2nd debate, who won? Obama or Romney?

[theprof00]

killerzX said:

theprof00 said:

killerzX said:

theprof00 said:

killerzX said:

i already posted the transcipt of his speech. its clear he didnt call it a terror attack. words and context matter like you say.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

"exactly so you agree with me. he didnt call it an act of terror. he said acts of terror wont shake our resolve" soo, he just saying acts of terror wont shake us. he wasnt calling the bengazi thing a terrorist attack."

"Crazy republicans all think the worst of Obama.
It was a pleasure speakign with you, as always."

"me, a republican?"

 

english.

 

something apparrently foreign to you. as i have posted what obama said. and people with basic understandings of english can see at no point did he call the attack on the embessy a torror attack. In fact he alludes to the anti-muhammed video being to blame. and ommits the word terror every time he he mention the libyia attack.

That was AFTER this first statement.

There is only one thing you are right about here, that he did not specifically say "this was an act of terror".

What he did say was "we will not tolerate acts of terror. Today we bury four of our best. We will not let this stop us from prsuing justice, and finding the people responsible".

If he was talking about a riot, why would he refer to the people as if they were an entity? If he was talking about a riot, why would he say, tonight, that he said he called it an act of terror. He allowed Romney to say other things that weren't true. Why would he vehemently be against what Romney said if he didn't say it? Was he TRYING to make himself look like a liar? No. He said tonight that he called it an act of terror because he himself believed to be implying it when he said it.

no in his speech he alludes to it before he even says the word terror. i bolded it in the transcript. and in a press release the same day (which i posted too) makes no mention of terror (as this one doesnt talk about 9/11, which is the context of his speech use of "terror"), but again alludes to the video. and this all makes more and more sense after watching the days following and seeing them blame the video, and not mention terror. 

I will admit he was likely bridging his mention of the 9/11 terror attack with calling what these people did was "an act of terror" but not in the sense that it was a planned cordinated terror plot perpertraited by the likes of al queda. In more of a general sense that killing people is "an act of terror".

but its still quite clear that obama was not calling it cordinated terror attack, but a spontaneous mob attack. which is consistant in his follwong statements by him and his adminastration. 

and its definetely something Candy had no business throwing her opinion in, throwing a flag so to speek. and it certainly isnt something Romeny got justifably called out on as the media (like msnbc) whats the narrative to be. and unfortunately it likely will be the narrative.

so a can agree with you to an extent, that they were both right. but not in the way that obama in his speech admitted it being a plotted cordinted terrorist attack plotted by a terrorist cell,( which is what romney was calling it), but a spontaneous mob terror attack, random, and due to a youtube video. 

I am for sanity prevailing.

In one point he refers to it in the same context with terror attacks. In a second statement, he alludes to the video.

As for whether he is right or wrong in either assesment is IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW because we don't have the facts, and for example calling it terror could result in diplomatic problems, or as another example, could be giving away information to the terrorists, telling them we're on to them, etc etc etc. This is, of course, me being nice, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, but whether he was right or wrong about what happened is not up for debate.

What IS up for debate is whether or not he said it, and the answer is a resounding, yes he did, otherwise the reference to 9/11 in teh same sentence, and talking about not faltering to acts of terror are complete non-sequitors. It is ridiculous to assume that's what they were...random comments in between sentences.

Obama said he called it an act of terror. I think he did.
Romney said he called it a demonstration. I also know he did this AFTER he said the previous statement.
Romney also just said tonight that Obama never said it was an act of terror. I don't think this si true.

In these three statements, two can be true and non-contradictory.

 

Most importantly, this is really really just a distraction. This was hardly the big event at the debate.