Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I loved the "I never said fundamentally transform." O'Reilly should have had video clips showing him saying that, "if you like your plan," "it was the video," and every other lie he called him out on tonight.
Did the President actually say the words you have in quotes? Or are you just lying like a lying liar?
Quote[O'REILLY: OK. I got a letter from Kathy LaMaster (ph), Fresno, California. I said I would read one letter from the folks, all right?
OBAMA: All right.
O'REILLY: "Mr. President, why do you feel it's necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?"
OBAMA: I don't think we have to fundamentally transform the nation...
Well I didn't see the interview and couldn't be bothered exactly for the shallow objectives anticipated on behalf of the interrogator , seen above in this example.
The word fundamental is a very broad and sweeping term. The letter was not specific to what is being implied in the area of fundamental change .
When it is remarked ...those are your words, the response could of asked , why are you suggesting my words, are to be understood in the same context of the nice ladies question which is without in the nature of what is being referred to, or are you holding back purposely the context and issue in the question ?
Obama does not go that route and takes the high road, explaining what he is referring to in the general thinking, alongside the idea of fundemental change including a few concrete examples.
Oreilly ducks out, does not retract the mis-understanding, refuses to accept "those are your words" was a hasty trick in order to swing momentum at a supposed villain. This area reduces to a comment about the game by the interrogator.
This is why I coudn't be bothered reading the rest of the interview and not surprised. Very shallow and not something toward progress at all, but a game on words and connive.
What happens in the overall, is the interrogator lower's the audience both supposing and suggesting the individual is a thinker in immediacy. ( but those are your words- seems a juvenile reduction alongside what can be nothing but trickery, if a successful point, for the lower level thinker. ( not a big fan of the administration but does a solid and justifiable momentum want progress or not) Don't forget with the show a means, and more then well explained in tone, it is not an interview, it is interrogation. ( a defense)
Last edited by alexcanter; 02-08-2014 at 05:44 PM..
he lied and wormed his way out of answering each and every question.
Those that worship the majestic power of o have their blinders folded over their eyes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
