Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Candy Crowely on correcting Romney about Libya: Romney was "right" but picked the "wrong" word!

Candy Crowely on correcting Romney about Libya: Romney was "right" but picked the "wrong" word!

+7
VectorMan
Margin Call
Joanimaroni
Sal
othershoe1030
knothead
Nekochan
11 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Nekochan

Nekochan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs&feature=youtu.be

"whatever the whole quote was"......she sure seemed so sure of "whatever the whole quote was" when she wrongly corrected Romney.

It was Crowely who picked the wrong words! Will this sorry attempt by her to "help" Obama actually blow up in her face? Days will tell.

Guest


Guest

it doesn't matter now... everyone saw him scolded like a school boy... no one will see the correction.

no bias?

Nekochan

Nekochan

You're right, Pkr, but I am not so sure that undecided or moderate voters will like that Crowely was trying to help Obama instead of being a neutral moderator.

Guest


Guest

By the end Crowley was more of a stand-in BHO teleprompter than an objective moderator. Typical left wing hypocrisy.

Nekochan

Nekochan

She was a horrible moderator. Not her job to help one side or the other.

knothead

knothead

Nekochan wrote:You're right, Pkr, but I am not so sure that undecided or moderate voters will like that Crowely was trying to help Obama instead of being a neutral moderator.

****************************************************

" . . . . trying to help Obama" is your opinion which does not equate to a fact.

Nekochan

Nekochan

knothead wrote:
Nekochan wrote:You're right, Pkr, but I am not so sure that undecided or moderate voters will like that Crowely was trying to help Obama instead of being a neutral moderator.

****************************************************

" . . . . trying to help Obama" is your opinion which does not equate to a fact.

Of course it's my opinion. You have your opinions, don't you?

knothead

knothead

Nekochan wrote:
knothead wrote:
Nekochan wrote:You're right, Pkr, but I am not so sure that undecided or moderate voters will like that Crowely was trying to help Obama instead of being a neutral moderator.

****************************************************

" . . . . trying to help Obama" is your opinion which does not equate to a fact.

Of course it's my opinion. You have your opinions, don't you?

******************************************************

Absolutely, yes I do. It's amusing to me how Romney's veracity on his position(s) was so ballyhooed during the first debate but last night President Obama stands his ground against this fraudulent candidate, yall blame Candy Crowley as being biased for Willard.

Nekochan

Nekochan

knothead wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
knothead wrote:
Nekochan wrote:You're right, Pkr, but I am not so sure that undecided or moderate voters will like that Crowely was trying to help Obama instead of being a neutral moderator.

****************************************************

" . . . . trying to help Obama" is your opinion which does not equate to a fact.

Of course it's my opinion. You have your opinions, don't you?

******************************************************

Absolutely, yes I do. It's amusing to me how Romney's veracity on his position(s) was so ballyhooed during the first debate but last night President Obama stands his ground against this fraudulent candidate, yall blame Candy Crowley as being biased for Willard.

Did Crowley jump in and side with Obama? Or didn't she?

Did Crowley correct Obama when he misspoke about Romney's record/statements?

knothead

knothead

Nekochan wrote:
knothead wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
knothead wrote:
Nekochan wrote:You're right, Pkr, but I am not so sure that undecided or moderate voters will like that Crowely was trying to help Obama instead of being a neutral moderator.

****************************************************

" . . . . trying to help Obama" is your opinion which does not equate to a fact.

Of course it's my opinion. You have your opinions, don't you?

******************************************************

Absolutely, yes I do. It's amusing to me how Romney's veracity on his position(s) was so ballyhooed during the first debate but last night President Obama stands his ground against this fraudulent candidate, yall blame Candy Crowley as being biased for Willard.

Did Crowley jump in and side with Obama? Or didn't she?

Did Crowley correct Obama when he misspoke about Romney's record/statements?
*********************************

There were very few 'truths' to defend, Romney is a master of hyperbole and economic unproven magical job creation that cannot be verified or proven. Candy was fair.

Nekochan

Nekochan

knothead wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
knothead wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
knothead wrote:
Nekochan wrote:You're right, Pkr, but I am not so sure that undecided or moderate voters will like that Crowely was trying to help Obama instead of being a neutral moderator.

****************************************************

" . . . . trying to help Obama" is your opinion which does not equate to a fact.

Of course it's my opinion. You have your opinions, don't you?

******************************************************

Absolutely, yes I do. It's amusing to me how Romney's veracity on his position(s) was so ballyhooed during the first debate but last night President Obama stands his ground against this fraudulent candidate, yall blame Candy Crowley as being biased for Willard.

Did Crowley jump in and side with Obama? Or didn't she?

Did Crowley correct Obama when he misspoke about Romney's record/statements?
*********************************

There were very few 'truths' to defend, Romney is a master of hyperbole and economic unproven magical job creation that cannot be verified or proven. Candy was fair.

