Round Two: Split Decision

BARACK OBAMA MUCH IMPROVED, BUT NO ONE SCORES “KNOCKOUT VICTORY” IN SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE  After getting slaughtered by GOP nominee Mitt Romney during the first presidential debate in Denver two weeks ago, U.S. President Barack Obama (with a major assist from CNN anchor Candy Crowley) turned in an infinitely stronger…


After getting slaughtered by GOP nominee Mitt Romney during the first presidential debate in Denver two weeks ago, U.S. President Barack Obama (with a major assist from CNN anchor Candy Crowley) turned in an infinitely stronger performance in this week’s second debate in New York.

Will it be enough to blunt the recent momentum Romney’s campaign has picked up?  That remains to be seen … as Obama clearly did not score the sort of knockout victory he was searching for.

Although he was rarely (if ever) factual during the second debate, Obama was plenty feisty.  And although he was rarely (if ever) accurate, he was eloquent and on message – vigorously engaging the Town Hall format (and Crowley’s sympathetic officiating) to rise above his mystifyingly terrible first debate performance.  Meanwhile Romney – while not as commanding as he was in Denver – turned in another solid effort, particularly on critical economic issues.

(To read our live blog of the proceedings, CLICK HERE).

Romney didn’t display quite the same wire-to-wire strength that he showed in the first debate – but he had several compelling moments. As  usual, he was at his best when slamming Obama’s mishandling of the American economy.

“What you’re seeing in this country is 23 million people struggling to find a job,” Romney said early on in the debate. “The president’s policies have been exercised over the last four years and they haven’t put Americans back to work.”

Romney pointed out that the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent when Obama took office – identical to its current level – but added that when you count all of the people who have given up their search for gainful employment, that rate soars to 10.7 percent.  He also chided Obama for not reaching his goal of 5.4 percent unemployment – and for doubling federal deficits as opposed to cutting them in half.

“If you’re to elect President Obama you know what you’re going to get – a repeat of the last four years,” he said.

Obama countered by poking holes in Romney’s plans – saying that the former Massachusetts governor would add $8 trillion in new spending over the coming decade without

“We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics – other than Big Bird and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood – as to how he’s going to pay for it,” Obama said.

Obama also dismissed Romney’s oft-mentioned “five point plan” as a “one point plan,” which he said “is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules.”

Romney disputed that contention, promising that the upper class would continue to pay “sixty percent of the tax burden.”

“That’s not going to change,” he said.

Oddly enough, the flash point of the debate came on the foreign policy front – which has been largely overlooked over the course of this election.  Specifically, a member of the audience asked why additional security wasn’t added to a U.S. Embassy in Libya prior to last month’s terrorist attack there.

Almost immediately, both candidates accused each other of attempting to politicize the attack – while Romney took it one step further and claimed that Obama’s administration misled the public about the true nature of the incident.

“It was a terrorist attack,” Romney said, “and it took a long time for that to become known to the American people.”

Obama countered that he had correctly labeled the incident as an “act of terror” the day after the attacks – and received support from Crowley f0r his contention.  Is that true, though?  This post raises some serious doubts about Obama and Crowley’s position.

The exchange was one of many reasons why Crowley’s performance as moderator was widely panned as being  exceedingly partial to Obama.

“Governor Romney did exceedingly well considering he had to debate two people at once,” said Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government. “Candy Crowley is a disgrace.”

Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson – who has been cut out of the presidential debates – said afterward that Romney and Obama were nothing but “dueling Phil Donahue acts carping at one another over who is worse.”

“Behind the fuzzy math and the quibbling, there was nothing more than a commitment to continue the status quo – with at most a few minor adjustments,” Johnson said.  “We don’t need adjustments. We need a fundamental reduction in the role and cost of government, and both Romney and Obama are fundamentally big-government guys.”


