Tonight's Presidential Candidate Debate...

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Romney got it right and Candy Crowley admitted that he got it right in an interview after the debate

.

no she didn't

@revelette,

Yes she did!

You can choose to perpetuate Obama's litany of lies, but the
country and I will hold him accountable on election day Cool

0 Replies

If Obama 'won' last nights debate, we wouldn't
even be talking about this Candy Crowley SNAFU.

Obama didn't do himself any favors last night.

0 Replies

How does Obama 'win' a debate on points when four Americans
are murdered in Benghazi under his presidential watch?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Dude, this is absolutely ridiculous. Seriously. Dumbest hair to try and split, ever.

I mean, I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. Was Obama not referring to the attacks that just took place, in the speech he was giving about it, when he said 'acts of terror?' If not that, then what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Cycloptichorn

Dude, your right. It is absolutely ridiculous that you guys are so far up Obama's ass that even when shown the printed words that you continue to deny the facts.

Obama was not referring to the specific attack. He was making a generalized statement of patriotic content to demonstrate that his administration was going to defend the US. In speaking of the specific act, he called it terrible, tragic. He did not call it it a terrorist attack.

Why did he add this statement in his speech?

Quote:

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.

Why is that there if it was a terrorist attck? If it was a terrorist attack, why wait 2 weeks to actually say so instead of using such intimation as he did in this speech?

Seriously cyc. I know your reading comprehension skills are good enough to realize what was said in this speech. You are letting the partisan side of your brain lead on this and in doing so you are wrong.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Obama was not referring to the specific attack.

He was giving a speech about the attacks that had happened the day before! I mean, only a complete idiot would think that he just casually threw in a denunciation of terrorism in general, just, yaknow, casually mentioned it. This is a ridiculous line you are pushing.

Quote:

Seriously cyc. I know your reading comprehension skills are good enough to realize what was said in this speech. You are letting the partisan side of your brain lead on this and in doing so you are wrong.

You're beclowning yourself here. And, let's be honest - you're doing so because Romney has zero foreign policy experience, and the GOP is not used to being in a weak position in this area. They feel that they have to strike hard at any opportunity to knock down a president who has been VERY successful in that area. And Romney totally fucked it up last night, to the point where the audience was applauding him getting called out on ******* it up.

And you know very well that Romney can't afford to make mistakes like this at this point. It's a close election and either candidate could win, but Romney's going to need stronger attacks than parsing words like this in order to come out on top.

I fully expect Obama in the next debate to keep hammering Romney for his crass decision to turn the Libya thing into a political attack. And he said, on video months ago, that this is exactly what he planned on doing, and if some sort of tragedy happened, they would rush to take advantage of it. He's a calculating snake and attacks in this area are going to backfire on him.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Bullshit cyc. The last few paragraphs were boiler plate speech writer filler.

Your talking like Obama was speaking off the cuff instead of reading a well prepared, researched, proofed by a staff of writers speech.

Your just being a partisan hack now, so I guess I am done. I've made my point and apparently arguing about it isn't going to be effective. again. Once you guys get your heels in, there is no use trying to show you the sun.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Bullshit cyc. The last few paragraphs were boiler plate speech writer filler.

Your talking like Obama was speaking off the cuff instead of reading a well prepared, researched, proofed by a staff of writers speech.

Actually, you're the one who is claiming that when Obama was giving a prepared speech about events that happened the day before, focused 100% on them, and mentioned 'acts of terrorism,' he was actually talking about, yaknow, some other acts of terrorism. And you seem to think this is a coherent argument.

Quote:

Your just being a partisan hack now, so I guess I am done. I've made my point and apparently arguing about it isn't going to be effective. again. Once you guys get your heels in, there is no use trying to show you the sun.

I understand that it's your job to push the position of your candidate, but this is a pretty ridiculous line you're taking here. And I'm not even sure what it's supposed to accomplish. Are you somehow trying to say that Obama is weak on terrorism or terrorists, or something like that? I don't think people will buy that, as the guy has been busy ******* murdering them left and right in the ME, including the head honcho - something that your last leader couldn't accomplish, that your current candidate said we shouldn't worry about, and that Obama DID worry about and DID get.

So, go on, keep pushing that line, see just how far you get with it when it comes to the average voter.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Now you've strayed so far from the point that you have forgotten what it was.

Btw, for all you anonymous douche bags thumbing posts up and down, how about participating or ******* off? If you don't like my posts, put me on ignore.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Now you've strayed so far from the point that you have forgotten what it was.

