gergroy said:
kaneada said:
gergroy said:
kaneada said:
gergroy said:
they both talked over the moderator about the same amount of times. In the end, Obama ended up with almost 5 minutes more of speaking time than romney did. I say Obama was on the defensive more because of the actual words they were speaking. Obama was defending his policies a lot more than romney was defending his own. Romney also threw out more attacks at Obama than vice versa.
Romney wasn't defensive, he was agressive, that is what you were noticing. There is a very large difference.
|
I disagree wtih your definition of aggressive...using distractions, such as pointing the presidents record out ad nauseum in an effort to mask that you have no actual solutions of your own (anything he did offer was abstract at best), is more of a tactical retreat and is therefore defensive behavior.
|
now that is a perfect example of "spin" if I ever saw it.
Somehow, attacking the presidents record is now a defensive move instead of an offensive move. So, by your logic, if romney had been deffending his own policies he would have been on the offense?
|
That could only be considered a "Spin" if Romney had policies to attack the presidents record with...If he had attacked the presidents record with superior ideas instead of "He's failed, so I should get the job and that's all America needs to know," I wouldn't be calling his moves defensive. The point is he had nothing to offer, because if he opened his mouth on any actual policy he did have Obama would have bounced him around the room like a the flip flopper he is...
He got nailed multiple times with the 5 trillion dollar tax cut, which he vehemently denied while his tax policy does cut 5 trillion dollars and never specifies the supposed holes and deductions he was going to close. He also completely avoided answering for the 2 trillion dollars that he was promising the millitary which was not asked for and not wanted. His moves would only be considered offensive if he actually intended to gain ground, which he failed to do...It was like watching a solider throw his rifle at a nuclear bomb and screaming "I WON!!!!!" right before it denonated in his face.
There was more substance in the Bill O'Rielly vs Jon Stewart debate. I can at least say that Bill was on the offensive and hammered a couple of a really good points through.
|
What you just said in no way implies defensiveness. In fact, it implies just outright agression. Your examples, especially the one with the soldier throwing his rifle at a bomb actually describes no defense.
Im not saying romney won, i think they performed about the same, but if you think romney was defensive because he spent the time attacking obama, then all i can say is you need to look up the definition of the word.
|
And once again I disagree with what you think it implies...Romney has been backed into tha corner by his less than appropriate remarks and is costing him this election at this point...he had nothing of any substance to use as a weapon so he attempted to use the persons record against them because he knew if he tried to speak on his own policies he would once again be handed a flip flop and sent about his buisness...He came out swinging, but it was from a place of defensiveness not a place of confidence. His behavior could ONLY be considered Offensive if he had a more sturdy platform and his attacks came from a place of conviction, backed with actual substance...his tactic was to be subversive by using the current presidents record, which worked for the first part of the debate, but in the second half he was gased...
Once again I point you to Bill O'Reilly's performance in the Jon Stewart debate. I don't like the guy, but he has beliefs, he has conviction in them, and, as a result, he did a really good job of putting Jon on the defensive despite the fact that I think Jon ultimately handled him very well...and that is impressive because Jon is a very slick debater.
You could also look at our debate as an example of this...10 bucks says you think I'm the one on the defensive.