Related posts


Spending Showdown Looms On Capitol Hill

Mark Powell

Nikki Haley Joins Neocon Think Tank

Will Folks

FISA Reauthorization Vote Defeated By Recalcitrant Republicans

Dylan Nolan


OhNoNotAgain October 17, 2012 at 1:59 am

The parts I watched it seemed like Crowley was letting Romney getaway with murder, but later, cutting him off to get back on track.
As much as it would fit he GOPA’s wet dream if a campaign, Obama DID call it a terror act the next day, and it is a fact tat the UN Ambassador qualified enough statements that the incident was under investigation and they would wait for a definitive statement when that was concluded. It s obvious the wanted it to be a reaction to the film. But she qualified her statements.

sid October 17, 2012 at 11:24 am

He did not call it a terror act. He used the words “acts of terror” in a general sense in the Rose Garden, not a specific one, then it took two more weeks for Barry to state that the Libyan attacks were, definitely, an act of terrorism. During that two weeks, numerous Barry talking heads tried to claim the Libyan attack was a protest over a stupid video that escalated. Romney botched the challenge, and should have hammered Barry more on why he and others kept referring to protests over the video in relation to Libya. He missed a good opportunity.

BigT October 17, 2012 at 5:51 am

Not tht it really matters to desperate people…but the say you will not tolerate terroism, in some vague non-specific reference is not calling it Terroism…especially when you go for two weeks droning on about a Youtube video nobody say…

This is PANIC time for the media and Crowley…

And usually I don’t care about the the irrelevent ‘GOTCHA’ attempts…

But That “Terrorism” claim looks coordinated between Crowley and the Obama Campaign…and it is just much more of a Farbrication (Lie) than it can be called legitimate…

This is TOTALLY Stupid to try and defend Obama…

And: For FITS to call it a Tie…means Obama LOST and probably Decisively…

Isotope Soap October 17, 2012 at 8:57 am

A little worried this morning, T?

xx chromosome October 17, 2012 at 1:21 pm

I have respected Candy Crowley for many years until last night. Mainly, b/c she has been a CNN reporter without being Barbie doll beautiful. She lost all credibility and should worry about her future as a “unbiased” reporter.

Demo lite October 17, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Seriously although I don’t think Ms. Crowley had the most stellar performance, it wasn’t bias as say a David Gregory or say any possibly Gloria B. Both of these ladies definitely show their Rep. bias regularly. Take a midol and get over that Romney was as out of touch as ever.

Smirks October 17, 2012 at 6:00 am

Bill Wilson has sand in his vajayjay. Don’t get pissed because the moderator fact-checked Mitt. Obama did refer to it as an act of terror the very next day. It would be great if we could have all debates fact-checked live and on air.

Smirks October 17, 2012 at 8:14 am

The Breitbart link is pretty pathetic, too. (No surprise there…)

the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

O rly?

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 four 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.

Let’s say someone was murdered and the local sheriff had a press conference about it. He says: “No act of murder will ever shake the resolve of our police department. We mourn the loss of the victim, but we won’t waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.” How do you twist this into saying the police department “didn’t call it murder?”

White House spokesman Jay Carney suddenly told reporters that it was “self-evident” that the Benghazi attack had been a “terrorist attack”–by which he meant specifically that “Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

In other words, the attack was “terrorist” because it was violent–but not necessarily because it was carried out by terrorists.

Oh lord. This is just bullshit. Here’s the full quote:

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

So Breitbart takes an adverb and twists it into some narrative about how they don’t consider these murderous thugs terrorists? Who the fuck carries out terrorist attacks other than terrorists? Isn’t ANYONE who carries out an extremely violent act like this a terrorist? Timothy McVeigh wasn’t part of Al Queda or some other terrorist group, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a terrorist, and what MADE him a terrorist was his violent act. James Holmes didn’t become a terrorist by looking like a freak, he became a terrorist by shooting up people.

If a bunch of Al Queda members went out into a field to pick daisies, would that be a “terrorist attack?” Would Breitbart call down Obama for not condemning this “Arab Spring” flower massacre as terrorism? I mean, the attack wasn’t violent, but it was carried out by terrorists, right? TERRORISM!

sid October 17, 2012 at 11:31 am

Then why, for two weeks, did Barry and his people keep referring to protests over the video when the subject of Libya came up? Why did his employee at State refer to the attack as a protest over the video that got out of hand? Why didn’t Barry immediately correct her if his message was that the attack was a coordinated act of terrorism.

Yes, in a general sense, one can argue that any time people are murdered by extremists it is an “act of terror.” I’m quite certain the people Barry got killed were filled with “terror.”

But the question is whether Barry and his minions believed the Libyan attack was a coordinated attack by terrorists, or a protest that escalated out of control. Clearly, Barry tried to present the image of the latter, while the rest of the world saw it as the former.

