Debate #3: Debate harder.Follow

Settle down there, tiger.

Conservative talking heads are trying to wade into a semantic game about this, saying that he didn't directly call the act "an act of terror". Of course, this flies in the face of context, but we all know how much that matters when they think they've got something they can cling to.

All that being said, it was a silly point for Romney to try bring up in the first place. There were points that he could have tactfully asserted about the benghazi situation (whether correct or not), but instead he took a gamble on a "gotcha" moment and it backfired badly.

Don't use sexual innuendo to hint that you like your prostate massaged.

Speaking of which, both candidates need to learn how to manage their time and stop talking over the moderator (and to a lesser extent, each other). Every time one of them would try to make a "let me just finish" or "let me just respond to that" comment, I sighed and rolled my eyes. I wish they would simply let the moderators turn off their mics when a candidate goes over their time allotment.

You can't just go around using the Internet Tiger Signal at will. There has to be a reason for it.

I guess I have a poor understanding of the mind of an undecided voter, but I have to imagine this "didn't call it terrorism" semantic argument has zero weight with anybody but far-right wingers. I think the "didn't provide extra security when it was requested" argument would have much more sway (regardless of its actual veracity).

Of course, either element has about as much importance to our overall "foreign policy" as a drop of water in the ocean, but focusing on trivial details is nothing new in politics...

Russian brides?

"Definition of 'is'"

Yeah, ***** that he claimed those four deaths were as bad as 9/11. It's not about who(m) he was referring to... he didn't say act (singlular) of terrorism instead of acts (plural) of terrorism.

Here's a better question: gbaji, would you admit that Romney should have pressed him on the administration's response of "We think it was due to an anti-Islamic video, instead of an organized act by a terrorist group" or do you think it was better to claim "Obama did not say there was an "act of terror" on 9/12/12?

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Romney went for a soundbite, and got bit instead, If he had stuck to facts, he might have pulled off a nice punch; instead, he took a grand slam and made a huge error.

Edit: had, not had, in the final paragraph

Edited, Oct 17th 2012 10:50pm by LockeColeMA

AS evidenced by gbaji posting both infrequently and with brevity?

In said threads, yes. I'm not a miracle worker.

Um... Except that that *is* how English works. The funny thing is that I've pointed in the past how Obama has a habit of making vague statements which can then be reinterpreted differently depending on the circumstances. In that speech he's doing it again. If it had turned out that it wasn't a terrorist attack, the same folks insisting that he called it one would be arguing that he didn't.

At no point in that speech (or in any other I'm aware of for two weeks after the attack), did he specifically state that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Saying that terrorist attacks are bad, and then talking about the loss of life in Benghazi implies that it was a terrorist attack, but does not specifically say so. Now if this president didn't have a track record of saying something everyone interpreted one way when he said it, and then later insisting that he didn't actually say it, this wouldn't be a problem. But this is something I made note of on this forum way back when Obama was still debating Clinton for the Dem nomination. Or did people forget the whole bit about NAFTA? What he said in that debate made everyone (including the Canadians) think he was completely opposed to NAFTA and would eliminate it once in office. But when this raised alarms, his campaign insisted that he said no such thing. This was then followed by the same helpful media types (and folks on this forum at the time) parsing through the transcript of what he said and declaring that he didn't actually (technically) say he was opposed to NAFTA.


Same deal here. You can't have it both ways. If you want only the exact words of the president to be used, then you have to allow people to look at just his words and exactly what he said, with no implication or suggestion inferred. Well, when you do that with regards to his speeches following the Benghazi attack, he absolutely does not call it a terrorist attack. That's not opinion, it's fact.

Edited, Oct 18th 2012 2:37pm by gbaji