No, I didn't - my point is that your argument is ridiculous, it has no validity whatsoever, it relies upon an asinine parsing of words, and even if your formulation was correct (which it isn't), I'm not at all sure what your point is supposed to prove, anyway.

In terms of the debate itself, it's clear that the issue was a loser for Romney, Obama baited him into a trap and he fell for it completely. And I predict he will continue to fall into the trap if he brings it up again in the next debate.

I've noticed a real failure amongst the GOP, over the last several years, to adjust to the new reality of the Foreign Policy situation we find ourselves in. The American public is tired of foreign wars and has no desire to attack or invade Iran or Syria, and doesn't seem to believe that going to war to stop terrorism is a good plan any longer. This essentially means that the positions taken by the Left have won the day, but the responses, postures and attitudes displayed by the Right don't reflect this at all. It's transformed a strength into a weakness.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The point was that Romney stated that Obama did not call it what happened in Benghazi a terrorist attack until 2 weeks after the event. Obama got smug and the the moderator interrupted Romney to interject her own opinion. Both, as it turns out were wrong.

Now, you know damned well that had the shoe been on the other foot, you guys would be howling at the moon at the outrageousness of a moderator doing such an inane thing.

Also, she called Gov. Romney Mr. Romney on several occasions and she did not stick to the agreed upon format. It was poor form on her as a moderator.

That was the point I was referring to.

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

The point was that Romney stated that Obama did not call it what happened in Benghazi a terrorist attack until 2 weeks after the event. Obama got smug and the the moderator interrupted Romney to interject her own opinion. Both, as it turns out were wrong.

No, both of them were right. Obama referred to it as an 'act of terrorism' in his speech the next day. You're simply incorrect in your reading/analysis of what Obama said, and the argument you are making doesn't hold up logically.

Quote:

Now, you know damned well that had the shoe been on the other foot, you guys would be howling at the moon at the outrageousness of a moderator doing such an inane thing.

No, I wouldn't. When Obama had a bad debate last week, the moderator sucked and didn't do his job at all. He was a total idiot. But you didn't see us running around blaming Obama's mistakes on the moderator the way your group always complains about the moderator of debates you lose.

Quote:

Also, she called Gov. Romney Mr. Romney on several occasions and she did not stick to the agreed upon format. It was poor form on her as a moderator.

That was the point I was referring to.

Yes, I'm well aware that 'blame the moderator!' is the meme of the day on all the right-wing websites.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Every statement you just made is wrong.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

If your guy needs a moderator to save him from Big Bad Obama, then does he really have the fortitude needed in a President?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Every statement you just made is wrong.

Every statement I just made is a verifiable fact. I can't put it any simpler than that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Every statement you just made is wrong.

Every statement I just made is a verifiable fact. I can't put it any simpler than that.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. The facts don't back you up at all. I mean unless you twist them so far away from actually being a fact.

Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack, my reading /analysis is spot on, the moderator in the first debate did not interrupt either candidate siding with them, I don't have a group, I don't care about meme's. So, you are wrong on every count.

Maybe one of the English majors can come on here and outline the sentence and paragraph structure for you to demonstrate what Obama said.

Here ya go, for those that can understand

Quote:

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.

That is the only mention of the word terror in his speech.

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

Next, you're going to tell me that MLK didn't say exactly what dream he had in mind.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

That is the only mention of the word terror in his speech.

So, you admit that Obama used the word terror in conjunction with the Benghazi attack.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

So, you admit that Obama used the word terror in conjunction with the Benghazi attack.

Quote:

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.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

McGentrix seems to feel because Obama spoke of the real protest which were going on at the time in the region and because he didn't say acts of terror again when saying the ones who committed the "terrible acts" means he didn't mean the Benghaze attack was part of the "acts of terror" he spoke at the beginning of the same paragraph.

Twisted logic.

This is simply desperate spin from fox news of a really badly gone hit on Romney's part. I mean, did you see his face?

http://www.newsy.com/images/slideshow_items/1350449260.jpg

1 Reply

@revelette,

This article tries the "attack the moderator" spin, but this bit interested me:

Quote:

“Romney came off as being shellshocked by the mere suggestion” that he was wrong, wrote Erik Wemple. He continued his attack blaming the right. “Romney revealed that perhaps he’d spent some time inside a coverage bubble on the Benghazi story. In the words of one onlooker, he “[c]onfused conservative spin for the truth.”

Romney's spent a lot of time preaching to the choir. Things are a little more difficult when you're talking to people who don't take everything you say as gospel.

2 Replies

Tonight's Presidential Candidate Debate...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know