zoogs Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. 3 Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. 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. http://www.whitehous...ssy-staff-libya 1 Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. 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. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I apologize for the ignorant comment.. that was uncalled for. 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. http://www.whitehous...ssy-staff-libya I guess I'd ask, which side is playing 'gotcha' games here? Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I posted a couple articles from various outlets that also agree that Obama did not call this act an act of terror. Oh . . . various outlets say something? Well . . . I guess I'll ignore the video and transcript then. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. I love this because even the moderator agreed with Romney after thinking about it more.. but not the biased Obama backers. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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 Link to comment
Mavric Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Saying "act of terror" does not mean he called the event an act of terror. 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. How can you say that he was talking about Libya with his " No act of terror" . . . 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. 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? Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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? Would it involve someone claiming that something was immediately prior when it . . . demonstrably . . . factually . . . was not immediately prior? Link to comment
Ziggy Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Immediately prior, same paragraph, same sentence. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Immediately prior, same paragraph, same sentence. Nothing in between, right? Proceed, Governor Ziggy. Don't let the moderator interrupt your digging. Link to comment
Mavric Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. How can you say that he was talking about Libya with his " No act of terror" . . . 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. Would it involve someone claiming that something was immediately prior when it . . . demonstrably . . . factually . . . was not immediately prior? So you get to use an entire speech to find the link but we don't even get the preceding sentence? Link to comment
Recommended Posts