|
|
On October 17 2012 13:43 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 13:40 either I or wrote:
Something is wrong with Obama. He seems off and stuttering. Is he sick? His oration has always been mostly rhetoric. He stutters when discussing specifics. This was a knock on him last cycle too because he always did that when he was off the teleprompter. It's not a change.
Obama is a 'writerly' speaker. Which is to say, he thinks too much when he speaks, and a result focuses too much on crafting a sentence or what he is going to say a minute from now, in the middle of what he is saying right now. He's not indecisive about he wants to say, he's indecisive about what would words he should use. So yeah, he stutters too much when he should just spit whatever he's trying to say out.
|
On October 17 2012 13:51 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 13:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 17 2012 13:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:We know what the administration official statements were, but the video is right there. It is incontrovertible evidence that what Obama and the moderator said in the debate was true. Obama did in fact call it an act of terror the day after it happened. An act of terror is not the same as a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack is an organized group of people that attack something hoping to inflict terror. An act of terror is a spontaneous attack by an individual that creates terror. Why else would he go on to cite the videos days and even more than a week later as the cause of the violence? http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=act of terrorism
act of terrorism vs act of terror
|
On October 17 2012 13:50 either I or wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 13:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 13:40 either I or wrote:
Something is wrong with Obama. He seems off and stuttering. Is he sick? His oration has always been mostly rhetoric. He stutters when discussing specifics. This was a knock on him last cycle too because he always did that when he was off the teleprompter. It's not a change. Not really. I volunteered for him in 2008 and have seen him in person during debates and conferences. He rarely, if never, stutters, in the 6 month period that I've seen him then when he was out in public or when he was with the group.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think his style has changed much. He gives a great canned speech and gracefully weaves rhetoric into comments, but I always felt he stuttered like that when trying to pull facts out on the fly.
|
You guys forget that Obama owned up to the Libya attacks. He didn't throw blame on anyone but himself. The whole whether it was a terrorist attack or not was never really relevant anyway. Seriously who cares about what they call it?
|
On October 17 2012 13:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 13:50 either I or wrote:On October 17 2012 13:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 13:40 either I or wrote:
Something is wrong with Obama. He seems off and stuttering. Is he sick? His oration has always been mostly rhetoric. He stutters when discussing specifics. This was a knock on him last cycle too because he always did that when he was off the teleprompter. It's not a change. Not really. I volunteered for him in 2008 and have seen him in person during debates and conferences. He rarely, if never, stutters, in the 6 month period that I've seen him then when he was out in public or when he was with the group. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think his style has changed much. He gives a great canned speech and gracefully weaves rhetoric into comments, but I always felt he stuttered like that when trying to pull facts out on the fly.
Yeah, he's ability to 'recall' and pull together facts on the fly is not bad, but is definitely not great.
|
On October 17 2012 13:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 13:51 armada[sb] wrote:On October 17 2012 13:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 17 2012 13:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:We know what the administration official statements were, but the video is right there. It is incontrovertible evidence that what Obama and the moderator said in the debate was true. Obama did in fact call it an act of terror the day after it happened. An act of terror is not the same as a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack is an organized group of people that attack something hoping to inflict terror. An act of terror is a spontaneous attack by an individual that creates terror. Why else would he go on to cite the videos days and even more than a week later as the cause of the violence? http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=act of terrorism act of terror ism vs act of terror
You're pulling on the stupidest little bit of semantics.
Link
|
On October 17 2012 13:55 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 13:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 17 2012 13:51 armada[sb] wrote:On October 17 2012 13:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 17 2012 13:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:We know what the administration official statements were, but the video is right there. It is incontrovertible evidence that what Obama and the moderator said in the debate was true. Obama did in fact call it an act of terror the day after it happened. An act of terror is not the same as a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack is an organized group of people that attack something hoping to inflict terror. An act of terror is a spontaneous attack by an individual that creates terror. Why else would he go on to cite the videos days and even more than a week later as the cause of the violence? http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=act of terrorism act of terror ism vs act of terror You're pulling on the stupidest little bit of semantics. Link
Not really. If he believed it was a terrorist attack, why did he refer to it as an act of violence due to the video for nearly 2 weeks?
|
On October 17 2012 13:53 KingAce wrote:
You guys forget that Obama owned up to the Libya attacks. He didn't throw blame on anyone but himself. The whole whether it was a terrorist attack or not was never really relevant anyway. Seriously who cares about what they call it?
