Debate Rigged, Crowley & Obama wait for Libya to come up before unveiling the new Libya Lie

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
This question was debated on several talk shows and possibly even CNN many times leading up to the debate, it is no secret as to this verbiage, it would seem Romney would not even have chosen this hair to split for the upteenth time and set himself up to look stupid, now for many people that do not keep up with news and talk shows, maybe this point was the first time they have heard it.

There was no rig, there was no set up, Romney or his advisors should have made him stay away from that loaded question because it was already proven the president used the terms he described and the exact words, sort of like beating a dead horse, Romney was wrong, the president was right, end of story.
edit on 18-10-2012 by phinubian because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


actually if people were more adept at understanding things in context.......youd know that what he was calling terror was in context to OTHER things he mentioned in his speech......


The entire rose garden speech was ABOUT the libya attacks! How much more contextual can you get?!?


And why do you manbehindthemask think Obama mentioned 9/11 in the first place in a talk about Libya comparing that to what happened that day. Then Immediately following talking about the attacks on benghazi (sp?) he says we will not tolerate acts of terror.. Blinded by the mask you hide behind?

I don't like Obama or Romney so don't even play this right left bull, but what Romney asked Obama was dumb because Obama literally said what Romney thinks he did not.

This thread wasn't about the wider implications of what happened later, it was just about what happened at the debate, and Obama was right in that context.. .




Romney could have chosen to frame his question to Obama in ANY other way and would have been right. You guys think it's rigged against Romney when Romney asked the question hahaha, that speaks volumes.
edit on 10/18/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
First of all Romney picked Candy as well.
And how do you guys deny the truth over and over.
It's on video right after the incident "Acts of Terror"
Bill Maher is right about the not reality bubble.


That's what stuns me... The RNC has agreed to all three liberal moderator journalists who all have network gigs to sell.... I don't understand why the RNC did not hold out for at least one moderator not connected to a major liberal leaning network with their own TV show to plug....



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

So... Romney won the first debate - and that's AOK.
Biden whipped up on Ryan - and that moderator was brought into question.
Now Obama beats Romney and this moderator is brought into question....

Pattern seems pretty clear to me. If anything, I'll give the right credit. They're good at asymmetrical warfare.

~Heff




I think this bears repeating. This is what seems to be going on.

How can there be thread after misleading thread title
Like, 'Obama never said Acts of Terror in the Rose Garden?'
It's proven, it's fact, what are people doing ?

Mark my words, that WAY TOO PROFESSIONAL attack in Libya may have
Right wing zealot Super PAC money behind it. Mercenary groups love unlimited cash.
Maybe that's what Obama alluded to when he said he'll follow that investigation where ever
it takes them.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I havent heard so much whining since I was in kindergarten.

You know the president handily exposed all of Romney's paants on fire lies when all of his supporters are crying about the moderator!

That's pathetic, guys. Can we please address the facts, even though Romney doesn't like them? Facts are what we deal with.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 


Paranoid.. The thing is, it is rigged.. by the both of them, to keep out the third parties. Obama was always getting his second term. I have said it before and I will say it again, he laid low on the first debate so he could bring in more dems to vote. They would have had a bad showing because they though "it's in the bag" and then when he blew the first debate they though "oh sh*t, we gotta vote" that tightened up the race and returned the illusion of making a choice. NOW that he has tightened the race up with act one, he began act two of catching up and coming to life in the debate last night, the next debates will show Romney being the more subdued one and Obama will be champion.

He was always going to win, that is why the GOP ran such weak candidates against him. They are more concerned about their turn, next election. This close race has only existed for one reason, to keep out the idea of a third party. If they didn't keep Romney close (which they have had to pull some manipulation to do because no one likes him, and many no longer like Obama), then people would be free (not worried about getting Romney) to consider seriously electing a third party.

You saw what they did to Paul and now you can see what they are doing the Johnson and the rest of the third party candidates.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


It's funny to me that you guys really think the moderators are what is affecting the debates. What do you want? Some super biased ignorant piece of garbage like Hannity? These debate moderators are some of the most respectable journalists out there. Even if they have a side they prefer, they don't and wouldn't show it. They are capable of being unbias. That would be impossible for a lot of people to do. Who would you have in mind as a moderator?

The moderators have been completely fine guys, you can't blame anything on them. Romney and Obama agree on every minute detail prior to the debate. They have great agreements (as you have seen leaked) and do everything in their power to keep out the third parties.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Razimus
 


What a way to diffuse a potential situation!

