barack and Candy, knowing that Monday he could come in loaded for bear. He did say he wanted to make sure he had Obama correctly on record as saying he called the incident an act of terror from the Rose Garden. You can bet he'll get a run-and-go at Obama in the next debate.

BTW, thanks for putting the video up. Obama spent over four minutes of his speech habilitating the cover story his administration was still trying to sell to the entire world, two weeks after the incident.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

To be fair, she was playing to both sides. She acknowledged the fact that Obama named the terrorists in the rose garden the very next morning, and also acknowledged that it was 2 weeks until they called it an organized terror act. She wasn't back tracking, at least I didn't see it that way, it looked to me like she was agreeing with both.

Come on TheRealville. Was it a coincidence that the lovely Candy interrupted and advocated for Kardashian at that time? Isn't it rather odd that she just happened to have the transcript of his Rose Garden statement handy? Do you think she had any other transcripts at her fingertips?

The audience, allegedly undecided, are admonished in great detail prior to the debat to show no outward reaction and certainly to not applaud. That is forbidden. Isn't it odd that the undecided audience just happened to applaud when the lovely Candy came to kardashian's defense?

Well, wonder why? If you review the videotape of the audience, you will clearly see that one person initiated (instigated) the applause. Who was that person? Why, your girl, Michelle. Now, don't come on here and say I am a liar. check it out before you do so. You will find that I am correct.

Was this a little too convenient to be believable? As they used to say, "Is the Pope a Catholic?" Or, maybe in this case I should say, ""Is Mohammad a Muslim?"

It was a setup.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

And, only a partisan fool or a member of the liberal suck-up media would conclude that Kardashioan called Libya an act of terrorism in the Rose Garden. If so, why did he blame it on the video for weeks thereafter-veven to the UN? Why did he have Carney vomiting that line every day for weeks? Why did Susan Rice do the samer on five news shows? The coverup should be obvious even to a fool.

If this were in a court of law, where it probably belongs, Kardashian would be whinning for a plea bargain. the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor clearly applies.

[TheRealVille]

And, only a partisan fool or a member of the liberal suck-up media would conclude that Kardashioan called Libya an act of terrorism in the Rose Garden. If so, why did he blame it on the video for weeks thereafter-veven to the UN? Why did he have Carney vomiting that line every day for weeks? Why did Susan Rice do the samer on five news shows? The coverup should be obvious even to a fool.

If this were in a court of law, where it probably belongs, Kardashian would be whinning for a plea bargain. the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor clearly applies.

What is the difference if he called it terror the first day, or two weeks later? Do you think it doesn't time to get intelligence and figure things out? Would you prefer a "shoot first, aim later" type of response? Why don't you respond to post #254's points also?

[TheRealThing]

^Oh, I don't know. I sort of liked HRV's observation about the fact that "the transcript", was readily available for Candy to access, no doubt with the text embodying the words 'acts of terror' highlighted. It was a set up, and further I liked Harry's question which was how many other transcripts were at her fingertips. A couple of observations with regard to this peculiar, and in Obama's case, happy and beneficial circumstance. First, it's obvious Candy and O had discussed this thing prior to the debate because he knew all about her having the transcript. Second, sometimes even liberals get a case of conscience as was evident by Candy's reluctance to follow through completely with the plan when she tried to help Romney. Third, the so-called spontaneous, though illegal, cat calls and applause were initiated by none other than the first lady. In other words they cheated, but what's new, right?

Nobody, but wide eyed left wing extremists and their adoring spoon fed sheep buy any part of the administration's lies about Benghazi, they said it was because of the video, over and over and over and over and------

[tvtimeout]

How about Romney's 5% tax plan... Libya was bad got it, but what about his 5% tax plan, that includes any body over 100K that is all small businesses... somebody please explain this to me?

[Deathstar 80]

At the 1:30 mark of this video, you can watch the controversial moment:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politic...attack.cnn

Candy claimed that Obama called the Libya attack a terrorist attack at the Rose Garden - in other words, recently after the attack occurred.

After that, look at the following video:



^Go to the 13:00 minute-mark. It lasts until the 14:30 minute-mark. First, Mrs. Clinton blames the attack on a video for the act of terror. The phrase "act of terror" could be interpreted to some that Mrs. Clinton was accusing terrorists. However, if you continue to watch the video to the 14:30 minute-mark, she talks about a mob of people attacking the embassies in Egypt, Libya, etc. While she's saying this, President Obama is standing beside her. Obviously, the above link was taken recently after the attack.

It comes down to that Obama lied at that debate, and maybe Candy too (it determines on how you interpret the phrase "act of terror" used by the president in the Rose Garden). If you watch the debate video again, President Obama boasted (not a lot; just for a second, but he did) that he called it a terrorist attack soon after the attack took place. Even if he did, it wouldn't matter because apparently he changed his mind a day or two afterwards (perhaps Candy should've fact-checked the president). And if it's true that he changed his mind, that's obviously nothing to boast about. And of course, if he didn't claim it was a terrorist attack, then both he and Candy lied in front of the nation on a Presidential debate.

