gergroy said:
kaneada said:
gergroy said:
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.
|
I'd suggest you look up how defensiveness can manifest...
Defensiveness is natural and appears in one of two forms: Passive/Victim thinking - the conflict might hurt me so I will lay low. Or Aggressive/Competitive - I will aggressively argue in hopes of winning the conflict.
|
Ok, yes people can be agressively defensive, but since romney controlled the topics in the debate, it was obviously not an agression based on defensiveness.
This conversation is just going in circles so i will just leave you with this. All politicians attack each others record. The more a politician has to stop and defend that record means less time attacking and scoring political points on their oponent. That is their job and they ALL do it.
Now, either every politician in the world is defensive, or your definition is way too broad. Ill let you figure out which is which. Cheers.
|
It goes in circles because you won't conceed that A) you don't understand the ways that definsiveness manifests and B) that Romney's performance is a text book example of a defensive behavior manifested agressively.
His platform was "Look at his record! This guy sucks! I am better! I am a champion of the middle class!" He spent his entire time personalizing attacks at President Obama instead of giving us, the viewer, the people he aims to gain political favor with, any real substance at all...Granted I think that Obama's sit and watch as Romney blows up and give a wry smile strategy was pretty pathetic as well...
There is also a difference between defending a position and being defensive...which you can also research...so no my definition is not too broad, it covers the commonly accepted definition of defensive behaviors.
