2nd Debate Discussion

carlfense said:
default_laugh2.gif


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...
carlfense said:
Would it involve someone claiming that something was immediately prior when it . . . demonstrably . . . factually . . . was not immediately prior?
default_laugh.png
Click to expand...
So you get to use an entire speech to find the link but we don't even get the preceding sentence?

 
carlfense said:
JJHusker1 said:
The real issue is that the administration claimed it was a spontaneous uprising for two weeks.
Click to expand...
. . . other than the morning after the attack?
default_facepalm.gif
Click to expand...
default_facepalm.gif


Everyone has their panties in a bunch over the acts of terror verbiage. Yes, Obama made a general reference to acts of terror the next day but even Crowley later back-tracked saying Romney was correct. The issue is the administration claiming ad nauseum that the act of terror was due to a spontaneous uprising. Who is still believing that crock? Any of you Obama defenders? You see, if it is a spontaneous act of terror than that is much less damaging to Obama...I mean it is pretty difficult to prepare for a spontaneous protest turning violent. But if it is planned terrorist attack in a location where the ambassador expressed concern, where a British convoy was already attacked, where the Red Cross had pulled out, where the Obama admin. reduced security the month prior, where the Obama admin. denied request for additional security...and it just happened to take place on September 11th...well that is pretty damaging, wouldn't you think? One is a "hey, stuff happens...can't blame the guy when a protest goes bad" while the other is a "hey, this guy is a massive failure who had major opportunity to make sure this type of thing would not happen but instead takes no responsibility and wants to blame others." Which do you think Obama wants you to believe and which do the actions of the next 2 weeks tell you is the truth? Get it now?

 
this is a common pet peeve for me. no one misused (or really used) the word verbiage until palin butchered it, but:

ver·bi·age/ˈvərbē-ij/

Noun: Speech or writing that uses too many words or excessively technical expressions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sd said:
this is a common pet peeve for me. no one misused (or really used) the word verbiage until palin butchered it, but:

ver·bi·age/ˈvərbē-ij/

Noun: Speech or writing that uses too many words or excessively technical expressions.
Click to expand...
ver·bi·age/ˈvərbē-ij/

Noun: manner or style of expressing something in words; wording.

Sheesh.
default_rolleyes.gif


 
chamrocck said:
sd said:
this is a common pet peeve for me. no one misused (or really used) the word verbiage until palin butchered it, but:

ver·bi·age/ˈvərbē-ij/

Noun: Speech or writing that uses too many words or excessively technical expressions.
Click to expand...
ver·bi·age/ˈvərbē-ij/

Noun: manner or style of expressing something in words; wording.

Sheesh.
default_rolleyes.gif
Click to expand...
fair enough. i am a little sensitive to misusing words (of which i have been guilty) after finding out that peruse actually means to read thoroughly.

i will add this:

World English Dictionary

verbiage (ˈvɜːbɪɪdʒ) — n 1. the excessive and often meaningless use of words; verbosity

2. rare diction; wording

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Side note- I find it amusing that Obama and his supporters have now basically claimed that Romneys 47% comment applied to all manner of hardworking people; teachers, nurses, any relative, any acquaintance, people who obviously work hard, etc. The only people not linked to this comment are those who milk the system or, in other words, the people who I think the comment was really intended for. Heck, after listening to the multiple ways Obama has applied this, I am starting to feel insulted and am now thinking I am maybe in this group. Problem is, if it was really intended for all the hardworking people in this country, surely that 47% figure is low. With all the people the dems have included, it has to be more like 99%. I guess Romney hates all Americans.

 
JJHusker1 said:
Side note- I find it amusing that Obama and his supporters have now basically claimed that Romneys 47% comment applied to all manner of hardworking people; teachers, nurses, any relative, any acquaintance, people who obviously work hard, etc. The only people not linked to this comment are those who milk the system or, in other words, the people who I think the comment was really intended for. Heck, after listening to the multiple ways Obama has applied this, I am starting to feel insulted and am now thinking I am maybe in this group. Problem is, if it was really intended for all the hardworking people in this country, surely that 47% figure is low. With all the people the dems have included, it has to be more like 99%. I guess Romney hates all Americans.
Click to expand...
47% of america is 47% of america. he was referencing those who do not pay federal income tax.

what are you talking about? clearly you have no idea.

how many people do you really believe 'milk the system' or live off of gov't handouts?

you probably are a member of that 47% he mentioned. that is why it is such a big deal. it showed how out of touch he is and how he views most americans with no real understanding of who they actually are.

but hey, this is the guy you support. probably better you do not know what he is actually saying or understand his actual sentiment. the few times he has actually taken a stand on something, it has been pretty offensive.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huskerXman said:
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...

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.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about? You haven't referred to anybody, you're just saying "they" - who is "they"?

The only logical conclusion here is, I feel, since you didn't actually refer to who "they" are, is to deduce that you aren't actually saying that people play gotcha games after all.

 
JJHusker1 said:
Side note- I find it amusing that Obama and his supporters have now basically claimed that Romneys 47% comment applied to all manner of hardworking people; teachers, nurses, any relative, any acquaintance, people who obviously work hard, etc. The only people not linked to this comment are those who milk the system or, in other words, the people who I think the comment was really intended for. Heck, after listening to the multiple ways Obama has applied this, I am starting to feel insulted and am now thinking I am maybe in this group. Problem is, if it was really intended for all the hardworking people in this country, surely that 47% figure is low. With all the people the dems have included, it has to be more like 99%. I guess Romney hates all Americans.
Click to expand...
Have you just not read anything about this before? Or just chose to ignore it?

http://www.businessi...vernment-2012-9

image.png


 
chamrocck said:
You see, if it is a spontaneous act of terror than that is much less damaging to Obama...I mean it is pretty difficult to prepare for a spontaneous protest turning violent.
Click to expand...
Yes . . . that would be less damaging to Obama because it is by definition impossible for an act of terror to be spontaneous.

So, yes. It would be less damaging to Obama if this couldn't have happened.

 
Back
Top