Hunh? October 17, 2012 at 1:43 pm

What Obama said about terror on the 12th was:

…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…

He was speaking in general terms, not specifically to this act.

In reference to the video, he said this:

“…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….”

He was speaking specifically about the video. Why do we know his reference was to the video, because he mentioned it again at his UN speech over a week later:

… That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

There isn’t a single mention of “acts of terror” and only one use of the word terrorist in reference to Iran:

“…In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government props up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad. Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations…”

sid October 17, 2012 at 2:38 pm

“There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy.”

Clearly, Barry was talking about the stupid video and the attack/murders in Libya. And at that time, it was pretty clear to most that the attack was a coordinated terrorist action.

Robert October 17, 2012 at 9:27 am

Split decision? no…..no knock-out? correct.

Obama came back strong in round 2. Probably helped him with his base tremendously. He seemed to rattle Romney a time or two.

Don’t think Mitt expected Obama to shoot back.

Candy was terrible moderator. She let things get out of control too many times.

For the record, Obama did categorize the Libya event as “act of terror” the day after it happened, and again that weekend. But he never called the killing a “terrorist attack”.

We’ll know in 2-3 days how much bump Prez got from this debate but my take is he certainly stopped the bleeding. However, the damage might be too large from debate #1.

Godslayer October 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Please explain the difference in meaning or substance between “act of terror” and “terrorist attack”.

Johnboy October 17, 2012 at 1:26 pm

@Godslayer – an act of terror has very different connotations than a “terrorist attack”. Get you dictionary out and compare the words act to attack. Then compare the words terror and terrorist. If you are still confused, maybe you should recconnect with your old high school English teacher.

BigT October 17, 2012 at 11:46 am

If any candidate helped himself, it was Romney. The trend was big in Romney’s favor…I expect that to continue…

the Economy focus was ingenius by romney. That is THE Issue to voters…

Obama did nothing to change the game…and he really needed to pull a rabbit out of his hat…

SCBlues October 17, 2012 at 12:34 pm

The little whiney, weenie Republicans pouting and crying . . . of course it is all Candy Crowley’s fault that Romney got his ass kicked! I’ve never in my life been exposed to more pitiful and pathetic folks!

And what in the world is up with Romney and those tiny little steps that he takes?? That tiny step shuffle that he has?

Thank goodness President Obama walks like a man!

Demo lite October 17, 2012 at 12:57 pm

Had to also mention the excellent point where Obama nailed Romney on his energy points.
“Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, ‘This plant kills,’ and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal,” Obama said.
Romney on more than one occasion looked like a deer in the headlights.

? October 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

“Nation Tunes in to see which Sociopath more likeable this time”


sid October 17, 2012 at 2:45 pm

Why can’t whoever keeps reposting the The Borowitz Report from The New Yorker just provide links, like ??

xx chromosome October 17, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Candy looked like an fat whore with a cheap wig. And BTW, as the moderator, it’s not her job to fact check during the debate. It WAS a terrorist attack and the president either lied or was simply stupid.

sid October 17, 2012 at 1:25 pm

I don’t care if it’s her given name, there should be a law against anyone going by the name “Candy” if it is in no way applicable. Candy is a treat, and she certainly is no treat.

Demo lite October 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm

“I have respected Candy Crowley for many years until last night. Mainly, b/c she has been a CNN reporter without being Barbie doll beautiful”. here is your quote from 1:21 pm
You’re just like Mitt flip flop. You respected Ms. Crowley and now she is a fat whore in a wig.
No wonder you support Romney he’s etch-a-sketch just like you. I’m for Coal. Coal kills. Ban Guns, Guns are for sportsman and we should have them. I support women. Yes I have binders full of them to pick from.

xx chromosome October 17, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Thank God those town hall people weren’t from S.C. Where did they find the genious college kid who wanted to know who could help him get a job and pay his loans? And what about the bimbo who wanted to know about equal pay for women? And since when is paying for one’s birth control a Presidential issue? The people in China must have gotton a big old laugh as us Americans last night.

BigT October 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm

If last night was supposed to Obama’s chance to make his BIG move…boy is he in trouble….

xx chromosome October 17, 2012 at 1:56 pm

@Big T – Yep. Looks like Obambi used up all his ammo.

