It's worth noting that during the presidency of George HW Bush I believe, one of his advisors noted that while a lie can initially be taken as fact by some 90%, only 10% of those will find out later that they were in fact lies. the result? Sometimes it's more effecitve to lie because the initial misinformation spreads much quicker and broader than the subsequent "re-information". This is why it has been a policy in the Republican party mantle ever since.

There is one caveat however. If someone publically calls them out on their bullshit, they get LIVID, mainly because their initial misinformation spread is snuffed out before it can take root. That is when they go on to blame said caller, claiming they do not have the right to do that, or claiming media bias.

You haven't noticed why conservatives are a lot more angrier then their bullshit is called out at the time of spewing it rather than in much later clarification? This is why. You have to attack bullshit at the root before it spreads misinformation.

The one thing that has been taken away from this debate is the fact that Candy Crowley was a shill for Obama, and she got called on it, now apologizing and saying she was wrong when trying to back up her butt buddy Obama when he was getting grilled by Romney on Libya.

Fact: neither the president nor anyone in his administration called the Benghazi incident a terrorist attack until about 2 weeks after the fact. He even went in front of the UN assembly and talked about the video that allegedly sparked the faux protests in the Middle East several times, without saying the words "terrorist attack" once.

"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."

"exactly so you agree with me. he didnt call it an act of terror. he said acts of terror wont shake our resolve" soo, he just saying acts of terror wont shake us. he wasnt calling the bengazi thing a terrorist attack."

"Crazy republicans all think the worst of Obama.
It was a pleasure speakign with you, as always."

"me, a republican?"

english.

She literally said in the commentary exactly what happened in the debate.

in teh debate she says, "you are both right, Obama, you did refer to it as an act of terror, and Romney you are right that he also said for two weeks it was called a demonstration. Both of you are right"

Then in your link she says "I knew there was a question about libya so I read up on it. I knew that Obama said it was an act of terror, but I also said Mitt was right about it being called a demonstration afterwards"

She literally admitted no wrongdoing, she just said exactly what happened. It is simply being presented as if she did.

something apparrently foreign to you. as i have posted what obama said. and people with basic understandings of english can see at no point did he call the attack on the embessy a torror attack. In fact he alludes to the anti-muhammed video being to blame. and ommits the word terror every time he he mention the libyia attack.

edit: and like i said time and time again. It makes no sense to try to link him saying "act of terror" was refering to Banghazi as a terrorist attack. Because he releases a press release at the same time, with no mention of terror, but does allude to the video. He then goes on TV show, and in front of reporters, again no mention of terror, instead the video. He sends out jay carney, and susan rice and others, not calling it a terror attack, but instead a spontanous thing caused by the video. It literally makes no sense to believe he called Benghazi a terror attack in his speech. 

here are some interesting poll results from former presidential debates. All from cnn

Debate 1
McCain 38% Obama 51%
Bush 37% Kerry 53%
Bush 41% Gore 48%

Debate 2
McCain 30% Obama 54%
Bush 45% Kerry 47%
Bush 49% Gore 39%

Debate 3
McCain 31% Obama 58%
Bush 39% Kerry 52%
Bush 44% Gore 46%

So compared to the two debates so far this election we have

Debate 1
Romney 67% Obama 25%

Debate 2
Romney 39% Obama 46%

One interesting thing to note here is that Romney's victory in debate 1 is the biggest margin CNN has ever recorded in these types of polling. A big win like that can cost an election when it is this close, many consider the second Bush/Gore debate a game changer for Bush and that was only a 10 point margin.

Another thing to note here is that Kerry won every debate with Bush, two of which by pretty large margins, however he failed to win the election. In many ways this election is reminiscent of the Bush/Kerry campaign as Obama has pretty much taken the Bush playbook and ran with it. Also, there are some incredible similarities between Kerry and Romney.

The last thing to note from these numbers is that Romney is definitely a much better debater than McCain. How in the world did he lose his primary against him?

Romney supporters must be disappointed at the lack of a repeat performance. From tax plans to Romney being called out on his Libya falsehood, including by the live audience (a must-watch), President Obama appeared assertive and in charge. Measures of who won:

CBS undecided voters: Obama 37, Romney 30, Tie 33.
PPP Colorado voters : Obama 48, Romney 44, 58-36 among independents.
CNN debate viewers : Obama 46, Romney 39. R+8 sample.
Andrew Sullivan : calmer now that Obama took charge. Sort of a human InTrade.

For any debate it seems that each candidate is near-guaranteed that 20% will say he won (see Gallup numbers on debate #1). Keep that in mind

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/10/16/post-debate-2/

I like this ones info a little more. Especially the info on Colorado and independant voters which are about 1/3 of the population here.

That was AFTER this first statement.

There is only one thing you are right about here, that he did not specifically say "this was an act of terror".

What he did say was "we will not tolerate acts of terror. Today we bury four of our best. We will not let this stop us from prsuing justice, and finding the people responsible".

If he was talking about a riot, why would he refer to the people as if they were an entity? If he was talking about a riot, why would he say, tonight, that he said he called it an act of terror. He allowed Romney to say other things that weren't true. Why would he vehemently be against what Romney said if he didn't say it? Was he TRYING to make himself look like a liar? No. He said tonight that he called it an act of terror because he himself believed to be implying it when he said it.

Are these supposed to be % points, because debate 1's appears to be rigged. 106% not including undecided voters?

thats cool, but I was kind of going for the historical connections and effects of debates with that post...