Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Second Presidential Debate

   
Who here is saying Fox News isn't pro-Romney and anti-Obama? I think we can all agree that all the news agencies have picked the horse they're backing, and have done so for years. Remember, it's not "news" anymore, it's merely "media", that way they can defend the shameless bias we constantly see in all these various outlets.

My political biases aside, this debate had Romney looking petulant, even desperate at times, always complaining and arguing with the moderator over having the last word and the rules, even segueing completely and totally off-topic as he tried to take opportunistic potshots at Obama. For his part, the president was fairly laid back and nonchalant by comparison, resulting in a contrast that made the former look even worse.

As a summary, Obama definitely took the debate, stylistically and pointwise. He brought his A game, played for keeps, challenged Romney and outright called him on his more dubious claims as he should've the first time, and it showed. As with the Biden debate, only Republican leaners can hope to call this a draw with any sort of conviction via confirmation bias. This wasn't as visceral a win as Romney's initial success, but in this case, it wasn't about Romney losing and fielding a weak performance; he certainly tried, he gave it his best; it was about Obama winning, channelling his inner fire and being at the top of his game.

BTW, I'm in the process of making up a binder of women for a few "jobs" I have around the house, if anyone has any names...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
Yeah, about that...
Link.
Obama's claim there is pretty swishy. Evidently, the moderator did fairly poorly on fact-checking them.
Um, the text in that very link quotes Mr. Obama as calling it "an act of terror" in his address in the Rose Garden. On the 12th. Which is exactly what the President said had happened. Romney tried to play politics with an attack on Americans, and got burned for it (and rightly so). He also referred to it as "a complex attack," indicating that they probably weren't 100% sure what all had happened at that point (and to be honest, I don't think anyone knew the totality of what had happened at that point).

Edit: As far as the debate goes, both Obama and Romney were pretty... "uppity" in their interactions with each other and the moderator (interruptions, etc), but Obama came off as being cooler and more confident while Romney seemed to get upset by each interruption. Substance-wise, I think Romney was a huge flop, but I'm biased. Obama also got quite a few good zingers in (Big Bird making an obvious appearance, as were the 47%, although I liked the line about not having as big a pension fund), but I think the real gaffe comes from Romney's "binder of women" line. Not because it didn't make sense, but because I'm really enjoying the memes from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkWren View Post
Um, the text in that very link quotes Mr. Obama as calling it "an act of terror" in his address in the Rose Garden. On the 12th. Which is exactly what the President said had happened. Romney tried to play politics with an attack on Americans, and got burned for it (and rightly so). He also referred to it as "a complex attack," indicating that they probably weren't 100% sure what all had happened at that point (and to be honest, I don't think anyone knew the totality of what had happened at that point).
Yes. Swishy. He didn't come out and say it was any particular terrorist organization or even that it was suspected to be islamists allied with certain terror groups. He said it was an 'act of terror'.

They only didn't know because they weren't paying attention. On Day One most of my civilian social circles knew that the claim about the video was BS, and that it was likely the actions of islamists targeting the ambassador.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
Yes. Swishy. He didn't come out and say it was any particular terrorist organization or even that it was suspected to be islamists allied with certain terror groups. He said it was an 'act of terror'.

They only didn't know because they weren't paying attention. On Day One most of my civilian social circles knew that the claim about the video was BS, and that it was likely the actions of islamists targeting the ambassador.
Or rather you believed that it was islamists targeting the ambassador. I was googling about it all day after it happened, and it to the rest of the world, it seemed rather unclear. How did you, and your civilian circle of friends know it was islamists on the day it happened?

By paying attention and rubbing our neurons together. Protesters hardly ever bring RPGs and AK-47s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
By paying attention and rubbing our neurons together. Protesters hardly ever bring RPGs and AK-47s.
How did you know the had AK-47s and RPGs? All the footage I saw, simply showed a bunch of people climbing over embassy gates, but I didn't see people with AK-47s and RPGs, otherwise, I don't think they'd really need to be climbing that gate en masse like that. How did you know they were islamists though? All that you could gather from armed civilians, is that they're armed civilians, that doesn't automatically connect them to islamists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
By paying attention and rubbing our neurons together. Protesters hardly ever bring RPGs and AK-47s.
Maybe not here but I wouldn't put it past some places in the middle east. (/joke)

Quote:
All the footage I saw, simply showed a bunch of people climbing over embassy gates
Just to be clear here, people climbing over embassy gates generally don't leave a smoking ruin behind them, nor do reports through the day come out about gunfire and explosives, nor do they kill people.

If the administration believed that the incident was a terrorist organization, why was the UN debate two weeks later still talking about it?

Quote:
Obama, who described the video as "crude and disgusting," said he understood why people would take offense to it as millions of Americans did, too.

He stressed the United States had nothing to do with its production, but defended the right of such a film to exist and slammed the violent reaction to it.

"I know there are some who ask why don't we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws," Obama said.

"There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."
CNN Article from Sep 25th




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status