Unless she corrected Obama she was not fair. Obama made mis-statements about Romney's statements regarding bankruptcy, among other things. But no corrections from Crowley.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs&feature=youtu.be

"whatever the whole quote was"......she sure seemed so sure of "whatever the whole quote was" when she wrongly corrected Romney.

It was Crowely who picked the wrong words! Will this sorry attempt by her to "help" Obama actually blow up in her face? Days will tell.

Imagine that....a CNN employee siding with the president over a technicality (wrong word) but Romney was correct on what he said...This will come up again at the foreign policy debate and the COWH has no where to hide...Hillary took responsibility then Amb Rice blamed 'Intel' for the attacks...the Admin still cannot get their stories straight...Agree the COWH with his answer in the debate botched it horribly and then Romney asked him directly for a clarification and again the COWH repeated the error...

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

This whole idea of "taking sides" does not or should not be stretched to the point where a false statement is given equal weight with a true statement.

If a person claims that our sun rises in the west should the press "give equal time to them just because they have a different opinion or are they obliged to point out reality? Not all statements are correct. An incorrect statement being called out is taking sides with reality.

If a person's house is burglarized, guess who did the deed? By the very act of using the word burglarized the nature of the perpetrator is defined. It was done by a burglar.

For serious people to actually discuss the validity of Obama's statement in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, 2012 is beyond wishful thinking.

Acts of terror are done by none other than terrorists. Characterizing the event as an act of terror defines the actors. Splash some cold water in your face and man up to the fact that mittens got nailed. The transcript speaks for itself. Obama called it an act of terror on Sept. 14, not weeks later as Romney was trying to say.

An act of rape is caused by a rapist. An artistic creation is brought into being by an artist, etc.



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.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/09/obama_condemns_libya_killings_.html

Nekochan

Nekochan

Prior to referencing 'acts of terror', Obama mentioned 9/11/2001. I posted the entire Rose Garden transcript on another thread. Crowley backtracked with Cooper and admitted that she had not remembered exactly what Obama had said in the Rose Garden. Crowley and Obama were both wrong about Obama's statement. Obama didn't call the Libya attack "an act of terror".

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:Prior to referencing 'acts of terror', Obama mentioned 9/11/2001. I posted the entire Rose Garden transcript on another thread. Crowley backtracked with Cooper and admitted that she had not remembered exactly what Obama had said in the Rose Garden. Crowley and Obama were both wrong about Obama's statement. Obama didn't call the Libya attack "an act of terror".

He did call it an act of terror, and he did so again the very next day. Crowley has never backtracked from the fact that Obama referred to the incident as an act of terror. She did concede that Romney was correct that it took two weeks for the Obama administration to refute the contention that there was a riot connected to the video which occurred outside the consulate. That is what she meant by, "right in the main".

It's amazing that you can be so willfully ignorant when the evidence is staring you straight in the face.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Nekochan wrote:Prior to referencing 'acts of terror', Obama mentioned 9/11/2001. I posted the entire Rose Garden transcript on another thread. Crowley backtracked with Cooper and admitted that she had not remembered exactly what Obama had said in the Rose Garden. Crowley and Obama were both wrong about Obama's statement. Obama didn't call the Libya attack "an act of terror".

Again, you are splitting non-existent hairs over this. Are we now arguing about Crowley's memory or Obama's statement?

I really don't care what Candy remembered or didn't remember. The important thing is that Obama referred to the act as an act of terror.
It is in the transcript. No one does an act of terror except a terrorist.

Looks as if we are going to disagree on this one.

Nekochan

Nekochan

othershoe1030 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Prior to referencing 'acts of terror', Obama mentioned 9/11/2001. I posted the entire Rose Garden transcript on another thread. Crowley backtracked with Cooper and admitted that she had not remembered exactly what Obama had said in the Rose Garden. Crowley and Obama were both wrong about Obama's statement. Obama didn't call the Libya attack "an act of terror".

Again, you are splitting non-existent hairs over this. Are we now arguing about Crowley's memory or Obama's statement?

I really don't care what Candy remembered or didn't remember. The important thing is that Obama referred to the act as an act of terror.
It is in the transcript. No one does an act of terror except a terrorist.

Looks as if we are going to disagree on this one.

Actually the "s" matters. Was Libya an 'act or terror' or was Libya 'acts of terror'? Because in the Rose Garden, Obama referenced 'acts of terror' after talking about 9/11/2001.



Last edited by Nekochan on 10/17/2012, 10:19 am; edited 1 time in total

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:
Actually the "s" matters. Was Libya an 'act or terror' or was Libya 'acts of terror'?

Candy Crowely on correcting Romney about Libya: Romney was "right" but picked the "wrong" word! Facepalm-homer

Nekochan

Nekochan

salinsky wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Prior to referencing 'acts of terror', Obama mentioned 9/11/2001. I posted the entire Rose Garden transcript on another thread. Crowley backtracked with Cooper and admitted that she had not remembered exactly what Obama had said in the Rose Garden. Crowley and Obama were both wrong about Obama's statement. Obama didn't call the Libya attack "an act of terror".

