By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
gergroy on 09 October 2012
Edit Thread
kaneada said:
gergroy said:


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.

well, are you defending your position or not?  

What you are doing is twisting words around to mean something completely different.  If you had said "Romney is attacking because he has nothing to run on" then I would have nothing to say to you.  However, you are saying "Romney is being defensive by attacking the presidents policies because he has nothing to run on" now that doesn't make sense.  

Look, I'm not debating Romney and Obama here, I'm debating your use of the word defensive and how you are using it.  THAT IS NOT WHAT DEFENSIVE MEANS!  

If Romney had been on the defensive, he would have been DEFENDING his own policies or lack there of.  (key word, defending)  Instead, he mostly ATTACKED the presidents record.  (key word, attacked)

It is really quite simple.