127 replies to this topic

[Devils731]

Honest question, have you listened to the full tapes? Because you say "edited" like it was clipped and put together in a montage or sorts, that's not the case. It might be missing a pair of consecutive minutes (out of some 45) but I thought the small clip was more then complete to provide context. Short of "Haha just kidding" Romney meant exactly what he said.

I have listened to it. His answer is cut off. We have no idea what the rest of his answer was.

We have no idea if the clip was complete enough to provide full context because it cuts his answer off.

With Obama NBC made sure to find out if there was a longer answer, with Romney they had no concern his answer is cut off midway through. That's a double standard.

Edited by Devils731, 25 September 2012 - 10:46 PM.

[squishyx]

All it took was one email to save newspapers and websites from making a mistake. It was either incompetence or a willful blind eye that had them jumping on Romney for this comment.

A NYT pool reporter being honest doesn't change all the sources that printed a "gotcha" piece on something they didn't check on and got wrong.

Obviously it's a guess, but I feel that scenario is much less likely to happen with Obama. The media would wait to verify or get a campaign response before running it.

Why is it that every time a republican screws up it's a "gotcha" moment media conspiracy. Whenever a democrat does the same it's proof of incompetence?

This Romney window thing is bad both ways though, either (a) he's a dolt or (b) an insensitive jerk who is making jokes right after telling everyone that his wife was choking from lack of oxygen on an emergency landing. And he wasn't even prompted to say any of this, but yet blah blah blame the media for you know, re-telling what happened.

[Devils731]

Why is it that every time a republican screws up it's a "gotcha" moment media conspiracy. Whenever a democrat does the same it's proof of incompetence?

This Romney window thing is bad both ways though, either (a) he's a dolt or (b) an insensitive jerk who is making jokes right after telling everyone that his wife was choking from lack of oxygen on an emergency landing. And he wasn't even prompted to say any of this, but yet blah blah blame the media for you know, re-telling what happened.

It's actually a nothing throw away moment that didn't matter once it didn't fit the "Republicans don't know how the real world operates" narrative.

[squishyx]

I have listened to it. His answer is cut off. We have no idea what the rest of his answer was.

We have no idea if the clip was complete enough to provide full context because it cuts his answer off.

With Obama NBC made sure to find out if there was a longer answer, with Romney they had no concern his answer is cut off midway through. That's a double standard.

Given the tone and nature of the talks, given the audience, given the question, given the lead in to his answer, given his actual words, we have plenty of context to draw a reasonable conclusion that he ::gasp:: meant what he said and they way he said it.

I don't even know why you are trying to trump the Obama thing up, that clip got it's air time too, although maybe most media outlets said to themselves that something from 14 years ago isn't quite as relevant as 5 months.

[Jimmy Leeds]

The media goes out of their way to help this guy. The only tough interview he's done was with Univision.

And of course Romney meant what he said......his problem was and continues to be, phrasing it. What he said was true, his numbers were off a tad, but 40% are not voting for him because they're on the gov't tit.

Romney's going to win this hands down, no matter how hard the media tries to crucify him, yet give the Teleprompter In Chief continuous passes.

[Devils731]

Given the tone and nature of the talks, given the audience, given the question, given the lead in to his answer, given his actual words, we have plenty of context to draw a reasonable conclusion that he ::gasp:: meant what he said and they way he said it.

I don't even know why you are trying to trump the Obama thing up, that clip got it's air time too, although maybe most media outlets said to themselves that something from 14 years ago isn't quite as relevant as 5 months.

I wasn't saying Romney didn't mean it, I'm saying we don't know. I'm fine if he did mean it, but we've seen multiple other comments talked about needing to be put in context and here we have an anonymous recorder missing pieces of audio that may provide more context.

I think Obama also meant "You didn't build that" to mean your business, no matter how some people try to say he meant "that roads" and such. That's another instance where people say that context of what he said later may have put his earlier comment into a different context, even if I disagree with them that the context changed.

I don't know how you can't see the obvious double standard in how the media vetted and presented the 2 clips.

Edited by Devils731, 25 September 2012 - 11:09 PM.

[squishyx]

The media goes out of their way to help this guy. The only tough interview he's done was with Univision.

And of course Romney meant what he said......his problem was and continues to be, phrasing it. What he said was true, his numbers were off a tad, but 40% are not voting for him because they're on the gov't tit.

Romney's going to win this hands down, no matter how hard the media tries to crucify him, yet give the Teleprompter In Chief continuous passes.

You're right, most seniors aren't going to like his phrasing, my guess it they aren't going to like being told they are on the "gov't tit" either.

The electoral map is looking like it's going to be identical to 2008 with the exception of Indiana. A few other states could swing but they I have no idea what polls, or facts you have to suggest that Romney is going to win anything hands down. At this point his best projects have him squeaking out a victory. Romney needs almost every swing state, Ohio and Florida most of all and he is trailing in both. You know what Ohio and Florida have a lot of? blue collar workers and senior citizens that make up a vast chunk of that 47%.