A question I would like to ask is, during what times of that debate did Candy become a fact-checker? If it was only that one time, then why do you think it was that one time?

More proof for the fact that Obama blamed a video for the Libyan attack would include the press conference by his staff. I can't remember the name of the individual, but I remember him first blaming the Libyan attack on the video and - a few weeks later - stating that it was obviously a terrorist attack. Sadly, I can't find the video either. And I'm not sure how I would be able to. If someone else can find the video or at least give me the name of the person who I'm trying to think about, please post it here.

[TheRealThing]

How about Romney's 5% tax plan... Libya was bad got it, but what about his 5% tax plan, that includes any body over 100K that is all small businesses... somebody please explain this to me?

Listen, here's your problem--- "according to CNBC this morning on Squak Box, Romney would not lower the rates for the top 5% as stated last night". Romney said he will lower rates from top to bottom, including the top 3% which Obama wants to raise rates on. Obama argued that his plan of raising rates from 35% to 40% only affects the top 3% while leaving the other 97% of small business alone. Romney then pointed out that the top 3% actually employs over half of all those employed in the small business arena. Therefore raising rates on any small business owners is a very bad idea if we are looking to get the new jobs going again in this country. Savvy? Liberals are not going to stray from the DNC sanctioned talking points. So, if you ever hope to hear the truth, you're going to have to get out a little.

[TheRealVille]

^Oh, I don't know. I sort of liked HRV's observation about the fact that "the transcript", was readily available for Candy to access, no doubt with the text embodying the words 'acts of terror' highlighted. It was a set up, and further I liked Harry's question which was how many other transcripts were at her fingertips. A couple of observations with regard to this peculiar, and in Obama's case, happy and beneficial circumstance. First, it's obvious Candy and O had discussed this thing prior to the debate because he knew all about her having the transcript. Second, sometimes even liberals get a case of conscience as was evident by Candy's reluctance to follow through completely with the plan when she tried to help Romney. Third, the so-called spontaneous, though illegal, cat calls and applause were initiated by none other than the first lady. In other words they cheated, but what's new, right?

Nobody, but wide eyed left wing extremists and their adoring spoon fed sheep buy any part of the administration's lies about Benghazi, they said it was because of the video, over and over and over and over and------

In the scheme of things, would it have made any difference in one day and 2 weeks, while they sorted it out? Why are you all so focused on the one day to 2 week timetable? Again, did you want a "shoot first, aim later" response? Or, are you just making a big deal out of talking points? Not debating, just asking.

[tvtimeout]

Listen, here's your problem--- "according to CNBC this morning on Squak Box, Romney would not lower the rates for the top 5% as stated last night". Romney said he will lower rates from top to bottom, including the top 3% which Obama wants to raise rates on. Obama argued that his plan of raising rates from 35% to 40% only affects the top 3% while leaving the other 97% of small business alone. Romney then pointed out that the top 3% actually employs over half of all those employed in the small business arena. Therefore raising rates on any small business owners is a very bad idea if we are looking to get the new jobs going again in this country. Savvy? Liberals are not going to stray from the DNC sanctioned talking points. So, if you ever hope to hear the truth, you're going to have to get out a little.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12...-plan.html

Here is bloomberg then, talking about his tax plan being a failure... I will try to find his words about the debate the other night... and go from there...
just for arguement sake I don't think bloomberg is to far to the left or the right.

[tvtimeout]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1904815834001...-tax-plan/


Basically, we don't know his tax plan...

[tvtimeout]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-fina...works-for/

Found Details...

[tvtimeout]

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-nati...ranscript/

Transcript:


ROMNEY: Thank you very much. And let me tell you, you’re absolutely right about part of that, which is I want to bring the rates down, I want to simplify the tax code, and I want to get middle- income taxpayers to have lower taxes.

And the reason I want middle-income taxpayers to have lower taxes is because middle-income taxpayers have been buried over the past four years. You’ve seen, as middle-income people in this country, incomes go down $4,300 a family, even as gasoline prices have gone up $2,000. Health insurance premiums, up $2,500. Food prices up. Utility prices up.

The middle-income families in America have been crushed over the last four years. So I want to get some relief to middle-income families. That’s part — that’s part one.

Now, how about deductions? ‘Cause I’m going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I’m going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now.

The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the nation collects. So that’ll stay the same.

As many have stated about small business paying taxes because it is that owners income... what is the point if someone is going to change the rate and I am still paying the same amount? Someone explain this to me? At least with Obama he wants the 1%. Mitt is going after anyone making over 100K, if I am reading this right.