When Romney caught Obama regarding "a terrorist act in Benghazi" and then pointed out the White House didn't make that known for 2 weeks.
Tomorrows headlines will be buzzing.
It is the American people who are losing, period, if they actually think Obama did a good job tonight. He didn't even answer the question about the killing of the Ambassador & others in Benghazi, and then he feigned hurt, accusing Romney of being offensive. What's really offensive is the fact that he STILL did not take responsibility for his ineptness nor his lies nor his previous insinuations that a youtube video caused the attack! He began those insinuations even in the Rose Garden speech. Paragraph 3, I think it is, or about 1:20 in the video of the speech. Candy Crowley was soooo wrong by doing what she did; has even apologized from what I hear. And who's to know if that apology was sincere? The damage was done the instant she opened her biased mouth. She may well just be aping the actions of the great Misleader Obama. But will we ever hear an apology from Obama for consistently blaming American citizens for the actions of others? I highly doubt it.
The Benghazi terrorist attack was an unfortunate, tragic event but one which has little importance compared to many other issues such as unemployment, growing the economy, tax reform, energy, climate change, Supreme Court appointments, election campaign reform, the environment, bank regulation, a variety of women's issues and the big ones: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and health care reform.
Which is why the left spends all of their time talking about Big Bird, Romney's blind trust(he schooled Obama on that), and Romney's tax returns.
Benghazi was unfortunate?
An American Ambassador with 3 other Foreign Service personnel are murdered and the best you come up with is unfortunate?
The Administration you worship is proved to have purposely orchestrated a concerted administration wide effort to lie to the American public in order to curry political favor in an election season or (in the best case scenario), been substantiated as incompetent and its unfortunate?
How many more lies are you willing to absorb and ignore?
How much more incompetence should we accept?
“We don’t have to settle for what we’re going through. We don’t have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don’t have to settle for unemployment at a chronically high level. We don’t have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don’t have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don’t have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job”
Mitt Romney 10-16-12
Yes. The deaths are unfortunate.
And likely NOT preventable any more than the original 9/11 was preventable. Or any of the thousands of terrorist attacks that go on week in and week out. We don't pay much attention to them because the casualties are not Americans. So I guess they don't really matter because they are not politically expedient.
You can choose to see this as a massive coverup. I find that laughable, in light of the 8-year coverup we lived through with Bush Cheney, when we were told to "support our troops" or else we were unpatriotic.
Some people have really short memories, I guess.
The broader issue here is that the Middle East is a constantly shifting and volatile powderkeg. Euphemistically speaking about "working with our allies" "in the best interest of the American people" as Ryan did will not bring Ambassador Stevens back. Nor will it make Libya a safer place. We are not dealing with identified countries whose armies wear uniforms. Within any of these countries, siding with the elected government (which we supported in bringing democracy in) vs. siding with the opposition it's not always clear who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys."
Romney is going to have to get himself schooled really, really well for the next debate. I hope for your sake he does a better job of cramming than Sarah Palin was able to.
I think he's gonna get his ass whooped.
The attacks trump that, Womens issuesJEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus
No the equal treatment of 51% of the population actually trumps pretty much everything especially a pretty minor terrorist attack overseas many of the perpetrators of which are already caught.
No it doesn't! Women have it pretty good compared to the four murdered men.
Yes 150 million women are indeed better off that those 4 people who are dead, they are also better off that the one guy who was killed by someone accidentally dropping a brick, obviously accidental brick dropping is a bigger issue that women's rights
Women have rights! They have the same rights as you and I. Those four murdered men use to have rights, now they are just dead. I hope Sandra Fluke gets her rubbers, wouldn't want her to reproduce.
Astounding, I'd say they were hilarious.
I'm just glad they chose a fair and balanced, and most importantly unbiased moderator.
Romney was on-topic. The question was about what the Obama administration had done to keep assault rifles out of the hands of criminals. Romney was talking about a program that put them into the hands of criminals(for some reason, the instant-feedback people didn't seem to care, doesn't make sense to me).
At the end... just after 1:00, Obama say 'Candy?', at which point she interrupts Romney, and CHANGES THE QUESTION THAT THE AUDIENCE MEMBER ASKED.
This was the original question.
" President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?"
Crowley interrupted and said this:
"Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned."
That was NOT the question... she just ran to Obama's rescue because Fast and Furious is a scandal he is trying to keep covered up.
Yup that's exactly what she did. I'm just disappointed that Romney didn't hammer him about the fact that after the attacks occurred, team Obama went on an apology tour to the UN about a video instead of effectively condemning their absurd actions.
Is that really the best you got?
The moderator even supported the FACT that the President called it a terrorist act the next day.
'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.
Is this really labeling it a terrorist act?
Yes he did mention acts of terror.
Ya gotta love these - definition of "is"... arguments...
yes, the pres. did label the consulate attack an act of terror
The Rose Garden comment was 803 words discussing "the attack" (yes he started off calling it "an attack"
618 words discussed "the attack" and its victims, etc.
This was followed by:
...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.
So when viewed in context - it is difficult to deny that he was labeling it as an "act of terror" (is that the same as a terrorist attack?)
yes, I am aware he also said:
...We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.
(sounds like a reference to the video to me...)
here is the complete transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off … taff-libya
so technically, he can say he called it an act of terror
But here is where that slippery "is" definition comes into play...
is an "act of terror" the same as an "act of terrorism," or a "terrorist attack?"
Is it just semantics, or a real difference?
From that point on, (the AM Rose Garden speech) - starting that very day, and for the next couple weeks or so - every "official" and high-level admin. spokesman denied it was a terrorist attack and blamed it on the Internet video - Including Pres. Obama. On multiple outlets and interviews.
So Romney goofed - and the president gave him a black-eye as he, (the Pres.) slid off the hook and hid behind a fortunately included phrase.
That was almost as bad as the VP debate.
The moderator sucked. She gave unequal segments to the candidates, Obama ended up with more than 1.5 segments more of speaking time. She cut off Romney and let Obama talk past his time. She also fact-checked Romney once, which is not the job of a moderator. She didn't fact-check any of Obama's lies.
Obama came out in support of a new assault weapons ban. I think that's a bad, bad idea for him. He's going to upset gun owners in swing states. More will come out to vote, and more that would have voted Johnson will vote Romney to protect their gun rights.
Good moments, and bad, with both candidates... but considering the bias of the moderator, I give a slight win to Romney.
AH the excuses why is it always accusations of bias from the right? It's a tired shtick.
Josak. Did Obama get 3:10 more speaking time or not? Check with CNN.
Did the moderator(who is not supposed to try to fact-check EITHER candidate, let alone only one) fact-check BOTH candidates, or only Romney?
This is not a false accusation... these are facts.
Mighty Mom, I've been watching and reading the news since this atrocity occurred. The white house was condemning the video producer. Never did they say this was an organized attack. Not till much after the fact.
As for Crowley, did you check to see who she works for? Communist News Network.
Anderson Cooper is a communist? That's rich.
CNN has as many right-leaning as left-leaning contributors.
If you watched the post-debate analysis you will see that of all of the networks they are actually the most balanced. At least they try to present both sides.
I agree with CNN being the most balanced. They don't seem to have a large "agenda" like MSNBC and FOX.
Sure they do.
But Fox doesn't have anymore of an agenda than they do.
Fox allows views from liberals and from conservatives.
Once in a while, the other networks do too, but they're usually much more offensive toward the opposing side.
Right now, the only commentator from CNN that I can see as even halfway fair is Wolf Blitzer. He even mentioned right after the debate that Obama didn't even answer the question about the Libya incident.
And some of the people on his side of the situation have blamed Romney for NOT being stronger in calling Obama out on the Libya situation! That's like blaming mugging victims for...getting mugged, instead of blaming the mugger.
I can cite two anchors who seem, from watching them quite often, to balance each other out.
Erin Burnett has been brutal to the WH. If you think Anderson has steely blue eyes, you should look at hers!
On the other side, Soledad O'Brien has been calling out the right quite a bit.
MSNBC and FOX are both crazy in their partisanship.
Of course you do. We expect that and love you anyway!
Although I am not sure your loyalty will be rewarded.
If you don't count how many times Romney ranted on his talking points and not addressing the questions while morphing all the topics together I guess you could say he did a good job of machine gunning as many words at us like the world has never seen. If I heard it once I heard it a hundred times, "I can do this, I did it before with Massachusetts and the Olympics". No details but plenty of promise.
Lol, silly girls. I don't like any news anchors!
I hate watching the news... any news. I hate reading it too.
In other news(lol)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … -arizona-/
Obama doubled-down on the E-Verify thing, he was wrong.
Also, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA ADMITTED HE HAS INVESTMENTS IN THE CAYMANS AND IN CHINESE FIRMS. Just thought I would put that out there. In fact, I'm going to make a thread about it.
buh-buh-buh -- but only 11 questions.
when the political answers are minimized by continual crosswalk confrontation or through the moderator the debater is hampered.
there was no winner -
the public lost as the chaos was the same as the occupy fanatics who have no truth to stand on.
the nation is on the path to depression and that is what I had when this chaotic debate was over.
it is obvious that the political jestering will continue where the President will continue to provide excuses and Gov Romney will challenge the President's ability to lead.
Since the President had control of the entire government under the Democrats for the first 2 years of his term, the President failed to take care of all the promises made.
Since Gov Romney wants to lead the country, he will continue to point this out to the public.
Those who worship President Obama will never vote for Gov Romney. (47%)
Those who agree with Gov Romney want a strong America and so will never worship President Obama. (48%)
Those who don't know what to do will continue to be confused about their position because they have no idea what they really want yet. (2% leaning toward the President, 3% leaning toward Gov Romney for a stronger economy)
The system is working as originally designed which should shock nobody.
However, the bickering is getting more sickening as the voting day draws near.
Everyone "wants a strong America." The difference is that Obama's programs will benefit everyone while Romney's schemes are designed to put money in the pockets of the already filthy rich.
I didn't get the official white house transcript. I'm to smaat for that.
""""I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens."""""""
Source: http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story … azi-attack
Oh, you can watch what he said for yourself.
How come you left out the part of Obama's remarks where he referred to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror?"
President Obama's remarks were most eloquent and moving. Thanks for the link to the video of his statement in the Rose Garden. He did not connect the attack on the Benghazi consulate with the offensive video movie. He did refer to the attack as an act of terror as follows:
"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."
The next day, Sept. 13, in a campaign appearance in Las Vegas, he used similar language. “And we want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America,” he said.
If the president referred to the attack as an “act of terror” twice in those two days, why has there been such a controversy over what Republicans call the administration’s deep reluctance to label the attack terrorism?
Romney shamelessly attempted to politicize the incident inaccurately when he jumped the gun with a statement criticizing President Obama before the facts were in.
Today, the GOP presidential nominee stuck by his criticism of the Obama administration, contending the White House's first response to the violence was similar to an apology.
"It's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values," Romney said from his campaign office in Jacksonville. "When our grounds are being attacked and being breached ... the first response of the United States must be outrage."
Asked whether he had "jumped the gun" with his Tuesday night statement, Romney did not back down.
"I don't think we ever hesitate when we see something which is a violation of our principles," he said.
Wrong. He did connect the two.
You started your quote right after Obama was talking about the original 9-11.
When he first talked about the attack, 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. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."
You don't think that was referencing the video?
It's possible, or it may have referred to the demonstrations in Cairo which apparently were sparked by the video. I assume you don't support the denigration of anyone's religion. I suppose it could have been a mistaken assumption as a result of previous reactions to caricature cartoons of Muhammad and the jackass minister in Florida who goes around burning Korans. In any event the Benghazi attack was a tragedy but inconsequential compared to other issues facing the country.
American lives are inconsequential? Where did you come from? Some African dictatorial nation that treats life as an inconvenience? That comment is outrageous, you are putting the liberal progressive agenda and the continuation of this administration ahead of the lives of Americans?
Any respect or consideration readers might have had for your opinions is completely squandered.
You define the murder of Americans as unfortunate and inconsequential?
You are disgusting.
Can you read? I said inconsequential COMPARED to other more important issues. I also said the deaths are tragic and unfortunate. The 3,000 deaths in the foolish, costly and needles invasion of Iraq and the 2,000 in Afghanistan are more consequential.
I agree with your last sentence, but I'd also say that the loss of human life is never inconsequential. Also, I believe the attack in Libya is symptomatic of a much larger problem in the region.
It absolutely is!
The region is as volatile after the Arab Spring as before.
Here is a list of all the countries that erupted into protests over this mysterious video:
Anti-U.S. protests spread to Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Britain, East Jerusalem, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Syria, Turkey, the West Bank and Yemen, according to U.S. officials and news reports, with many protesters chanting religious slogans and railing against the denigration of Islam in the obscure low-budget video.
Protests continued for days against symbols of America:
On Friday, it was the freedom to target American-linked buildings that most defined the day, as many governments appeared to be taken by surprise at the strength of the protests. Not even KFC and Hardee’s were safe, with franchises in Tripoli, Lebanon, torched by protesters as security forces opened fire on them, killing at least one person.
Somehow, the context of this widespread -- and also lethal -- violence has been eclipsed.
Instead, we are parsing words in the POTUS' Rose Garden speech.
Did he say "terror" or "terrorists"?
The act was and act of TERROR.
However, unlike shoot first, aim later Romney and "we will fabricate lies to justify our neocon actions" Bushco -- the POTUS does not kneejerk reactions.
The Middle East is like a chess game, only with shape-shifting pieces. Yesterday's king is today's rook is tomorrow's pawn.
There are huge problems in the region, but they aren't attributable to the Obama administration, and Romney hasn't given any indication he would do anything different other than kissing up to Netanyahoo and bringing us closer to war with Iran.
"Inconsequential"?? Ralph, how can you even say that? I'm really surprised at you.
Tragic but miniscule compared to other issues. It's being blown way out of proportion by extreme GOP partisans for political purposes as was the death of the American border agent killed by Mexican drug lords. Congressman Issa, himself a crook, specializes in political vendettas.
death is never inconsequential.
but I am not surprised you may think so since the government leaders have acted as if it were true,
Ok, well I thought I was sorta smaat too. I had seen the video - but I also checked the transcript.
I stand by my logic - technically he could say he labeled it an act of terror.
But as I said, I think that was just a semantic "lucky break" I do not believe he was calling it a terrorist attack. And his, and his administration's representative's actions following that speech certainly contradicted what he is claiming he said that morning.
That was the whole point of my post. But, I'm still trying to understand what those alternate definitions of "is are, so maybe I'm not as smaat as I thought.
You know, out of all that is at stake here; sometimes it's just a matter of principle. The White House intentionally changed the official Rose Garden transcript. Ok, some may say "well that's just political positioning. Fine, but these guys affect our (country) livelihood.
Consider this. Obama pushed healthcare with a democrat congress, not even letting the house and senate republicans read the bill. That was an outrage, then I considered Clintons terms. Hillary was pushing healthcare. I then found a Jimmy Carter speech from 1977-78 where he was calling for you guessed it; healthcare. The constitution says "we the people" among other things have the right to take an unworthy statesman out of office. Sorry I'm ranting.... This is a broken world, but Jesus saves. And I pray for restoration soon.
In political history the killing of an ambassador is an act of war; even the Japanese ambassador as they were bombing Pearl Harbor was safe in Washington meeting with the president. Sadly, there is so much killing and murder in the world, it may appear to some as inconsequential. It does not matter if republicans or democrats administer the laws of this nation, let us not harden ourselves to human suffering.
Killing an ambassador is certainly an act of war, but by whom? It's not attributable to any nation. Libya has apologized and is trying to apprehend the perpetrators.
We have been at war with al qaida since 911. But we have pursued the war foolishly--3000 needlessly killed in Iraq and 2000 in Afghanistan. The killing by terrorists of 4 Americans in Benghazi is tragic and sad, but it is being used cynically for political purposes by the "forces of evil" in this country whose policies led to the unnecessary deaths of 5000 Americans and countless civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Old rules of engagement are not honored by terrorist groups.
In WWII we had clearly defined enemies who wore uniforms and spoke country-specifc languages. War was actually "declared."
The US invaded, but did not officially "declare war on" Iraq in response to 9/11.
Did we think the country of Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Of course not.
Although we did escort the Bin Laden family out of our country, more or less according them "diplomatic immunity" even though there were not official "diplomats."
Killing a US ambassador on Libyan soil may be an act of war.
But it was not an act of the Libyan government.
Thusfar, no terrorist group, al-Quaeda included, has jumped up gloating and taking credit for the attack.
So exactly who sould the US retaliate against here?
The current Libyan government is more ruthless than that of Qadaffi.
They have already generated more refugees and incarcerations.
They have attacked their own people.
Their puppet strings are being pulled by the terrorists.
Intelligence indicates that the Libyan government permitted the individuals to obtain the fire power necessary to attack the embassy.
The individuals identified by the Libyan government may or may not have been involved in the embassy incident, but are definitely people who oppose the current government. So does this mean that we are protecting the bad guys by allowing the bad guys to turn over their opponents?
By the way, in WWII, there were groups of terrorists within the German ranks and these groups continued to operate for a short while after the war was over. The banded along the borders of Austria and Switzerland where they were protected from the Allies units. Several were eliminated in a raid by advancing units from Italy in 1946.
for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf
You've actually proved my point.
We do not know with any certainty who did this.
We do not know with any certainty who our enemies and who our allies are in the Middle East. The new governments? The rebels against the new governments?
What about if those rebels are actually trying to get the old dictators back in office?
This phenomenon is not new. Or unique to the Middle East, either. I seem to remember some other president's involvement in Nicaragua...
I guess we need to recognize that the new Libya government is the enemy.
otherwise they would have protected the embassy.
"I guess we need to recognize that the new Libya government is the enemy or they would have stopped the attack."
Apparently you have a pipeline from the CIA or a relative in Libya or it didn't occur to you that the government may well have been as surprised by the terrorist attack as our people at the consulate were and in the State Department and the GOPers in Congress who cut the State Department's security budget by several hundred million $.
Not to mention how popular the Ambassador was there and how so many Lybian's tried to save his life. Blaming a government for allowing Al-Queda to attack is ridiculous, if that were so wouldn't you be blaming the Bush administration for the attack on 9/11, the British government for attacks on their soil, etc?
I did Blame the Bush Administration.
Then they took action and protected us.
I blamed the Clinton Administration.
They failed us horribly.
I blame the Obama Administration.
They continue to fail us.
I am not blaming the government for allowing Al-Queda to attack.
I am blaming the Libyan govenrment for not protecting the embassy.
The attack occurred, but the assigned Libyan guards did not do their job.
The citizens of Libya attempted to protect our ambassador, the government of Libya did not.
By any chance were you involved in the phony Iraq WMD reports?
nothing phony about the WMD.
they exist and are still maintained somewhere within 300 miles of their origin.
there are several neighboring countries where they may currently be housed.
I wonder if that is why we do not strike Syria?
If they did, Iraq would have nuked the US and UK by now for the atrocities that we have committed.
It is horrible what the U.S. did, freeing people from a dictator is atrocious!
"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things."
war on woman, tax returns, binders?, lies about AZ law, big bird, obviously the man has nothing!
But Big Bird isn't a small thing... he's not small bird, he's Big Bird.
It was funny when Obama tried to act like he had done everything he set out to do, and kept all his promises.
Obviously averting an economic depression, holding onto a million jobs and over 30 months of growth in the economy is something nobody would talk about when discussing Obamas record.
Obama Recovery Is Worst In Post WWII History
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
A core dispute in this presidential campaign is over how to evaluate President Obama's economic record.
On the one hand, it's not fair to blame Obama for the slow growth in the first six months of his presidency, which was mostly a product of conditions he inherited.
On the other hand, it's not convincing for Obama to suggest — as he routinely does — that he should be evaluated on the basis of whether the recovery has been better than the recession. Recoveries, by definition, are better than recessions.
So rather than holding Obama responsible for a recession he inherited, or praising him simply because that recession didn't continue perpetually, the fairest measure of his economic stewardship is this one:
How does the Obama recovery compare to other recoveries from similar downturns across the decades?
On that basis, the Obama recovery can only be graded as a tremendous failure — as it has produced the worst rate of economic growth of any recovery in the past 65 years.
Over that span, we've had 10 previous recessions and 10 previous recoveries. According to the federal government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), average real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth in the first three years after those recessions was 4.6%.
During the Obama recovery (which began three years ago, in July 2009), average real GDP growth has been just 2.2% — less than half the historical norm. Of the past 11 recoveries, the Obama recovery has been the worst.
The 10 stronger recoveries involved Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush — in other words, every other postwar president.
Some might suppose that this is because the 2008-09 recession was a particularly long and debilitating one. But the historical record shows that the pattern is generally as follows: the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery.
Indeed, if we limit our comparison to the five longest recessions in the past 65 years (each of which lasted at least 11 months), we find the following: During the four pre-Obama recoveries from such recessions, average real GDP growth in the first three years was a whopping 5.9% — dwarfing the 2.2% figure under Obama.
What's the difference between 5.9% and 2.2% growth? Over the past three years, our GDP has been, on average, about $15 trillion annually. A 3.7% shortfall, therefore, equals about $555 billion a year, or $1.6 trillion over three years.
If you divide that evenly among the roughly 300 million Americans, it works out to a shortfall of more than $5,000 per person — or more than $20,000 for a family of four.
Nor are things getting better. Over the first two years of the Obama recovery, average real GDP growth was 2.2%. During the third year, it remained at 2.2%. So far in 2012, it has been 1.8% annualized. In the most recent quarter, it was 1.5% annualized.
Moreover, these poor results are despite Obama's $787,000,000,000 "stimulus" — a remarkable explosion of deficit spending at the expense of future generations of Americans, who will have to pay that money back.
If all of this weren't bad enough, the Obama recovery has also been a dismal failure in terms of employment.
According to the BLS, the employment-population ratio — the percentage of Americans who are employed — was 59.4% during the last month of the recession (June 2009). That figure has now actually dropped to 58.4%. Three years into the "recovery," a lower percentage of Americans are employed than during the recession.
In marked contrast, in the last four pre-Obama recoveries from recessions spanning at least 11 months, the average improvement in the employment-population ratio over the same span of time was 2.6 points — a swing of 3.6 points from Obama's tally of minus 1.0%.
If 3.6% more Americans were employed today, that would amount to more than 10 million people.
For the better part of four years, Obama has spearheaded unprecedented levels of government spending, regulation, and control over Americans' lives. He has championed Obama-Care, unleashed the Environmental Protection Agency, promoted crony capitalism and adopted policies decidedly at odds with Main Street.
The experiment has been tried, the evidence is in and the verdict is clear: This is by far the worst economic recovery in the past 6-1/2 decades.
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial … z29gjAQSCx
My contention is that if Sesame street and other shows are that good, then they can attract corporate sponsor by the boat load. Liberals are afraid they will lose their megaphone, if the CPB gets no funding.
by Susan Reid4 years ago
This is from FORBES. I am posting the whole article for your consideration:In tonight’s debate we saw a transformed Barack Obama, and it made a very big difference. In the first debate Governor Mitt Romney was relaxed...
by JaxsonRaine4 years ago
Habee got the jump on the debate last time. This time, it's my turn.I predict that Obama is going to end up with 4 minutes more speaking time. Liberals will complain that Romney was rude, interrupted Obama, and bullied...
by Susie Lehto4 days ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ )...
by Sooner284 years ago
No one had any question that George Bush's War on Terror was at least partially referring to terrorists. It wasn't "up in the air."An act of terror would have to be performed by a terrorist! No...
by LauraGT4 years ago
Did the first presidential debate change your mind about either candidate?
by My Esoteric5 months ago
There were two distinct debating styles on display last night on Sept 26, 2016.How do you describe what in on?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.