[squishyx]

I wasn't saying Romney didn't mean it, I'm saying we don't know. I'm fine if he did mean it, but we've seen multiple other comments talked about needing to be put in context and here we have an anonymous recorder missing pieces of audio that may provide more context.

I think Obama also meant "You didn't build that" to mean your business, no matter how some people try to say he meant "that roads" and such. That's another instance where people say that context of what he said later may have put his earlier comment into a different context, even if I disagree with them that the context changed.

I don't know how you can't see the obvious double standard in how the media vetted and presented the 2 clips.

So, you think Obama, who spent the lead in minute talking about how successful people had help somewhere along the way before saying:

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges, if you got a business, that[sic] you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen".

this Is him saying you didn't build your business... but when Mitt spends 3 minutes talking about how the 47% won't vote for him because they just want hand outs and wont take responsibility for their lives, that he was somehow taken out of context.

It's going to be a long election season because you used to be the rationale conservative.

[Devils731]

So, you think Obama, who spent the lead in minute talking about how successful people had help somewhere along the way before saying:

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges, if you got a business, that[sic] you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen".

this Is him saying you didn't build your business... but when Mitt spends 3 minutes talking about how the 47% won't vote for him because they just want hand outs and wont take responsibility for their lives, that he was somehow taken out of context.

It's going to be a long election season because you used to be the rationale conservative.

I didn't say Romney was taken out of context, I said we can't know for sure without the full answer. Just as with you saying I was implying the Romney clip was edited together when I didn't, you need to stop assuming what I think

I do think Obama meant you didn't build all your business because of the help those other things provided. "that" can't be roads and bridges, that's a plural, that has to be referring to the singular business and, IMO, fits Obama's ideology that people who are successful don't fairly share or give credit to people who he feels created the environment for their success.

If we can reasonably assume what Romney said was true because it fits his MO then we can reasonably assume that Obama meant business because it fits his MO and the wording fits best.

Edited by Devils731, 25 September 2012 - 11:24 PM.

[squishyx]

I didn't say Romney was taken out of context, I said we can't know for sure without the full answer. Just as with you saying I was implying the Romney clip was edited together when I didn't, you need to stop assuming what I think

Don't get all victim-y on me, you said

I have listened to it. His answer is cut off. We have no idea what the rest of his answer was.

We have no idea if the clip was complete enough to provide full context because it cuts his answer off.

so I think it's a fair assumption that you are questioning the context around Romney's statement.

Quite frankly I still don't know if you do, what I can tell is you want to give Mitt as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible and nothing to Obama because it fits your narrative.

[Devils731]

Don't get all victim-y on me, you said

so I think it's a fair assumption that you are questioning the context around Romney's statement.

Quite frankly I still don't know if you do, what I can tell is you want to give Mitt as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible and nothing to Obama because it fits your narrative.

You changed my "we can't know" to me saying, "Romney was taken out of context". Those are 2 completely different statements.

In fact I specifically said "I didn't say Romney was taken out of context" and you changed it to me saying "he was somehow taken out of context"

[squishyx]

You changed my "we can't know" to me saying, "Romney was taken out of context". Those are 2 completely different statements.

In fact I specifically said "I didn't say Romney was taken out of context" and you changed it to me saying "he was somehow taken out of context"

I wasn't changing anything, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of questioning the context on an event A, where we have plenty of evidence to establish said context, and event B where someone literally had their words sniped out of the middle of a sentence.

And your defense of the latter is basically "well it fits his MO so I'm inclined to believe it".

[Devils731]

I wasn't changing anything, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of questioning the context on an event A, where we have plenty of evidence to establish said context, and event B where someone literally had their words sniped out of the middle of a sentence.

And your defense of the latter is basically "well it fits his MO so I'm inclined to believe it".

I'm just going to agree to disagree here, my prior comments represent what I think about things. I don't think filling up more pages is going to accomplish any further understanding.

[ATLL765]

I didn't say Romney was taken out of context, I said we can't know for sure without the full answer. Just as with you saying I was implying the Romney clip was edited together when I didn't, you need to stop assuming what I think

I do think Obama meant you didn't build all your business because of the help those other things provided. "that" can't be roads and bridges, that's a plural, that has to be referring to the singular business and, IMO, fits Obama's ideology that people who are successful don't fairly share or give credit to people who he feels created the environment for their success.

If we can reasonably assume what Romney said was true because it fits his MO then we can reasonably assume that Obama meant business because it fits his MO and the wording fits best.

You're officially in the bubble now man. Romney saying 47% of the country are unconvincable bums is being taken out of context and blown out of proportion, but Obama misspeaking in the "you didn't build that" quote, that's fine by you because it's representative of Obama. That's bullsh!t and you know it. Obama CLEARLY meant that to be the bridges and roads, not the business. Otherwise why the fvck did he even mention bridges and roads. You're so far up Fox's ass, you couldn't tell bias from last night's bologna in Hannity's stomach.

Edited by ATLL765, 26 September 2012 - 11:15 AM.

