kasz I have no problem admitting to being wrong or admitting obama is wrong.
I said obama sucked first debate, but not only that, I said Romney did really really good. I'm not just hard on my own, ie; romney didn't win, obama lost. Romney won first debate.

I also admitted that I got the numbers wrong just here in the talk about the gallup poll.

But you're not going to tell me he didn't refer to the event as an act of terror at the rose garden. I KNOW he called it something else afterwards, but he still said it. Romney was ALSO right when he said obama called it a result of a demonstration.
I don't know the full facts about WHY he changed his stance, and nobody here does, but I'm not going to be convinced that he didn't say it. That is what happened. I will admit that he didn't specifically, and without question, say it was a terrorist attack. But he did refer.
You will just say I'm wrong.
I wish I could see your point, but I can't. I'm looking at what I'd call irrefutable evidence proving exactly what I've been saying.

I'm registered liberal, but I'm an independent.

I liked Romney way back, and I liked McCain too.

But something about them becoming presidential candidates makes them crazy, in my opinion.

Would be nice if we could get an independent to run.

um... didn't you just post a picture about Romney's level of aggression?  Also, for the record, I plan on doing just that, but I am still an undecided voter.  I plan on waiting until after the third debate before I make a decision.  

It's the primary process for republicans.  They have to make all these crazy promises to win it, then they have to try and dress them up as centrist for the general election.  It just makes them look stupid.  Both of them would probably make good presidents.  

There are things I generally like about Romney's history.  I like his experience at Bain, I also like his experience with the olympics.  I think Romney started out as a good governor too, but ended up doing crappy because he decided to run for president halfway through his term.  

It's the freaking primary process, it destroys moderates...

I have stated multiple times that I vote democrat every time because it is the most aligned with my worldview even though far from perfect. I also vote that way because I believe that Republican policy is about the farthest from my worldview I could imagine and do not want them to win.

I posted it because it is funny and most of the debating is not and clearly does not change most active posters minds in here.

Sometimes you just got to laugh.

my comment was suppose to be funny too... but you took me seriously...

You sure you read that correctly?

the CBS fact check says that he refrenced acts of terror directly in his speech but never called said attack an act of terror... or terroism... and this is further backed up by the fact that he specifically said it wasn't terroism later on.

Again, focusing and drawing attention to a losing arguement... and you only have yourself to blame.

This is the same area candidates often get caught up in in debates.

Like Obama in the first debate.  He focused on the 5 million thing so much, even though it was a losing point.

We've seen the Rose Garden transcript. Can someone show me now a transcript of Obama outright stating that the attack was not an act of terrorism?

Edit: Actually, I've found a very useful page. And what this page shows me is that the Obama administration danced around the issue a bit, wanting to wait for their investigation to lead to a conclusion before making one on their own. And they came to the conclusion that it was a terrorist attack much more quickly than Romney suggested.

Conservatives were salivating at the mouth wanting Obama to admit it was a terrorist attack before it was even known. That way if there was a false positive (ie Obama said there was a terrorist attack and later revealed it wasn't), they could use it against him similar to this fabricated "apology tour" they keep digging up. Now they're attacking him for NOT taking the bait. Surprised?

Honestly, I only watched half the debate for two reasons:

1) Both candidates were not really answering the questions, they were just repeating talking points that (in most cases) were barely related to the question asked. The most obvious case of this was right off the start where Obama was talking about bringing back manufacturing jobs when he was asked about how he was going to ensure new college graduates had a job in 2 years; and my thought was "Really? You think that a college graduate wants to do the kind of low skill manufacturing job that western developed economies are losing to China?"

2) The debate questions seemed to be hand picked to favour the Obama side. The pay-equity question enraged me because the myth that women get paid less for doing the same job with the same experience level has been refuted many times, and the only reason it survives is that politicians (particularly on the left) continue to pander to women voters by not challenging it.