dayman

I know I thought about that too haha

Pssh...there's nothing outlandish about that girls twitter...if you know about twitter. Sad that people think this is news...a girl has a twitter with some stuff she wouldn't put on a job resume and now she can't ask a question at a debate without being vilified by faux-news gossip websites?

http://www.dailydot.com/news/violentacrez-reddit-troll-fired-gawker-profile/

I've brought this up before, he's ok way with it. Move along.

Someone should tell this guy that bank probably doing more for his cause than he is. For real though, damn...keep catching these mofos.

We won't agree so no use in arguing. But the fact is she did know the answer and they were not giving it to the American people so she clarified on both accounts and was right on both accounts and people liked that she did so on both accounts. You may say there is no point for a moderator (who is always a journalist and not Ryan Seacrest) to do these things. People are sick and tired of this nonsense. Romney fixated on if it was referred to as terror. It was. Plain and simple. Romney said there was confusion in the 2 weeks following on if it was related to protests all around the world. There was. Both of these points are accurate. Both confirmed. There is no argument that the American people watching are the better for it. Plain and simple.

BTW the best line of the debate IMO, and in politics in recent times "Some jobs just aren't coming back." True. And addressing an issue both sides try to attack each other on. Something Buffalo of all cities should know is true.

Actually, she's a journalist and she knew the transcript b/c that's why journalist are asked to host. She acknowledged the confusion Romney was trying to get at which got an applause. She also acknowledged that when Obama said if you check the transcripts I referred to it as terror the day after which Romney was hell bent on focusing on, and was wrong about plain and simple. The idea that there is no role for a moderator who is a journalist FOR A REASON to not speak factual information when unfactual attacks are flying and contested...is bizzare. Romney says the grass is blue. Obama says...well it's green. Romney says "on the record?" Obama says "check the grass." It's no place for an informed moderator who has checked the grass to say "green?" And btw the fact that she got an applause for both confirming Obama was right on what was said, and that Romney was correct that there was confusion for days following on what happened...basically proves this is what people would prefer a moderator to do. And considering she was right on both accounts, it was a good job, on both accounts.

Except she wasn't wrong and it is her place to interject. If you are hell bent on backing Romney on this point, you can convince yourself of anything. He specifically focused on if his buzzword was used or was not going as far as to say he wants to get this on the record...the record shows he's wrong. If he wanted to focus on confusion about the riots in many countries and perhaps in other areas of Libya being confused he could have .... he fixated on if it was called terror. it was. it's that simple.

The bottom line is you look at the actual clip in the debate...Romney specifically doubles down on Obama saying he never referred to it as terror. Obama responds that he did the day after. Romney completely converts all energy into "getting that on the record." The record shows it is true (I just watched the speech). You can go off and say oh well it wasn't really and blah blah blah...he called it an attack about 100 times in that speech and said these acts of terror will not be blah blah blah. If Romney wanted to focus on confusion about protests over videos in countless nations in the region and potentially in Libya as an attack that is fine. Romney did not. He basically said in a stupid way the buzz word terror wasn't used quick enough, and it was used the day after. If you are upset this makes Romney look bad, don't be upset at anyone but Romney

For what it is worth Carville once called Penn "Pitt and Philly w/ Alabama in the middle"...probably not completely accurate but funny.

If this happened, after Gore...would we see the abolition of the electoral college?

We're all doing better than Texas defense.

On that specific question he did get to Lilly Ledbetter obviously. Romney then talked about staffing women as governor then talking about the economy as if that addresses equality regardless of conditions.

In general I have come to terms with my feelings on the Bush administration. I was not here during an alleged posters reign where inside info was "proven." And given the current substance of the board that I have known (that I have only known) you'll just have to excuse me. I am sorry if I offended a personal relationship of yours, all I can tell you is...it's PPP on TBD as I know it and I was not here. This is the last I will respond the Paul insults.

Difficult as it may be to believe, yes. Don't take it personally. Imagine you started coming to a board fairly recently that seems to be a center of idiots (but yet you like it so still stay and contribute when you care to) and someone says "Paul" (whom you do not know and have never heard of) knows secrets and told them here otherwise not available about 911. Not trying to be an ass. But put yourself in my shoes. Don't care to think about it further, I wasn't here, I don't believe it and have no reason to believe it, and if that makes you offended so be it. But yes, I could care less about "Paul"

For the record I could care less about some poster named Paul. Obviously to believe there were things expressed on this board that was credible inside info I would have to been here and be convinced myself. I was not. That is all there is to it.

I actually completely disagree. If there is a moderator who knows something is wrong, they should speak up. As for the meaningful distinction...terrorism? Seriously what does that word even mean? It's a tactic. Whether this attack was planned 6 months in advance or whether post-revolutionaries w/ massive weapons on hand saw chaos all over and attacked...it was still basically what we call "terrorism" and there is no real distinction I can find.

LOL wtf is this "Paul" multiple people saying they truly believe he is a credible source inside the Bush Admin? wow

This is pure stupidity. There is no other way to put it. It was a bad specific point for Romney to make, it was inaccurate and corrected b/c the moderator knew it was wrong and said so. If Romney wants to attack on Libya, let him do it based on the facts. The killing of US diplomats is an act of terror. Whether people knew to what extent it was premeditated at the time or separate from the protests or an opportunistic attack..that's an entirely different question. Do you think, OC that Romney would have stopped that from happening? It's as simple as that. What is your answer. And if you say no, that doesn't mean this can't be used as a political attack...it's just a key think to ask yourself at the outset.

LOL. I am not Tom's other profile. Maybe I am a fake Dem...but no Repub on this board would say that. I'm partisan as anyone who follows certain policies must be...but hate that 2 private organizations with expansive platforms control politics (if they had less expansive platforms it would be tolerable as it was in our nations history). As for you saying what you want, absolutely right. As for me saying what I want in response, absolutely right.

Agreed minus the idea someone on this board had credible info not available to us all

I can't speak for the American people. To this day, I do believe that Bush had intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction...however "over hyped" the lock-solidness may have been. To this day, probably you don't agree, I do think that there were protests in countries all over about a stupid video, apparently there may have been protests in Libya as well (not surprising at all), and there was an attack in Libya as well that was deliberate and willful regardless of the scope of the plan. Do I think there was a massive lie or cover-up? No. I do think the interplay between protests and attacks over all the countries was confusing in the media reporting...and likely confusing in intelligence that has to be right and thus must be slow. And yes, I do agree that the official position was still confusing beyond the point that the unofficial position became clear...in a situation like this...I don't see how that is surprising. I look at reasonable repubs both in congress and on message boards like a joke at time when they stand by and let insane people say stupid things. So don't take too much personal offense, but STFU about this old cranky white men schtick. It's stupid. Don't be stupid. People associate you with me wrongly since we both support the same presidential candidate, so don't be an idiot.

I am in awe at Repub surrogates keeping with this "unraveling" theme. When asked why...they can't answer...they should stop saying this.

Agree on both points. I mean I know I'm an Obama supporter over Mitt...but you can search...I've consistently "defended" Bush on those points and never dig into the man like many Repubs think all Dems do