[Devils731]

I don't know if you saw ATLL, but I took specific pains not to say Romney was taken out of context, but you're the second person to say I said that. I'm somehow ridiculous, but you guys are comfortable ignoring direct statements and putting your own in their place.

Maybe that's how bias can't be seen by you guys, you refuse to comprehend anything that isn't fitting with what you know must be happening.

[ATLL765]

I don't know if you saw ATLL, but I took specific pains not to say Romney was taken out of context, but you're the second person to say I said that. I'm somehow ridiculous, but you guys are comfortable ignoring direct statements and putting your own in their place.

Maybe that's how bias can't be seen by you guys, you refuse to comprehend anything that isn't fitting with what you know must be happening.

Ok. Maybe you didn't say specifically that he was taken out of context, but instead you just said the tape was incomplete and edited, because that's not the exact same thing as saying it was out of context.

[Devils731]

Ok. Maybe you didn't say specifically that he was taken out of context, but instead you just said the tape was incomplete and edited, because that's not the exact same thing as saying it was out of context.

Saying the tape was incomplete and edited is just reality, nobody disputes that to be true.

I didn't specifically say it was taken out of context. I specifically said I wasn't saying he was taken out of context. I specifically said we could never be sure what the context might be if we heard the full answer, and that's also true.

You and Squish saying I said he was taken out of context needs an intellectual dishonesty or a complete lack of comprehension of the English words saying I wasn't doing that. I don't know how either of you can think you're having an effective or fair discussion when you can't honestly repeat what other people say in their discussion.

[ghdi]

Romney's going to win this hands down

Cannot wait to see your reaction when he loses.

The electoral map is looking like it's going to be identical to 2008 with the exception of Indiana. A few other states could swing but they I have no idea what polls, or facts you have to suggest that Romney is going to win anything hands down. At this point his best projects have him squeaking out a victory. Romney needs almost every swing state, Ohio and Florida most of all and he is trailing in both. You know what Ohio and Florida have a lot of? blue collar workers and senior citizens that make up a vast chunk of that 47%.

And North Carolina, which will probably go Romney. Romney needs to have the performance of a lifetime in the debates to turn this around, and even that may not be enough. IMO, the only thing that will turn this thing to Romney's favor is an October Surprise of historical proportions (major stock market collapse or a major international/terrorist incident) or if Obama doesn't show up for the debates. The chance of being "identical to 2008" is virtually slim and none. Romney will do better than McCain, but won't do as good as Bush did electorally.

Calling press conferences on a Monday at 10pm (after the 47% debacle) and continuous attempts at "rebooting" a campaign are signs that a campaign is in trouble. Even conservatives admit this.

In a historical context, incumbents polling where they are right now with 6 weeks to election day win.

The Democrats/left are motivated now. Just as the Republicans got motivated late in the game in 2004. It takes longer for the incumbent party to get motivated for obvious reasons.

I think the state to watch on election night is obviously Ohio. If the President wins Ohio, this thing is over.

Edited by ghdi, 26 September 2012 - 01:11 PM.

[squishyx]

You and Squish saying I said he was taken out of context needs an intellectual dishonesty or a complete lack of comprehension of the English words saying I wasn't doing that. I don't know how either of you can think you're having an effective or fair discussion when you can't honestly repeat what other people say in their discussion.

Or maybe you are just not articulating your argument very well?

What was the point of bringing up that the tape was clipped if all you are trying to say is "we don't have the full tape". This adds nothing to the conversation, it's like me saying we don't know the color of Romney's shoes. It only matters that we don't have the full tape if you think Romney was taken out of context, and you aren't willing to commit to that, so that begs the question of why even bring it up? IMO I think you did it to try and subtly cast doubt on the legitimacy of the tape and now you don't want to go that route.

Please don't try to lecture me on intellectual honesty when you are saying

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

is the same as
"You didn't build that".

[squishyx]

And North Carolina, which will probably go Romney. Romney needs to have the performance of a lifetime in the debates to turn this around, and even that may not be enough. IMO, the only thing that will turn this thing to Romney's favor is an October Surprise of historical proportions (major stock market collapse or a major international/terrorist incident) or if Obama doesn't show up for the debates. The chance of being "identical to 2008" is virtually slim and none. Romney will do better than McCain, but won't do as good as Bush did electorally.

Calling press conferences on a Monday at 10pm (after the 47% debacle) and continuous attempts at "rebooting" a campaign are signs that a campaign is in trouble. Even conservatives admit this.

In a historical context, incumbents polling where they are right now with 6 weeks to election day win.

The Democrats/left are motivated now. Just as the Republicans got motivated late in the game in 2004. It takes longer for the incumbent party to get motivated for obvious reasons.

I think the state to watch on election night is obviously Ohio. If the President wins Ohio, this thing is over.

Nate Silver has basically got this stuff down to the 't'. http://fivethirtyeig...gs.nytimes.com/ Right now he is calling NC for Romney but I think that will switch by election day and if so, it's the same map 2008 (sans Indiana). His work almost takes the fun out of following an election =[

I agree with you though, I don't think Romney can win at this point, he needs Obama to lose.