Play online chess!

From	Message
thumper 16-Oct-12, 17:29	Here's your chance ... at predicting who will show up for tonight's debate. Will Romney maintain his poise and deliver another solid presidential quality performance? Will Obama show up with a command of the facts and speak with eloquence? Will Romney tank and get bogged down in minutia? Will Obama try to emulate Bidens juvenile tactics, attempting to be disruptive every time Romney starts to speak or again try to bluff his way through each question with meandering and disjointed 'stories'?
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 18:40	One thing the moderator sucks. No control. Obama doing much better tonight at least as far as looking more assertive. Fact check will have to do some research.
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 18:51	Romney is a Chinese spy!
thumper 16-Oct-12, 18:55	I just watched the moderator try to sandbag Romney from responding to an Obama mischaracterization of him. I see how it's going to go.
chaz- 16-Oct-12, 20:08	... Candy did a mediocre job at best ... frazzled, maybe even overwhelmed, and easily out-maneuvered. Obama did much better than debate #1, but still a bit professorial. Romney did well, about the same as before ... had one major goof quoting Obama after the Libya deal that was embarrassing. Mitt has generally better stage presence. All in all, Obama prob'ly scored slightly better ... IMHO.
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 20:16	Chaz I am mainly uninformed on that issue. I was under the impression Obama never said that until much later also. The original story was NOT a terrorist attack
chaz- 16-Oct-12, 20:26	Stinky ... ... his quote has been verified. Not a big gaffe on Mitt's part. There was bound to be something.
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 20:40	Chaz Its more when he said it. Everyone is saying it now. Not doubting he said it but its the timing. At first it was not an act of terror.
chaz- 16-Oct-12, 20:41	... he said it within 24 hours ... Mitt said he didn't. Again, no big deal.
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 20:45	Chaz I agree, as I said I am unaware of this. Do you know where I can find this info. I like to check things like this for myself.
thumper 16-Oct-12, 20:49	It's possible that Obama said the word terror or terrorists in a meandering comment after the attack, I'm not sure because he was pushing the 'insult to Muhammad' angle so hard. I thought Romney went very easy on him. There seemed to be numerous opportunities that Romney obviously recognised that he could have pounded Obama on but let them go. He showed mercy which is a quality I require in a President. Again, Romney seemed to go for more specifics as Obama fell back on the slow story telling angle and vague generalities, which is a sign of someone who can't relay many specifics and are trying to fill the time by running the clock. Though not a blowout like last debate, overall I give the win to Romney.
chaz- 16-Oct-12, 20:50	... commentators on TV said it ... I'm sure it'll be re-verified elsewhere ... sorry.
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 20:57	Chaz I found the transcript. The biggest problem with that part of the debate was that the moderator jumped in on Obamas side. This is a huge no no in my opinion. In the transcript Obama never called the act in Libya an act of terror, he did however say that no act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation. I will give you alink that tells it better. Romney was exactly wrong and Obama wasn't exactly right in itself it was not a big deal. However the moderator jumping in to defend Obama made it look like a huge blow and it was actually one of the talking points after the debate. Blatant favoritism.
thumper 16-Oct-12, 21:13	Crowley's False Fact Check Saves President, Derails Debate by John Nolte 16 Oct 2012, 7:49 PM PDT We're done with the second presidential debate, but it was apparent 45 minutes in that between the questions Crowley chose and her handling of who was allowed to speak and when, that this debate was a total and complete setup to rehabilitate Barack Obama. If these are truly undecided voters, they're apparently undecided between Obama and the Green Party. Moreover, as I write this, Obama's already enjoyed four more minutes of speaking time than Romney. In a ninety-minute debate, that's a big deal. The lowest and most dishonest part of Crowley's disgraceful "moderation" was when she actually jumped into the debate to take Obama's side when the issue of Benghazi came up. To cover for his and his administration's lying for almost two weeks about the attack coming as the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, Obama attempted to use as cover the claim that he had called the attack a "terrorist attack" on that very first day during his Rose Garden statement. Romney correctly disputed that. Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama's side and the crowd exploded. Here's what Obama said that 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. Context matters and the context here is that Obama connected this "act of terror" to … a mob action over a YouTube video -- not a deliberate terrorist attack. Obama was using the term generically and it would be almost two weeks before he used it again. Let's not forget that Susan Rice said declaratively on the five Sunday shows four days later that it was NOT an act of terror. And during those two weeks the Obama administration lied like a rug. For Crowley to step in and attempt to correct Romney on a statement that is at best arguable, was completely out of line. The debate over this debate has only begun.
thumper 16-Oct-12, 22:50	Now the backtracking Human Events By: Erick Erickson 10/17/2012 01:09 AM One of the most talked about moments in tonight’s debate was when Candy Crowley “fact checked” Mitt Romney on Libya. Make no mistake, this was an attempt to cover for President Obama, who has been bleeding on the issue all week. However, when confronted about it after the debate, she started to backtrack. If she’d really cared about this–and it sounds like she knew about this as she was saying it during the debate–she would have corrected herself during the debate, when the people were still watching. EDIT: (via @seanmdav) Back on September 28th, Crowley was saying that the Obama administration needed to explain why they didn’t call what happened in Libya a terrorist attack. The CNN transcript tells all: The question I think too is what you asked and Peter King wouldn’t play, but the idea is why would you be so adamant? When most people look and said, well of course it’s a terrorist attack. I mean, they had you know large weaponry. It’s not something you bring to a protest. And now we’re finding out there might not even have been a protest at the time this attack took place. So I think there are lots of questions to be answered here that the administration is going to have to talk about. I’m betting the media’s not going to call her on this, and they’ll let her admission that Romney was essentially right about Libya slide as well. We have to make sure this kind of information gets out there. www.humanevents.com

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, Internet chess league, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.