Well, he took credit for being more forthcoming than he actually was. I think people are somewhat upset about that because it was quite dishonest (despite the semantics between him and Romney).
|
god this is inane even by our standards. who cares?
|
I'm not talking about that, I'm just talking about you trying to say that an "act of terror" and a "terrorist act" are completely different things. Seems to me like grasping at straws.
|
Didn't watch the debate but Romney annihilates Obama on domestic policy and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that Obama and Romney have somewhat similar foreign policies.
|
On October 17 2012 13:57 armada[sb] wrote:
I'm not talking about that, I'm just talking about you trying to say that an "act of terror" and a "terrorist act" are completely different things.
They are. The suffix of -ist and -ism change the meaning of the word terror.
|
On October 17 2012 13:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 13:51 armada[sb] wrote:On October 17 2012 13:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 17 2012 13:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:We know what the administration official statements were, but the video is right there. It is incontrovertible evidence that what Obama and the moderator said in the debate was true. Obama did in fact call it an act of terror the day after it happened. An act of terror is not the same as a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack is an organized group of people that attack something hoping to inflict terror. An act of terror is a spontaneous attack by an individual that creates terror. Why else would he go on to cite the videos days and even more than a week later as the cause of the violence? http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=act of terrorism act of terror ism vs act of terror
Yes, the best thing to do now is argue about that.
|
On October 17 2012 13:57 armada[sb] wrote:
I'm not talking about that, I'm just talking about you trying to say that an "act of terror" and a "terrorist act" are completely different things. Seems to me like grasping at straws.
it's context, not definition. given the context of his statements and his administrations statements following the attack, it was understood that he wasn't talking about terrorism here in the sense that most would "define" it as.
|
On October 17 2012 13:53 KingAce wrote:
You guys forget that Obama owned up to the Libya attacks. He didn't throw blame on anyone but himself. The whole whether it was a terrorist attack or not was never really relevant anyway. Seriously who cares about what they call it?
Well, it kind of makes a difference if you want to claim Al Qaeda is on its heels and we're safe from them now, and we have no need for future military operations. An Ambassador being murdered puts a bit of a damper on that narrative if it's an act of terror / terrorist attack, as opposed to being some random act of violence as part of a riot stemming from some stupid video.
|
On October 17 2012 13:53 KingAce wrote:
You guys forget that Obama owned up to the Libya attacks. He didn't throw blame on anyone but himself. The whole whether it was a terrorist attack or not was never really relevant anyway. Seriously who cares about what they call it?
THAT was the pimpest play of the night.
Obama not only owned the Libya attacks, he owned it with authority and looked presidential doing so. And when Candy brought up that Hilary took responsibility for the State Department's lack of security, Obama doubled-down, praised Hilary and basically wouldn't allow her to throw herself under the bus.
Not only did Obama deflate any pre-planned attack Romney had to throw at him, Obama basically won over every female voter by MANNING UP. Don't underestimate how perfect and impactful that response was for women. That was huuuuuuuuuugggggge.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Conservatives need to be careful how much they harp on this "terror" semantics bullshit. A hallmark of conservative media and leadership is freaking out over fringe issues that the average voter most likely doesn't give a rats ass about. Crying about it after taking the first real punch in the debate process could also come off as pretty petty and defensive.
|
On October 17 2012 14:01 Defacer wrote:
Obama not only owned the Libya attacks, he owned it with authority and looked presidential doing so. And when Candy brought up that Hilary took responsibility for the State Department's lack of security, Obama doubled-down, praised Hilary and basically wouldn't allow her to throw herself under the bus.
word. that was the right move. Romney looked thrown when he was like "and I think the president just said the buck stops at his desk" and Obama is sitting in the back nodding all serious and shit. good moment for him
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the president probably was very honest when he said that he was personally involved in assigning ambassadors and probably knew them. it was a pretty sincere moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