A great thread, and a superb conspiracy!

SnF


Yeah, what a way to deflect from what was obviously a major flub from Romney! Make up a totally ridiculous conspiracy! Yay!



A major flub from Romney...

Excuse me, but our embassy was attacked on 911's anniversary.

4 people are dead and our president and his staff are 100% culpable in this situation.

Now they attempt to parse some words in a debate to obfuscate their culpability in this situation?

No my friend... this was no flub from Romney. He is in no way responsible for this and the folks that are do cartwheels to turn heads in any direction but their own. It is truly a disgusting thing.

Don't be a willing participant in helping them detract attention away from themselves. We surely are not that stupid in this nation, are we?
edit on 18-10-2012 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


When you realize that the DEMS and GOP are one and the same, that Romney would have done the exact same thing, it really doesn't matter. You should be more upset by the fact that they are running a game on you and the American people and not allowing third parties to debate because they will bring up real questions and realyl debate. It's easy to get two guys on stage with promises not to bring up certain things that hurt each other, and to not address each other or some of the real major problems. You get just one third party on the stage and the real questions come out, and people start to notice that neither of the "main" candidates want to talk about it. They want you to ignorantly vote back and forth. This year Obama has it, Romney is just their because someone has to be (or else someone they couldn't control, might be). Don't vote for either of these clowns. It's insulting to America and to your own intelligence.
edit on 18-10-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus

Originally posted by olliemc84
reply to post by Razimus
 


Already discussed in this thread here.

It's been clearly proven to be a lie. He made a statement the following morning about the attack being an act of terror.


This thread isn't about the lie, that's common knowledge among those informed, this thread is about the rigging of the debate, specifically the rigging of Candy Crowley being in-on this strategy, it was a strategy which would have been Romney's strongest point in the entire debate, but because of the plan, ended up not being a strong point for Romney, I'm not simply spouting what's already been out there, I'm making the point that Obama asking Candy to check the transcripts, and Candy siding with Obama, and Obama asking Candy to repeat that a little louder, was clearly the most obviously rigged debate I've ever witnessed.


and of course, obama and crowley FORCED romney to say it.....here's a thought.....maybe the obama team watches and listens to what crap comes out of the right wing media, and actually plans for it..romney stuck his foot in his mouth, because he didn't check the rose garden tape HIMSELF!! he relied on others, and HIS team screwed up.....
my next question is......if romney can't verify something this easy and of little consequence.....what kind of action will he take as president, based on similiar sources of information, given to him in a time of actual crisis???



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


actually if people were more adept at understanding things in context.......youd know that what he was calling terror was in context to OTHER things he mentioned in his speech......


The entire rose garden speech was ABOUT the libya attacks! How much more contextual can you get?!?


No it wasnt thats the deception , thats the plausible deniability of this whole thing, if you listen to the WHOLE speech its about numerous instances........the reference to "terror" was not in specificity to the murder of the ambassador....

The Comment was in reference to any act of terror........

He never equated the attacks on the Ambassador to terror until WELL after all of this stuff went down...

how people can deny this after numerous numerous instances of him and his administration , Rice and Clinton, coming out and blaming this on a video, is beyond me
edit on 18-10-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I view your response as just another form of obfuscation. I'm looking straight at the situation and those responsible and no amount of lies and finger pointing or distraction is going to work here. The history is too recent for it to be spun away. We all know exactly how this was presented to us by the media. Keep spinning, it won't make me dizzy.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


You are amazing. We are not stupid. We know how this was presented to us. We remember... it just happened. No matter how hard you try to lie and obfuscate you cannot spin this another way. This will backfire on you so by all means keep it up.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by phinubian
This question was debated on several talk shows and possibly even CNN many times leading up to the debate, it is no secret as to this verbiage, it would seem Romney would not even have chosen this hair to split for the upteenth time and set himself up to look stupid, now for many people that do not keep up with news and talk shows, maybe this point was the first time they have heard it.

There was no rig, there was no set up, Romney or his advisors should have made him stay away from that loaded question because it was already proven the president used the terms he described and the exact words, sort of like beating a dead horse, Romney was wrong, the president was right, end of story.
edit on 18-10-2012 by phinubian because: (no reason given)



IF thats the case and the president used those terms, then why is it such a big issue in the hearings? and why is the Intelligence department trying to distance themselves from Obama and his people who touted that response?

What amazes me more is people refuse to see this for what it blatantly is......

