carlfense Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 So you get to use an entire speech to find the link but we don't even get the preceding sentence? Keep going . . . Not quite ready to spring the transcript yet. Link to comment
Mavric Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 So you get to use an entire speech to find the link but we don't even get the preceding sentence? Keep going . . . Not quite ready to spring the transcript yet. Proceed. Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I am not nor will I ever be a Mitt person. I am unbiased, I won't vote for either of these guys. I'm sorry...but I can't be the only person on this thread that thinks this statement is a load of Bevo excrement... 2 Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 It's okay. Get me back tomorrow, if that's cool. Done! +1 Thank you, and I apologize if it sounded like I was asking for a handout. My family is part of the 47%, after all...so I suppose it's in our nature and it can't be helped. Link to comment
chamrocck Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 The real issue is that the administration claimed it was a spontaneous uprising for two weeks. . . . other than the morning after the attack? 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? 1 Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. Link to comment
chamrocck Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. ver·bi·age/ˈvərbē-ij/ Noun: manner or style of expressing something in words; wording. Sheesh. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. ver·bi·age/ˈvərbē-ij/ Noun: manner or style of expressing something in words; wording. Sheesh. 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 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. 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. Link to comment
Landlord Posted October 18, 2012 Author 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. 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. 1 Link to comment
strigori Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. Have you just not read anything about this before? Or just chose to ignore it? http://www.businessi...vernment-2012-9 Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Proceed. No problem. http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/61699-biden/page__view__findpost__p__1036316 I'd be astounded if that's the worst lie from Biden during the debate. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. Link to comment
Recommended Posts