This just in. . . October 17, 2012 at 2:02 pm

The Lincoln-Douglas Town-Hall Debate
The Borowitz Report

For years, historians have held up the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 as the gold standard of political discourse. But at the time, critics were not so kind. Journalists complained that the debates were “not interactive enough” and suffered from “boring optics”; still others hungered for a debate that would “change the narrative of the race.” Responding to the criticism, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas agreed to participate in a debate that used the just-invented “town hall” format, with both candidates taking questions from the audience:

Lincoln: And so, to conclude my opening statement: in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can. If we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature.

Moderator: The first question is for Mr. Lincoln.

Questioner #1: Mr. Lincoln, why do you wear that dumb hat?

Lincoln: My hat? Well, I suppose most of us would agree that a man’s hat is not nearly so important as what resides beneath it.

(Lincoln laughs good-naturedly. The audience responds with stony silence. A baby cries.)

Questioner #1: You didn’t answer my question. Your hat is dumb. Why do you wear it?

Lincoln (a little off-balance): Well, I haven’t given it much thought, really — but I suppose a hat is only as good as the head it’s. . .

Moderator: I’m sorry, Mr. Lincoln, your time is up. The next question is for Judge Douglas.

Questioner #2: Judge Douglas, do you think Mr. Lincoln’s hat looks dumb?

Douglas (forcefully): Yes.

(Audience applauds.)

Questioner #2: No further questions.

Moderator: The next question is for Mr. Lincoln.

Questioner #3: What kind of weird name is Abraham?

Lincoln: Well, Abraham, of course, is from the Book of Genesis, in the Bible.

Questioner #3: Isn’t it also from the Koran?

Lincoln: Well, yes, but. . .

Questioner #3: Then why didn’t you say so?

Lincoln: If you’ll kindly let me finish. . .

Questioner #3 (firmly): Is it or is it not a name from the Koran? Yes or no answer.

Lincoln (after a pause): Yes.

(Loud grumbling from the audience.)

Questioner #3: No further questions.

Moderator: The next question is for Judge Douglas.

Questioner #4: My question for Judge Douglas is this: Would you ask Mr. Lincoln a question for me?

Douglas: I’d be happy to.

Lincoln: Now hold on here just a minute! That’s against the rules!

Moderator: And what rules are those exactly, Mr. Lincoln?

Lincoln (sputtering): Well, I don’t know the specific . . . but there has to be . . . I mean, there should be some rule against doing what he just did.

(Derisive laughter from audience.)

Moderator: Mr. Lincoln, I must warn you that one more outburst like that and you will forfeit your right to speak for the rest of the debate.

Lincoln (sheepishly): Sorry.

Moderator: Don’t apologize to me. Apologize to the good man who asked the question.

Lincoln (to Questioner #4): I’m sorry.

Moderator: Now tell him you won’t do it again.

Lincoln (through gritted teeth): I won’t do it again.

Moderator (to Questioner #4): Please continue with your question to Judge Douglas.

Questioner #4: I want you to ask Mr. Lincoln why he wears that dumb hat.

The debate continued in a similar vein for three more hours, as audience members peppered Lincoln with questions about his hat, posture, weak chin, and warts. The evening ended with a triumphant Stephen Douglas diving headfirst off the stage, the crowd catching him and passing him from row to row like a championship trophy; meanwhile, a drained Abraham Lincoln slouched away in defeat, pelted with tomatoes and other local Illinois produce. Journalists pronounced the debate a “game changer” for Douglas, whose ratings soared afterwards in America’s historic first focus group. As for the future President of the United States, the town-hall experience was nothing short of traumatic. In a letter written shortly after the debate, a downcast Lincoln told his wife, “Mary, I seriously don’t need this shit.”

Hunh? October 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm

GALLUP: R 51% O 45%

Oh Snap….

SCBlues October 17, 2012 at 3:42 pm

CNN Poll –

Obama – 46% Romney – 39%

sid October 17, 2012 at 4:00 pm

The difference between the two polls mentioned here, SCB, is that the Gallup poll asks for whom would you vote, while the CNN poll asks who won the debate? Huge difference.

CNN actually went on to say:

“The president’s edge on the question of who won the debate appears to be the result of his much better than expected performance and his advantage on likeability. But the poll also indicates that debate watchers said Romney would do a better job on economic issues. And the two candidates were tied on an important measure – whether the showdown would affect how the debate watchers will vote. Nearly half said the debate did not make them more likely to vote for either candidate, with the other half evenly divided between both men.”

