huskerXman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 yeah, and it is nothing more than one person's interpretation of what he said. nothing more nothing less. Mitt is interpreting it one way, and she another. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 yeah, and it is nothing more than one person's interpretation of what he said. nothing more nothing less. Mitt is interpreting it one way, and she another. Mitt is interpreting it incorrectly. Kind of like interpreting Mitt saying he doesn't and won't concern himself with 47% of the country as Mitt saying he's very concerned with the well-being of 47% of the country. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 yeah, and it is nothing more than one person's interpretation of what he said. nothing more nothing less. Mitt is interpreting it one way, and she another. No . . . your spin isn't necessary. It's a matter of record. Mitt's either mistaken or lying. Take your pick. Link to comment
strigori Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 yeah, and it is nothing more than one person's interpretation of what he said. nothing more nothing less. Mitt is interpreting it one way, and she another. Mitt is interpreting it incorrectly. Kind of like interpreting Mitt saying he doesn't and won't concern himself with 47% of the country as Mitt saying he's very concerned with the well-being of 47% of the country. But he is concerned with 47% of the country, the 47% that resides in the other 53% Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 FACT - "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," Another fact - he did NOT call this a terror act. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 yeah, and it is nothing more than one person's interpretation of what he said. nothing more nothing less. Mitt is interpreting it one way, and she another. Mitt is interpreting it incorrectly. Kind of like interpreting Mitt saying he doesn't and won't concern himself with 47% of the country as Mitt saying he's very concerned with the well-being of 47% of the country. In your opinion. Fact is he didn't call this act itself and act of terror.. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," All he said was no acts of terror.. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Another fact - he did NOT call this a terror act. This is true. He said "acts of terror" and not "terror act." It's ok. Mitt struggles with this too. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 In your opinion. Fact is he didn't call this act itself and act of terror.. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," All he said was no acts of terror.. Holy..... wow! You are right! How did I not see this before? That is totally different. It's like-- it's like a whole 'nother language almost. He may as well have delivered that statement in Greek it's so different. My eyes are finally opened. Hallelujah! It's a miracle. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Another fact - he did NOT call this a terror act. This is true. He said "acts of terror" and not "terror act." It's ok. Mitt struggles with this too. Glad your Obama bias was able to finally come to grips with facts.. Mitt was right, he did not call THIS act and act of terror. It may be what Obama meant but not what he said. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 In your opinion. Fact is he didn't call this act itself and act of terror.. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," All he said was no acts of terror.. Holy..... wow! You are right! How did I not see this before? That is totally different. It's like-- it's like a whole 'nother language almost. He may as well have delivered that statement in Greek it's so different. My eyes are finally opened. Hallelujah! It's a miracle. Glad you finally saw the truth. I knew you would come around! Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Which is why I said this was nothing but an interpretation issue Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 yeah, and it is nothing more than one person's interpretation of what he said. nothing more nothing less. Mitt is interpreting it one way, and she another. No . . . your spin isn't necessary. It's a matter of record. Mitt's either mistaken or lying. Take your pick. http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/crowley-says-she-did-not-backtrack-on-libya-acts-of-terror-debate-moment/ [/left] Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Which is why I said this was nothing but an interpretation issue The fact that you need it interpreted for you to fit your preconceived narrative isn't anyone else's problem but yours. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 http://cnnpressroom....-debate-moment/ No need for an appeal to authority. Everyone can read it for themselves. http://www.whitehous...ssy-staff-libya You guys (not directed at you Cant) might want to think about what you're doing. Every minute spent mindlessly defending Romney on this obvious mistake/falsehood helps President Obama. The conservative spin is in obvious conflict with reality . . . and many/most Republicans are choosing their own propaganda. I've often questioned Romney's lack of respect for his voters . . . but it looks like he might have been right all along. It is rather funny seeing the first post-truth campaign's reaction to confronting actual facts. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 http://cnnpressroom....-debate-moment/ spin away all you want.. he did NOT call this an act of terror. And the fact that you even TRIED to justify this with that video is laughable. They did the very same thing you did, tried to spin it. He tried to take a different sentences to create one. Which is why I said this was nothing but an interpretation issue The fact that you need it interpreted for you to fit your preconceived narrative isn't anyone else's problem but yours. I have zero "preconceived narrative". I hate both candidates equally, but I am not obtuse when it comes to what was said. EDIT: fixed the post Link to comment
Recommended Posts