Obama lied about the Newtown shooting - who among his supporters will call Him on it?

You are absolutley incorrect.
Obama made the statement that the Newtown shooting was perpetrated with a full-auto weapon. This is incorrect, and He knows it is incorrect - and thus, He lied.
No two ways about it.

But that's not what the quote says, like it or not.

I'm assuming your OP quoted him accurately. It's just not important enough to check you on that but assuming it is, then it's not a lie. Conditional future cannot be a "lie" any more than opinion can. Perhaps you need to learn to read.
It's been explained to by two different people how you are wrong, and so you apparently want to remain wrong.
Not much anyone can do against that.
:dunno:

Dude -- it's right on the page. That's what I'm going by.

Your statement above: "Obama made the statement that the Newtown shooting was perpetrated with a full-auto weapon"

Obama statement in the OP:
"... and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon – by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.“

Verb phrase: "it is possible (to create)" -- future conditional.

The reference to "20 children in a classroom" obviously recalls Newtown, but since it's still future conditional, it need not reflect historical accuracy.
Further, the pronoun "that" at the end also does not necessarily refer to a historical event, but may in fact refer to the hypothetical.

Does it imply Newtown? Absolutely it does. But it doesn't say "the Newtown shooting was perpetrated with a full-auto weapon" -- which is what you (M14) claimed it said.

To quote Joe Wilson..... :D

Any of youse guys ever sign or write a contract?
 
Last edited:
[
First, screw nothing. You don’t have the right to simply take other rights away because you don’t feel ‘safe.’ That’s your problem and you had best deal with it without demanding that my rights are forfeit.


Of course I have the right. If there is a law passed to ban assault rifles, your rights are forfeit, and that would be great for everyone.

Well, maybe not you. But considering all the children who wouldn't be shot 11 times in the head, I SO don't care.
 
That makes no sense. You've got unreferenced pronouns doing all the work.

It makes no sense in the same manner that your insistance that Obama's statement was a reference to conditional future event. My statement that

It is a lie in that case, sadly

Makes just as much sense as a lie which Obama may tell in the future as your assertion that

"by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly"

was a reference to a conditional future event.

The reason that it makes no sense is because... wait for it...


YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTION MAKES NO SENSE :eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:
 
‘in that case’ is PAST, not future as it references a specific (aka THAT) case.


"...but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon – by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.“

No, it references the future conditional, clearly, but unless there is some drive to legalize machine guns I don't know about, it's either a bad grammatical mistake, or he was misquoted (I bet he was misquoted).

This sentence is so screwed up that I don't know why we are spending so much time on it; parsimony suggests he was simply misquoted.
 
That makes no sense. You've got unreferenced pronouns doing all the work.

It makes no sense in the same manner that your insistance that Obama's statement was a reference to conditional future event. My statement that

It is a lie in that case, sadly

Makes just as much sense as a lie which Obama may tell in the future as your assertion that

"by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly"

was a reference to a conditional future event.

The reason that it makes no sense is because... wait for it...


YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTION MAKES NO SENSE :eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:

All you have here is ipse dixit. That's worthless. I spelled out why the statement cannot be a lie, and all you have is gainsaying. You lose.
 
‘in that case’ is PAST, not future as it references a specific (aka THAT) case.


"...but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon – by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.“

No, it references the future conditional, clearly, but unless there is some drive to legalize machine guns I don't know about, it's either a bad grammatical mistake, or he was misquoted (I bet he was misquoted).

This sentence is so screwed up that I don't know why we are spending so much time on it; parsimony suggests he was simply misquoted.

Thank you. Glad somebody here understands English. :beer:
 
Obama lies about the deaths of children as a means to push His agenda; none of His supporters call Him out on it.

It's a sad day.

What is it they say about making the same post over and over and expecting different results? Especially after being proved wrong?
:eusa_think:

Shades of Special Ed...
 
But that's not what the quote says, like it or not.

I'm assuming your OP quoted him accurately. It's just not important enough to check you on that but assuming it is, then it's not a lie. Conditional future cannot be a "lie" any more than opinion can. Perhaps you need to learn to read. For one thing, we don't capitalize pronouns when they don't lead off a sentence.

And again, you keep evading the question of why any of this matters, except for your agenda of misrepresenting your own quote. Oh well...

