2nd Debate Discussion

[carlfense]

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 reason why those people are linked to Romney's 47% comment is because it illustrates that many of those 47% who don't pay federal income tax don't think of themselves as victims. That's what Romney claimed.

FWIW now even Romney himself says that the comment was wrong. It must be difficult defending a candidate who is on every side of every issue. A defense is set up in one direction . . . and Romney totally abandons the fortification.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I'm glad I'm not standing around Carl because I think he is about to orgasm. Never mind that it has been pointed out that Obama said some miss leading statements or flat out lies during the debates and campaign. I guess that's OK. I guess it's OK that Obama hasn't given hardly any specifics on his tax plan and the ones he has given out, the math doesn't work out on.

 

[carlfense]

I'm glad I'm not standing around Carl because I think he is about to orgasm.

STAND BACK

 

[huskerXman]

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.

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.

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.

good point, even though I said "they", and we are talking about the two candidates, I didn't specifically say "the two candidates". I can see how you would be confused.

By "they" I meant the two candidates. of course it isn't new to just those two. All candidates do it.

 

[sd'sker]

I'm glad I'm not standing around Carl because I think he is about to orgasm. Never mind that it has been pointed out that Obama said some miss leading statements or flat out lies during the debates and campaign. I guess that's OK. I guess it's OK that Obama hasn't given hardly any specifics on his tax plan and the ones he has given out, the math doesn't work out on.

it is truly pointless to converse with you. you just bring up vagaries and 'well so does he' arguments. obama has discussed his tax plan. keep the bush tax cuts for the middle class, let them expire for the wealthy. get back to a clinton-era tax rate. what math are you talking about?

 

[chamrocck]

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.

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.

This is a completely weak-sauce answer.

Let's follow your logic:

1) By your definition an act of terror cannot be spontaneous.

2) Since Obama continually referenced the event as spontaneous for 2 weeks after it happened, then you have just proven that Obama could not have been referencing Benghazi when he said acts of terror in the Rose Garden.

We have come full circle. Game, set, match.

 

[Landlord]

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.

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.

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.

good point, even though I said "they", and we are talking about the two candidates, I didn't specifically say "the two candidates". I can see how you would be confused.

By "they" I meant the two candidates. of course it isn't new to just those two. All candidates do it.

Sorry, you never said that so I discredit your statement entirely.

 

[krc1995]

and we're going to see in the next few weeks who's right and who's wrong. The CIA is going to release their timeline in the next few weeks of when they reported to the President that this attack was a terrorist attack. It would be hard to know that an act of terror was conducted by terrorists if your own reporting agency didn't even know one day after.

 

[carlfense]

This is a completely weak-sauce answer.

Let's follow your logic:

1) By your definition an act of terror cannot be spontaneous.

2) Since Obama continually referenced the event as spontaneous for 2 weeks after it happened, then you have just proven that Obama could not have been referencing Benghazi when he said acts of terror in the Rose Garden.

We have come full circle. Game, set, match.

Show me where President Obama referred to the Benghazi attack as a "spontaneous attack."

I won't say "game, set, match" unless and until you are unable to provide the quote. Good luck, sir. I recommend Google. How long do you require?

 

[krc1995]

I changed my mind- you'll are right, he implied terrorists. :worship :worship

 

[chamrocck]

This is a completely weak-sauce answer.

Let's follow your logic:

1) By your definition an act of terror cannot be spontaneous.

2) Since Obama continually referenced the event as spontaneous for 2 weeks after it happened, then you have just proven that Obama could not have been referencing Benghazi when he said acts of terror in the Rose Garden.

We have come full circle. Game, set, match. :lol:

Show me where President Obama referred to the Benghazi attack as a "spontaneous attack."

I won't say "game, set, match" unless and until you are unable to provide the quote. Good luck, sir. I recommend Google. How long do you require?

 

[carlfense]

2) Since Obama continually referenced the event as spontaneous for 2 weeks after it happened, then you have just proven that Obama could not have been referencing Benghazi when he said acts of terror in the Rose Garden.

Show me where President Obama referred to the Benghazi attack as a "spontaneous attack."

I won't say "game, set, match" unless and until you are unable to provide the quote. Good luck, sir. I recommend Google. How long do you require?

Oh . . . you're changing your game (or is it a set?) from Obama continually saying something to others saying something?

Your Obama video very specifically says it's talking about "outrage throughout the Muslim world" and not Benghazi in particular. Also, could you point out where in your video that Obama referred to Benghazi as "spontaneous?" Oh . . . .riiiiiiiight. When Obama calls something an "act of terror" he didn't call it an "act of terror" but when he doesn't call something "spontaneous" he is calling it "spontaneous." Your reality seems totally dependent on whether you can criticize Obama.

Awesome. :lol:

 

[EZ-E]

2) Since Obama continually referenced the event as spontaneous for 2 weeks after it happened, then you have just proven that Obama could not have been referencing Benghazi when he said acts of terror in the Rose Garden.

Show me where President Obama referred to the Benghazi attack as a "spontaneous attack."

I won't say "game, set, match" unless and until you are unable to provide the quote. Good luck, sir. I recommend Google. How long do you require?

The president has some serious explaining to do regarding Benghazi. To claim he hasn't tried to mislead Americans is incorrect and if you believe he hasnt I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

 

[carlfense]

The president has some serious explaining to do regarding Benghazi. To claim he hasn't tried to mislead Americans is incorrect and if you believe he hasnt I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

He did? Or people associated with him?

Also . . . aren't you one of those who claim that the president didn't say acts of terror when he said acts of terror? If so . . . I've got some ocean front property in Arizona that I'd like to sell you.

(You might want to read around a little bit before assuming that you know what I've said about this topic.)

 

[EZ-E]

The president has some serious explaining to do regarding Benghazi. To claim he hasn't tried to mislead Americans is incorrect and if you believe he hasnt I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

He did? Or people associated with him?

Also . . . aren't you one of those who claim that the president didn't say acts of terror when he said acts of terror? If so . . . I've got some ocean front property in Arizona that I'd like to sell you.

(You might want to read around a little bit before assuming that you know what I've said about this topic.)

Then his press secretary should be fired for misrepresenting him. So should Susan Rice.

The fact that you appear to be defending the stance of the president tells me everything I need to know. This is a clear cut attempt at covering up a terrorist attack that occurred due to the incompetence of (someone associated with) the administration.