On the economy, the CNN poll showed Romney had an 18-point lead.

Now, what do you think is going to be the main issue people consider regarding their vote for President come Nov. 6? Which candidate is more likeable? Which candidate won the second debate (and don’t forget, everyone in the world said Romney crushed Barry in Debate I)? Or do you think people will consider which candidate will do a better job at fixing the economy?

Sarah Sez October 17, 2012 at 9:49 pm

Dear Sid,
Before I lump you in with Big T, Joe the Dumber, James the foot soldier, etc………
I don’t think you’ll make much headway in arguing the Libya issue…….the transcript was read back to Romney by Crowley announcing his error in real time. Point lost. Yes, the White House gaffed it by not clarifying issues within two weeks, but surely you know foreign policy has been going exceeding well in comparison to the Bush years.
I would love to hear a logical retort.

sid October 17, 2012 at 10:48 pm

Crowley admits she was wrong, and Romney was correct. Every fact checker says Romney was right. Romney botched the attack, thanks to Crowley’s admitted error, but now Libya will be discussed for more than what Barry wanted, so it should end up working out. I’m not too worried about convincing folks who are going to vote for Barry no matter what he does wrong. The American people already have indicated they don’t like how Barry handled Libya. But keep talking about Bush. That hasn’t actually been doing much for Barry, but if it makes you feel like you’ve made a point, have at it.

I think you may have got lost, though, as this thread is talking about how poorly Barry is doing in the polls, and how people think Romney will do a better job fixing the economy than Barry. The Libya talk was up a bit.

Sarah Sez October 17, 2012 at 11:43 pm


“Every fact checker says Romney was right”…..

All the fact checkers last night that I watched (CNN, MSNBC,…..) said Romney was wrong (save for FOX). Did something happen today that I didn’t see? I was up to 1 AM watching the replays.

Spin it baby!

Why don’t you reproduce with BigT? You could have tard kids.

sid October 18, 2012 at 12:33 am

What a sad life you have, staying up ’til 1am watching what everyone else either saw live and grasped immediately, or recorded for another time. You must have been pretty drunk last night, though. Yes, today, as well as last night, when you were apparently seeing things that were not there, fact checkers have been supporting Romney. Want a liberal source? Try WaPo. There are plenty of others, but that pub seems to carry a lot of weight with you Obamabots.

I can understand you getting nervous, seeing Barry stumbling on an almost regular basis. The polls are clearly trending against him, and even his backers in the media are not giving him such a free pass. Look, you backed the wrong guy, but you’ll be fine. Just remember, once Romney is in charge, the economy will start to actually improve.

As for your suggestion, it’s physically impossible in the natural world. Perhaps, in your dream world where Barry is POTUS for life, men can procreate to their hearts’ content. Neither of those is reality, however.

BigT October 17, 2012 at 4:07 pm

I’d hate to be FITS. His guy Obama got his @$$ kicked last night…and there ain’t too much left he can do to turn it around…

Mr Rodgers October 17, 2012 at 9:13 pm

A draw is not what I saw. Romney won debate I and Obama clearly took II. BigT can spin it however, but tis’ not reality.

Mr Rodgers October 17, 2012 at 9:17 pm

And a knockout was not what I saw on either side. Obama did get in a few more zingers (“My pension is not as big as yours”). I also texted all my friends with Romney’s self-inflicted gaffe on “Binder full of Women” immediately thereafter said words, but a knockout….no.

sid October 18, 2012 at 12:39 pm

I agree that there was no knockout, Mr R, and that Barry probably won the debate, if only slightly.

I do, however, find it interesting that you consider Barry’s “zinger” on the issue of a pension notable. In fact, Barry has a much larger public pension than Romney. He gets one as President, and one for his years in the Illinois Senate. I don’t think he gets one for his service in the US Senate, as he wasn’t there long enough.

Romney, on the other hand, will draw no public pension. When he was Mass. Gov., he took no salary, and is not eligible for a public pension.

His retirement account may, indeed, be quite large. But that’s not really a pension under the traditional definition. His retirement will be funded by himself (unless he wins in November).

And the point Romney was making, which was that Barry has investments in China and others outside the United States, is likely true, as that is common with public pensions.

So, Barry may have scored a “zinger,” but it was factually incorrect. Where was fact-checker-of-the-night Crowley during this exchange? Another missed opportunity for Romney, as he could have easily shredded Barry’s “zinger.”