‘in that case’ is PAST, not future as it references a specific (aka THAT) case.

i could see the prezbo making a mistake mis categorizing the firearm

but he stopped himself backed up calling it a full auto

that was intentional

designed for the low information viewer
 
‘in that case’ is PAST, not future as it references a specific (aka THAT) case.


"...but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon – by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.“

No, it references the future conditional, clearly, but unless there is some drive to legalize machine guns I don't know about, it's either a bad grammatical mistake, or he was misquoted (I bet he was misquoted).

This sentence is so screwed up that I don't know why we are spending so much time on it; parsimony suggests he was simply misquoted.

Thank you. Glad somebody here understands English. :beer:

?
I think I need a little more explanation then because it seems to me that is a complete mischaracterization of the quote.

This is how I would read it:

“but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon – by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.“

The part: ‘but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon’ refers to a future event. An event that we wish to prevent. I believe that we ALL agree on that.

Then:
‘by a fully automatic weapon IN THAT CASE, sadly’ stops referring to an ambiguous future event and references a SPECIFIC past event. Even though the event itself is not named, to venture that he is talking about anything other than Sandy Hook is INTENTIONALLY ignoring reality. I don’t see any other way to take that. It is pretty darn clear from where I sit and I can’t see how an ‘understanding’ of English can change that.

Now, I will agree that I can’t call it an outright lie but then again I reserve that for purposeful changes in meaning and I don’t really think this was purposeful nor do I think that this quote deserves the attention that it received BUT (and this is a big but) defending the quote by claiming that it means something else disturbs me. If anything, we MUST be honest with ourselves more than anything. I don’t understand how you are taking this quote to mean something else.
 
No, it references the future conditional, clearly, but unless there is some drive to legalize machine guns I don't know about, it's either a bad grammatical mistake, or he was misquoted (I bet he was misquoted).

This sentence is so screwed up that I don't know why we are spending so much time on it; parsimony suggests he was simply misquoted.

Thank you. Glad somebody here understands English. :beer:

?
I think I need a little more explanation then because it seems to me that is a complete mischaracterization of the quote.

This is how I would read it:

“but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon – by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.“

The part: ‘but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon’ refers to a future event. An event that we wish to prevent. I believe that we ALL agree on that.

Then:
‘by a fully automatic weapon IN THAT CASE, sadly’ stops referring to an ambiguous future event and references a SPECIFIC past event. Even though the event itself is not named, to venture that he is talking about anything other than Sandy Hook is INTENTIONALLY ignoring reality. I don’t see any other way to take that. It is pretty darn clear from where I sit and I can’t see how an ‘understanding’ of English can change that.

Now, I will agree that I can’t call it an outright lie but then again I reserve that for purposeful changes in meaning and I don’t really think this was purposeful nor do I think that this quote deserves the attention that it received BUT (and this is a big but) defending the quote by claiming that it means something else disturbs me. If anything, we MUST be honest with ourselves more than anything. I don’t understand how you are taking this quote to mean something else.

Because it's ambiguous, and no doubt deliberately ambiguous. Anyone who's ever listened to virtually any political speech by anyone anywhere anytime should be familiar with ambiguous verbage. Anyone who's written or signed a contract knows to keep an eye out for this too. Bottom line the quote does not specifically have O'bama making the statement that "the Newtown shooting was perpetrated with a full-auto weapon" -- because the "full auto" part is connected only to the pronoun "that". Not to the specific "Newtown".

Clearly he's strongly implying Newtown as a reference; but he doesn't specifically say it. Weasel words yes; outright lie, no. Weasel words depend on the reader to make the leap that the speaker/writer won't commit to making himself. The OP article makes the leap (technically itself lying), but it's a site known for the same kind of weasel wording anyway. And the OP bought it, but neither the OP nor the linked article explains why the distinction should matter in the first place. Does the distinction bring any lives back? No. So what's the point of this thread at all?

I suspect that distinction, whatever it is, is itself another leap. There's a whole lotta leapin' goin' on, by everybody. Or as we call it in short, "politics".
Or as the Bard would have it, "much ado about nothing".

So to summarize, no I don't take the quote to mean something else; I'm simply saying it cannot be defined as a "lie", which is the whole basis of the OP.
 
