Ohhh, that explains it.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Ohhh, that explains it.

    Or maybe he was just stunned by the blatant lies coming out Mitt Romney's mouth.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Ohhh, that explains it.

    I don't now that he was "too polite" but he did let a number of Romney misrepresentations hang in the air too long or without challenge.  But in a debate where the victor is determined based on things like body language, demeanor, and percevied forcefulness what does it matter what is said?  They may as well tell yo mama jokes for an hour and half since apparently Romney won the first debate and lied pretty much everytime he opened his mouth.  And when he wasn't lying he was threatening to kill Big Bird. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Ohhh, that explains it.

    Or:  In what quickly became a game of Whack-A-Mole, he may have felt that discretion was the better part of valor.

    Anyway, dance.  On the table.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Ohhh, that explains it.

    I think this is true - he had the unemployment numbers and decent leads in the swing state polls.  He was trying so hard not to offend or put off independents that he let Romney get away with anything.

    If you saw the Bill O'Reilly / Jon Stewart debate, you could see how much more compelling the liberal argument really is.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Ohhh, that explains it.

    He got schalacked on the issues. PERIOD!!

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Ohhh, that explains it.

    What happened to Obama is called the "Gish Gallop". Check out the Wiki link, below, for an explanation.

    Basically, the technique, also called spreading, calls for telling many lies and half-truths -- too many for the opponent to answer -- in a couple of short minutes. Even a practiced debater who loves debating is usually tripped up by this game  and it will get you thrown out of a high school debate. A second part of the strategy is to interrupt the opponent, when he tries to respond to the Gish Gallop, by loudly and strongly reiterating your phony points. 

    You may recognize this technique if you listen to loudmouths like Michael Graham on talk radio, the Gish Gallop, with the interrupt/shout, is his favorite technique. The honest guy is at a disadvantage, because he's actually trying to raise one good point at a time, and respond to points raised. The only way to beat the Gish Gallop is to call it what it is and reiterate your fact-based argument.

    The Gish Gallop:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Ohhh, that explains it.

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Question to the Obots.

    How do you think Obama will do the next debate?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Answer to the Mitt-stains:

    Judging by nearly every media account, he couldn't possibly do worse than he did in the first.  Such is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     

Share