Sarah Sez October 17, 2012 at 11:55 pm

And Sid,
The American people may not like what has transpired in Libya, but 4 deaths hardly merits a changepoint in an otherwise relatively tranquil period. You really don’t want me to announce how many US Citizens got killed during Regan’s, Bush’s, and even Clinton’s watch, do you? Its on the net, tough guy.
Maybe you should go back to arguing climate change…btw, hope u know, but the last 14 months in a row have been in the upper tercile (look it up). Yeah, time to eat crow (pick the sand out of your vagina).

sid October 18, 2012 at 10:59 am

You can spin the deaths all you want, Sarah, and whether or not they warrant change, but fortunately, it’s not up to you. It’s up to the American people. Those that vote, at least. And in case it still hasn’t sunk in, they are, mostly, not very pleased with Bary’s record on Libya.

But it’s not just the people Barry got killed in Libya. It’s also about the economy. Again, the poll referenced by SCB showed Romney had an 18-point lead over Barry on fixing the economy. That has to have you worried, along with all the other polls trending towards Romney.

As for “Regan,” Bush and Clinton, none of them are up for consideration this November. It’s Barry and Romney. If you are keeping score on that front, Barry has had the four Americans killed in Libya, and Romney hasn’t had any. I’d say the advantage there goes to Romney. There are, of course, others killed under Barry’s watch, but the four in Libya are the ones most are talking about today.

Turning to your odd non sequitur, I’ve never argued against the fact that climate changes. Everyone agrees that the climate changes. The debate is over how much, how do the current changes compare to changes throughout the history of the planet, and what are the reasons for the change.

The recent argument has also been, from climate change alarmist, that world temperatures have been on the rise. Unfortunately, for them, that doesn’t appear to be true over the last decade-and-a-half+. The Met Office recently released data indicating “Global Warming” stopped 16 years ago. In fact, since 1880, the world has warmed about .75 degrees Celsius. In the grand scope of this planet, that is pretty insignificant, and hardly any kind of record for change. Furthermore, from 1997 to August of this year, world temperatures have not risen.

Now, I won’t try to argue the science, as that’s not my field, but those in the field remain deeply divided over the theory of anthropomorphic climate change.

Finally, it warms my heart to know that you have been following me for so long, even if your memory over what I have written fails you. I have a true fan. What do you look like? Your name indicates you might be female, so if that’s the case, are you hot, or are you a pig? Or are you one of those cowards who regularly changes his/her screen name so you cannot be held accountable for previous lies?

xx chromosome October 18, 2012 at 12:13 pm

@Sarah – Whether 4 deaths or 4000, this WAS a terrorist attack on Obambi’s watch. When the President allows terrorists to kill AMBASSADORS and go unchecked, we invite more terrorist attacks.

Logan's Run October 18, 2012 at 12:03 am


The point made was that there were 4 unnecessary deaths.

As for Sid, he’s usually a condescending asshole with an unabashed Republican bias. Don’t try to have any intellectual conversation with him or BigT.

sid October 18, 2012 at 11:10 am

No, LR, I have an unabashed libertarian bias. Your caution against an intellectual conversation is appropriate, though. The crazy obsession of the Obamabots is an idiot. I’ve asked many times why people bother with him, when all he seems to do is power up his computer, head to FITS, and start having uncontrollable spasms over his keyboard. There is no point arguing with crazy.

I, on the other hand, am so clearly Sarah’s intellectual superior that it would just be foolish for her/him to engage me in anything more than trading insults. I like that game, too, so I’m happy to play. But Sarah is, by even a casual observer, so intellectually inept that one might compare debating her/him with debating a sack of hammers.

Honestly, the Obamabots who post here are, collectively, laughable. One of them doesn’t even realize that Australia and Austria are two different countries. They’re not even in the same hemisphere. Come on, Obamabots, you can do better!

Sarah Sez October 18, 2012 at 12:12 am

Sure Logan, but I would have thought a man of Sid’s self-proclaimed talents could guide us through this dark period.

sid October 18, 2012 at 11:11 am

Done, and done. You’re welcome.

xx chromosome October 18, 2012 at 12:17 pm

Why does Obambi keep talking about the Lilly Ledbetter Act and Equal Pay for Women when THERE ARE NO JOBS for men or women?!


Leave a Comment