If this was Bush you guys would be calling for his head
edit on 18-10-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


I am not spinning anything.
It's just fact. They are big productions. How do you think I am spinning it? I dislike both Obama and Romney. The fact is they agree on every aspect, it's all a show, it's like professional wrestling. Little things like the mod talking or interrupting are inconsequential to the overall.

READ THIS

AND

Watch the video on this thread

Don't buy into this garbage, also go back and reread my post you replied to and try again, as your post sounded more like a copy paste response. It didn't fit my comment.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Oh I am the copy/paster, lol! Your response is a total distraction from the importance of what really happened.

It's all just a show, they all do it. Ignore what happened because it is just what they do etc.

Nope, not buying it. Not accepting YOUR form of distraction.

This just happened and we all remember exactly how it was presented to us. We all remember how this rolled out. No amount of lies, parsing of words or attempted spin is going to confuse us. This is going to backfire on you.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Razimus
 


Paranoid.. The thing is, it is rigged.. by the both of them, to keep out the third parties. Obama was always getting his second term. I have said it before and I will say it again, he laid low on the first debate so he could bring in more dems to vote. They would have had a bad showing because they though "it's in the bag" and then when he blew the first debate they though "oh sh*t, we gotta vote" that tightened up the race and returned the illusion of making a choice. NOW that he has tightened the race up with act one, he began act two of catching up and coming to life in the debate last night, the next debates will show Romney being the more subdued one and Obama will be champion.

He was always going to win, that is why the GOP ran such weak candidates against him. They are more concerned about their turn, next election. This close race has only existed for one reason, to keep out the idea of a third party. If they didn't keep Romney close (which they have had to pull some manipulation to do because no one likes him, and many no longer like Obama), then people would be free (not worried about getting Romney) to consider seriously electing a third party.

You saw what they did to Paul and now you can see what they are doing the Johnson and the rest of the third party candidates.


You have restored some of my faith in the intelligence of the people on ATS. I must say I'm a bit surprised how partisan ATS has become lately. A year ago, you hardly heard from Obama supporters when he was bombing people, assasinating people, gutting civil rights, etc., and almost nobody said they supported Romney. I said months ago that the fix was in, Obama must win. That way, anyone that doesn't support the invasion of Iran will be labeled a racist.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


When you realize that the DEMS and GOP are one and the same, that Romney would have done the exact same thing, it really doesn't matter. You should be more upset by the fact that they are running a game on you and the American people and not allowing third parties to debate because they will bring up real questions and realyl debate. It's easy to get two guys on stage with promises not to bring up certain things that hurt each other, and to not address each other or some of the real major problems. You get just one third party on the stage and the real questions come out, and people start to notice that neither of the "main" candidates want to talk about it. They want you to ignorantly vote back and forth. This year Obama has it, Romney is just their because someone has to be (or else someone they couldn't control, might be). Don't vote for either of these clowns. It's insulting to America and to your own intelligence.
edit on 18-10-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


they are not the same...but you can keep saying it over and over...if you can't tell the difference, then don't vote for either, that's your choice. but, that's not your agenda, it's for others to give up voting, because you want them to believe that it DOESN'T make a difference.....if you are so disheartened by americas political system, you are welcome to move to another country with my best wishes.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by jimmyx
 


You are amazing. We are not stupid. We know how this was presented to us. We remember... it just happened. No matter how hard you try to lie and obfuscate you cannot spin this another way. This will backfire on you so by all means keep it up.


thats exactly right and the whole reason he responded with "it was a video" was because he knew that if it came out that it was because of his failed foreign policies and inability to protect his foreign diplomats it would HURT his election numbers........

This guy has to keep a ledger on all his lies just so he can fact check his own deception against previous stories hes told



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


You are right! It is a distraction. Two party's distraction to keep you going back and forth instead of voting third party and having a voice. Instead of saying the same thing why don't you go and check out the sources I posted. Don't just ignore it, I posted it for your education. I like to think people are interested in learning still, but maybe not.

It really does not matter, you guys are blowing a few ad libbed moments in a scripted performance out of proportion. You guys need to wake up and realize you are squabbling over a stupid game that keeps you from voting with your brain. Open your eyes, stop hating the other guy, and inexplicably supporting your guy long enough to take a look. Seriously, I didn't post the links for my health.

You could at least comment on what I posted rather than just blathering out something that allows you to completely ignore what im saying. Your response is literally nothing. It doesn't show anything. You didn't consider what I wrote, and you didn't check out what I posted for you. Why don't you check it out and comment with substance.
edit on 18-10-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join