Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Candy didn't look at any transcript. She didn't read from any transcript. She didn't hold up any transcript in the air for Romney to see. She simply said "actually he did." AND SHE WAS CORRECT- fact checkers have proven this.
For some reason, Republicans want Romney to be able to get away with telling any lie he wants, and if somebody holds up evidence that he is being untruthful, they get all angry and want to slam whomever provides those facts. Candy even said Mitt was CORRECT about it taking 14 days to put the video thing to rest, but her SAYING Mitt was correct on that didn't matter one iota to Republicans, the fact that she DARED inject truth into a debate where their guy might otherwise have been able to get away with scoring points on lies, THAT was unforgivable to them. So much so that they THEMSELVES injected more lies, claiming the acts of terror statement was in a part of Obama's speech where he wasn't even talking about Benghazi.
"We learned last night about the Benghazi attacks." Two sentences later- acts of terror. The VERY NEXT sentence- we mourn the deaths of 4 Americans. Yet Republicans STILL put out the lie that where he said acts of terror in the speech, that part of the speech didn't have anything to do with Benghazi. Blatant lies, and outrage that anybody dares to correct their blatant lies. As if they should just be allowed to trick and lie to Americans all they want without anybody standing in their way. Unflippinbelieveable!
You're so right about all this^^^. Keep up the good work of refuting the amazing nonsense being posted. The right wingers are going to hang on until at least the election.
"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."
There was no reason whatsoever to include that in his speech.
No reason other than the fact that it's a true statement, you mean? Or should President Obama only speak/represent the Christian members of our country?
Totally agree. This Benghazi horse has been beaten to a pulp now. Seems to me that clearly there is only political motivation to keep it going. Must be those emails sent to the far right folks are telling them what to say and to hammer away on message boards about this subject.
And who tried to kill the horse even quicker? No, not Obama.
Sorry, that horse just won't die. When a President lies or misleads or tries to cover up, it's a matter that needs to be highlighted.
No reason other than the fact that it's a true statement, you mean? Or should President Obama only speak/represent the Christian members of our country?
It had nothing to do with the speech unless it referred to the video. It did not belong in the context if what you say is true. The fact that it was there tosses the liberal spin right out the window.
No. Obama said, "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," without any explanation whatsoever of what he considered to be acts of terror.
In contrast, THIS is how Obama actually discussed the attack in Benghazi: "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 to *this* type of senseless violence."
Note the specific use of "this." It is a determiner. It clearly tells us that Obama was referring to the attack in Benghazi.
For example, THIS is how the Obama Admin actually calls an attack a terrorist attack: "The United States condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attack today in Beirut that killed Lebanese Internal Security Forces Information Bureau Director Wissam al-Hassan and at least seven others, and wounded dozens more."
See the difference?
Dude, he said "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..." in a fricking speech about the Benghazi attack. This is starting down the path of intellectual dishonesty that we saw with the "...you didn't build that..." nonsense.
Everyone with a common grasp of the English language can see he was talking about the Benghazi attack, but was also including any other terrorist act/attack that has or could happen.
Dude, he said "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..." in a fricking speech about the Benghazi attack. This is starting down the path of intellectual dishonesty that we saw with the "...you didn't build that..." nonsense.
Everyone with a common grasp of the English language can see he was talking about the Benghazi attack, but was also including any other terrorist act/attack that has or could happen.
Sheesh!
After the nonsense of last night (do that many people really not understand what "fewer" means?) I am starting to think that maybe, just maybe, it isn't intellectual dishonesty but sheer stupidity.
Uh, I watched that entire show. It was obvious to anyone who watched the entire interview that President Obama used the phrase "not optimal" because Stewart used that very same phrase in his question.
It would be worthwhile, for those who don't understand what he said, to do a study of how he uses language, how he uses implication, and how he redefines words. He's very skilled at this. He causes people to think he said what he wants you to think he said, because he knows what the words he so carefully uses mean to the general public.
That is how so many people got taken in by the Hope-and -Change promise. It wasn't what we all thought.
He is a master with words. So much so, that Clinton has to translate for him.
It had nothing to do with the speech unless it referred to the video. It did not belong in the context if what you say is true. The fact that it was there tosses the liberal spin right out the window.
So what if it was referring to all the BS surrounding the video? Does that make the statement less true?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The right wingers are going to hang on until at least the election.
