2nd Debate Discussion

zoogies said:
Gosh, would everyone feel better if Obama had said "Acts of terror, such as this one"? Can't believe how much attention that is getting. I would've thought the implication there was crystal clear.

...although I suppose it's completely reasonable to suppose that Obama really meant, "We will not tolerate acts of terror. On a completely unrelated note, let us now mourn the loss...oh yeah, did I mention, that previous thing about the acts of terror, totally an aside."
Click to expand...
Like I said from the beginning, that very well might be what he meant, but it isn't what he said, so according to the actual words Obama used Mitt was right.

 
To put it gently, Xman, what everybody has been trying to tell you (in various levels of snarkiness) is that there is no possible, conceivable room for doubt that Obama called it an act of terror in that speech. It is completely, empirically clear that he was addressing the attacks when he was talking about how we would not stand for acts of terror, in that speech.

 
huskerXman said:
Like I said from the beginning, that very well might be what he meant, but it isn't what he said, so according to the actual words Obama used Mitt was right.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.whitehous...ssy-staff-libya

:thumbs

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
To put it gently, Xman, what everybody has been trying to tell you (in various levels of snarkiness) is that there is no possible, conceivable room for doubt that Obama called it an act of terror in that speech. It is completely, empirically clear that he was addressing the attacks when he was talking about how we would not stand for acts of terror, in that speech.
Click to expand...

take out what you think he meant.. did he actually call this an act of terror? Did he say "acts of terror like this"? Did he say this is an act of terror? Did he say anything in regards to this single act? NO he didn't. This is the game they play and have always played.. They try to play gotcha games and the actual words used. Meaning doesn't matter, the words used does matter.. it's jokers like these two that play this game. Both have done this through out their campaigns.

I posted a couple articles from various outlets that also agree that Obama did not call this act an act of terror.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
carlfense said:
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.whitehous...ssy-staff-libya

:thumbs
Click to expand...
I guess I'd ask, which side is playing 'gotcha' games here?

 
Obama people will never ever budge on this, so it is pointless to go any further.. of course it was pointless 3 pages ago.

I am not nor will I ever be a Mitt person. I am unbiased, I won't vote for either of these guys.

 
one last post on this..

http://www.realclear...t_on_libya.html

Candy Crowley: Romney Was Actually "Right In The Main" On Libya

I think actually, you know, because right after that, I did turn to Romney and said you were totally correct but they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was this riot outside of the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong word.
Click to expand...
I love this because even the moderator agreed with Romney after thinking about it more.. but not the biased Obama backers. :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, after careful consideration, I've decided that the "acts of terror" truthers are correct. Obama did not refer to the Benghazi attacks as an act of terror.

Similarly, I've determined that George W. Bush never actually referred to the World Trade Center attacks in his initial speech on 9/11/2001. To you who disagree: read the transcripts for yourselves, sheeple. He never once mentions the World Trade Center. Not one . . . single . . . time. Unbelievable.

http://www.cnn.com/2...text/index.html

;)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
carlfense said:
Ziggy said:
Saying "act of terror" does not mean he called the event an act of terror.
Click to expand...
:laughpound

Calling an event an act of terror in a speech about that event doesn't mean that he called the event an "act of terror."

Do you people even listen to yourselves? Is this representative of what the present GOP is? Simply unbelievable.
Click to expand...

carlfense said:
Ziggy said:
How can you say that he was talking about Libya with his " No act of terror" . . .
Click to expand...
Well . . . given that the whole speech was about the Libya attacks . . . and the immediate words after the "No acts of terror . . ." sentence were "[t]oday we mourn four more Americans . . ."

How can you not say that he was not talking about Libya? Oh, right. Because it conforms with your political beliefs.
Click to expand...
Probably about like how someone can be talking about putting things on a credit card, give two examples of deficit spending, say he voted opposite his opponent because he said we couldn't afford them but somehow the first example doesn't count?

Could that have something to do with political beliefs as well?

 
Mavric said:
Probably about like how someone can be talking about putting things on a credit card, give two examples of deficit spending, say he voted opposite his opponent because he said we couldn't afford them but somehow the first example doesn't count?

Could that have something to do with political beliefs as well?
Click to expand...
Would it involve someone claiming that something was immediately prior when it . . . demonstrably . . . factually . . . was not immediately prior?
default_laugh.png


 
Back
Top