He did call it an act of terror, and he did so again the very next day. Crowley has never backtracked from the fact that Obama referred to the incident as an act of terror. She did concede that Romney was correct that it took two weeks for the Obama administration to refute the contention that there was a riot connected to the video which occurred outside the consulate. That is what she meant by, "right in the main".

It's amazing that you can be so willfully ignorant when the evidence is staring you straight in the face.

You know what is funny--now it's come out that Crowley argued with Axelrod a week or so ago over whether Obama called the Libya attack an act or terror in the Rose Garden. So Crowley knew that Obama didn't call it an act of terror before she knew that he did!

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:
You know what is funny--now it's come out that Crowley argued with Axelrod a week or so ago over whether Obama called the Libya attack an act or terror in the Rose Garden. So Crowley knew that Obama didn't call it an act of terror before she knew that he did!

What's really funny is that anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a chimp can see that Obama was placing Chris Stevens' death in the same category as 9/11 as ACTS OF TERROR. Unfortunately, your cranium is so stuffed full of FAUX News and Breitbart nonsense that no real information can gain access.

Guest


Guest

salinsky wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
You know what is funny--now it's come out that Crowley argued with Axelrod a week or so ago over whether Obama called the Libya attack an act or terror in the Rose Garden. So Crowley knew that Obama didn't call it an act of terror before she knew that he did!

What's really funny is that anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a chimp can see that Obama was placing Chris Stevens' death in the same category as 9/11 as ACTS OF TERROR. Unfortunately, your cranium is so stuffed full of FAUX News and Breitbart nonsense that no real information can gain access.

actually you guys are so busy trying to cover for a stupid ass prez who farted around for weeks saying it was a utube vid when everyone knew it wasnt.

you can try and cover up the lies, but people see. spin on commie

Sal

Sal

Rogue wrote:
actually you guys are so busy trying to cover for a stupid ass prez who farted around for weeks saying it was a utube vid when everyone knew it wasnt.

you can try and cover up the lies, but people see. spin on commie

See, that's the thing. The story of a utube video inspired riot outside the consulate was wrong, and the administration did continue to include it in their narrative for far too long. That cannot be disputed and is a legitimate basis for attack on the President.

But the wingnuts can't just take that as a win. No, they have to push the myth that Obama has refused to acknowledge that the incident was an act of terror, when he clearly did. The myth is a product of the rightwing echo chamber, and Willard clearly bought it hook, line, and sinker. And, in the process, he received a smackdown on what should've been the worst question of the night for Obama. That's sometimes what happens when you believe your own bullshit.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Rogue wrote:
salinsky wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
You know what is funny--now it's come out that Crowley argued with Axelrod a week or so ago over whether Obama called the Libya attack an act or terror in the Rose Garden. So Crowley knew that Obama didn't call it an act of terror before she knew that he did!

What's really funny is that anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a chimp can see that Obama was placing Chris Stevens' death in the same category as 9/11 as ACTS OF TERROR. Unfortunately, your cranium is so stuffed full of FAUX News and Breitbart nonsense that no real information can gain access.

actually you guys are so busy trying to cover for a stupid ass prez who farted around for weeks saying it was a utube vid when everyone knew it wasnt.

you can try and cover up the lies, but people see. spin on commie

When all else fails, and it has, call people names.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

salinsky wrote:
Rogue wrote:
actually you guys are so busy trying to cover for a stupid ass prez who farted around for weeks saying it was a utube vid when everyone knew it wasnt.

you can try and cover up the lies, but people see. spin on commie

See, that's the thing. The story of a utube video inspired riot outside the consulate was wrong, and the administration did continue to include it in their narrative for far too long. That cannot be disputed and is a legitimate basis for attack on the President.

But the wingnuts can't just take that as a win. No, they have to push the myth that Obama has refused to acknowledge that the incident was an act of terror, when he clearly did. The myth is a product of the rightwing echo chamber, and Willard clearly bought it hook, line, and sinker. And, in the process, he received a smackdown on what should've been the worst question of the night for Obama. That's sometimes what happens when you believe your own bullshit.


That is the point...Obama did not clearly acknowledge a damn thing....and he never said the attack on Libya was an act of terror....he referenced acts of terror in his prepared speech. Now, all he is doing is damage control for not having the balls to speak out and commit in the first place.

You are right.... Obama tried to blame the attacks on a video that was released 2 months previously. Hilary is the one that called the attack an "act of terror" on the wake of the 9/11 anniversary.Nice to know someone in the administration has balls.

Margin Call

Margin Call

othershoe1030 wrote:[color=blue]This whole idea of "taking sides" does not or should not be stretched to the point where a false statement is given equal weight with a true statement.

Very. Well. Stated. Very Happy

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Candy Crowely on correcting Romney about Libya: Romney was "right" but picked the "wrong" word!

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum