huskerXman

Still spinning I see. Wow, the ignorant bias is beyond funny and has passed to just plain sad.

I can go on if you need me to?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57533862/fact-checking-the-second-presidential-debate/

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/30/no-obama-didnt-call-benghazi-act-of-terror-in-speech/

Hmm, the Washington post seems to agree with me. http://www.washingto...e6a4b_blog.html

Thanks, now show me where he called THIS and act of terror? See the second bold part, stated immediately after the first. If you need the help I can come over there and try to move your eyeballs across the screen so you can see the words. Let me know - I'm here to help. Now, I will ask one more time. WHERE DID HE CALL THIS AN ACT OF TERROR? I am not asking you what you think he meant, I have already gone over that. "no terror acts" is not calling one specific act an act terror. It refers to all acts of terror.. What does he consider an act of terror? This one? Don't know he didn't specifically call this one an act of terror. EDIT: neither does saying "we mourn..."

Mitt is interpreting it incorrectly. Kind of like interpreting Mitt saying he doesn't and won't concern himself with 47% of the country as Mitt saying he's very concerned with the well-being of 47% of the country. In your opinion. Fact is he didn't call this act itself and act of terror.. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," All he said was no acts of terror.. Serious question: are you high? serious question.. Where did he specifically call this an act of terror?

Thanks, now show me where he called THIS and act of terror?

I don't need to tell myself. I can watch video and/or read the transcript to prove that he called it an act of terror. What's your excuse? another shot at me personally.. How is that a personal shot? The evidence shows that my argument is supported by facts and your argument is not. If you have a problem with that then you should change your argument to match the facts. lol, show me where he called this an act of terror? You can't because he didn't. Show me, it is that simple

I don't need to tell myself. I can watch video and/or read the transcript to prove that he called it an act of terror. What's your excuse? another shot at me personally.. Very typical of someone that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The saddest part is that you actually seem to believe this. I think I'd be more comfortable if people were knowingly repeating the lie but apparently we've found a true believer. Ah yes, when you have nothing else try and attach the poster.. dmj is that you?

not sure if you are talking to me or not, but I didn't hear it. Yep, talking to you. Romney said it. What's your take on that? again, I didn't not hear it so I have no idea what he said. It's too bad there's no interconnected series of information systems available to you so you could find that interchange and comment on it, huh? What a shame. If only the internet had been invented by now. I don't care enough to go find it, you brought it up so you find what he said. I know you are trying hard to be cute and all..

Yes he did. keep telling yourself he did..

Did Bush II call 9/11 "act of terror" during his speeches about it? I mean, if he didn't use that exact phrase, in that way, he probably never really denounced 9/11 at all. The horror! I wonder if Clinton called the WTC bombing in 1993 "act of terror." If not, we probably need to bring him up on charges or something. Abrogation of duty in phraseology. You still don't get it.. I don't back pubs nor do I back dems. I said from the beginning it was nothing but an interpretation issue. Mitt interpreted what BO said, right or wrong, to be NOT calling this an act of terror, and by cold hard facts he didn't. That may very well be what he meant but not what he actually said. So Mitt was technically right, though that maybe what BO meant.

not sure if you are talking to me or not, but I didn't hear it. Yep, talking to you. Romney said it. What's your take on that? again, I didn't not hear it so I have no idea what he said.

not sure if you are talking to me or not, but I didn't hear it.

No need for an appeal to authority. Everyone can read it for themselves. http://www.whitehous...ssy-staff-libya You guys might want to think about what you're doing. Every minute spent mindlessly defending Romney on this obvious mistake/falsehood helps President Obama. The conservative spin is in obvious conflict with reality . . . and many/most Republicans are choosing their own propaganda. I've often questioned Romney's lack of respect for his voters . . . but it looks like he might have been right all along. It is rather funny seeing the first post-truth campaign's reaction to confronting actual facts. my thought exactly, watching you trip over yourself with the real facts is laughable.

spin away all you want.. he did NOT call this an act of terror. And the fact that you even TRIED to justify this with that video is laughable. They did the very same thing you did, tried to spin it. He tried to take a different sentences to create one. The fact that you need it interpreted for you to fit your preconceived narrative isn't anyone else's problem but yours. I have zero "preconceived narrative". I hate both candidates equally, but I am not obtuse when it comes to what was said. EDIT: fixed the post

Which is why I said this was nothing but an interpretation issue

Holy..... wow! You are right! How did I not see this before? That is totally different. It's like-- it's like a whole 'nother language almost. He may as well have delivered that statement in Greek it's so different. My eyes are finally opened. Hallelujah! It's a miracle. Glad you finally saw the truth. I knew you would come around!

This is true. He said "acts of terror" and not "terror act." It's ok. Mitt struggles with this too. Glad your Obama bias was able to finally come to grips with facts.. Mitt was right, he did not call THIS act and act of terror. It may be what Obama meant but not what he said.

Mitt is interpreting it incorrectly. Kind of like interpreting Mitt saying he doesn't and won't concern himself with 47% of the country as Mitt saying he's very concerned with the well-being of 47% of the country. In your opinion. Fact is he didn't call this act itself and act of terror.. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," All he said was no acts of terror..

FACT - "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," Another fact - he did NOT call this a terror act.

yeah, and it is nothing more than one person's interpretation of what he said. nothing more nothing less. Mitt is interpreting it one way, and she another.

If you're a Romney supporter you should be quite grateful that Ms. Crowley interrupted Romney. Personally, I wish that she would have let him dig a little deeper before pointing out that he didn't know the facts. That's what Obama did. Never interrupt your opponent when they're digging. Ever. I have to ask though, what makes her right?