Last edited:
No, it references the future conditional, clearly, but unless there is some drive to legalize machine guns I don't know about, it's either a bad grammatical mistake, or he was misquoted (I bet he was misquoted).

This sentence is so screwed up that I don't know why we are spending so much time on it; parsimony suggests he was simply misquoted.

Thank you. Glad somebody here understands English. :beer:

?
I think I need a little more explanation then because it seems to me that is a complete mischaracterization of the quote.

This is how I would read it:

“but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon – by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.“

The part: ‘but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon’ refers to a future event. An event that we wish to prevent. I believe that we ALL agree on that.

Then:
‘by a fully automatic weapon IN THAT CASE, sadly’ stops referring to an ambiguous future event and references a SPECIFIC past event. Even though the event itself is not named, to venture that he is talking about anything other than Sandy Hook is INTENTIONALLY ignoring reality. I don’t see any other way to take that. It is pretty darn clear from where I sit and I can’t see how an ‘understanding’ of English can change that.
You are absolutely correct; he chooses to disbelieve this.
 
Thank you. Glad somebody here understands English. :beer:

?
I think I need a little more explanation then because it seems to me that is a complete mischaracterization of the quote.

This is how I would read it:

“but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon – by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.“

The part: ‘but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon’ refers to a future event. An event that we wish to prevent. I believe that we ALL agree on that.

Then:
‘by a fully automatic weapon IN THAT CASE, sadly’ stops referring to an ambiguous future event and references a SPECIFIC past event. Even though the event itself is not named, to venture that he is talking about anything other than Sandy Hook is INTENTIONALLY ignoring reality. I don’t see any other way to take that. It is pretty darn clear from where I sit and I can’t see how an ‘understanding’ of English can change that.

Now, I will agree that I can’t call it an outright lie but then again I reserve that for purposeful changes in meaning and I don’t really think this was purposeful nor do I think that this quote deserves the attention that it received BUT (and this is a big but) defending the quote by claiming that it means something else disturbs me. If anything, we MUST be honest with ourselves more than anything. I don’t understand how you are taking this quote to mean something else.

Because it's ambiguous, and no doubt deliberately ambiguous. Anyone who's ever listened to virtually any political speech by anyone anywhere anytime should be familiar with ambiguous verbage. Anyone who's written or signed a contract knows to keep an eye out for this too. Bottom line the quote does not specifically have O'bama making the statement that "the Newtown shooting was perpetrated with a full-auto weapon" -- because the "full auto" part is connected only to the pronoun "that". Not to the specific "Newtown".

Clearly he's strongly implying Newtown as a reference; but he doesn't specifically say it. Weasel words yes; outright lie, no. Weasel words depend on the reader to make the leap that the speaker/writer won't commit to making himself. The OP article makes the leap (technically itself lying), but it's a site known for the same kind of weasel wording anyway. And the OP bought it, but neither the OP nor the linked article explains why the distinction should matter in the first place. Does the distinction bring any lives back? No. So what's the point of this thread at all?

I suspect that distinction, whatever it is, is itself another leap. There's a whole lotta leapin' goin' on, by everybody. Or as we call it in short, "politics".
Or as the Bard would have it, "much ado about nothing".

So to summarize, no I don't take the quote to mean something else; I'm simply saying it cannot be defined as a "lie", which is the whole basis of the OP.

All right. At least that is a better explanation and I might be inclined to agree but not yet. I say not yet because I am giving Obama the benefit of the doubt…

I hold weasel words as you describe it FAR FAR worse than a lie. If that truly is the case, and it simply is not a misstatement, then not only does it qualify as a lie to me (as I qualify a lie as the intention to mislead) but it is doing so while trying to leave doubt to be lied about later with claims that you did not actually mean what you said.

I know that it is common in politicians but that does not mean I must accept it. It is wrong, particularly in the manner that you framed. One of the biggest reasons that I cannot stand media today is they intentionally practice this same idea through half truth – a practice that I find despicable and worse than an outright lie because of how destructive it is.

I think that defining a lie in such hard terms that a purposeful misdirection does not qualify as very strange by the way. What’s the point then? If he did not lie BUT specifically misdirected how is that any better? I think that a distinction like that is a distinction without a difference.
 

Forum List

Back
Top