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

[M14 Shooter]

You said the President of the United States was either a fool or a liar in a post that said he corrected himself. You didn't correct yourself. So how does that not make you a fool or a liar?

I go with fool.

If you had bothered to read the article or quote you would have seen the President said semi automatic FIRST and then corrected it to fully automatic. You are aware are you not, that in fact no fully automatic weapon was used by the shooter?

As for rules you do not get to break them just because you are a liberal. You do not get to call people names in the clean debate forum.

Who gives a flying ****? 20 babies are dead. Or wasn't that enough?

The President lied - why do you refuse to call Him out on it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You said the President of the United States was either a fool or a liar in a post that said he corrected himself. You didn't correct yourself. So how does that not make you a fool or a liar?

I go with fool.

If you had bothered to read the article or quote you would have seen the President said semi automatic FIRST and then corrected it to fully automatic. You are aware are you not, that in fact no fully automatic weapon was used by the shooter?

As for rules you do not get to break them just because you are a liberal. You do not get to call people names in the clean debate forum.

Who gives a flying ****? 20 babies are dead. Or wasn't that enough?

In other words any lie is acceptable by your side, thanks for clearing that up. As for your name calling you should look in the mirror for who is what.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Please, remember this thread is in the Clean Debate Zone.

Please refrain from personalizing posts - whether or not someone else personalized their post first.

Every time you quote a violation, you just make more work for us.

 

[FA_Q2]

This was a planned gun-grab that white house insiders said was in the works since Obama has been POTUS.

No question. They needed two things:
-Re-election
-A bunch of dead kids.
Their prayers were answered.

If you wouldn't mind me correcting you on one statement.

Not "dead kids" it had to be dead white kids.

"Dead white kids".

Not a peep from Obama's administration over all the dead kids in Chicago; with some serious kick ass gun laws that didn't stop any shootings.

Racist freaking Dems waited till a batch of white kids got nailed. Then they pulled out their legislation.

No, it was not racial.

The thing with Chicago is that none of it happened in mass in a school. That was what really made this incident stick out. The race was not the issue; it was the magnitude of the single incident that made it stick out.

The fact that it was in a white, relatively safe area is not really the point. I will note that no one from that side of the argument seems to want to engage the fact that it was a gun free zone or that Chicago has more deaths and stricter gun laws but, hey, this is not about reality. This is about EMOTION.

 

[Circe]

The fact that it was in a white, relatively safe area is not really the point. I will note that no one from that side of the argument seems to want to engage the fact that it was a gun free zone or that Chicago has more deaths and stricter gun laws but, hey, this is not about reality. This is about EMOTION.

Certainly it's the point! It's exactly the point. Whites, at least, are trying very hard to make safe neighborhoods, safe places to live, unlike the ghetto. Hey, if we liked conditions in the ghetto, we would go live there!! But no one does; we'd be killed at once.

But the white crazies, old and young, are preying on any groups of whites they can find to make a large kill count. Obviously this is a major failure in our law and order!!

We are trying to fix this. Whites WANT crime-free places to live, but these psychotics with their assault rifles are spoiling our careful, strong efforts to make nice neighborhoods. We need to do whatever it takes to stop this happening.

Screw the Second Amendment. Stop the psychos killing!

 

[legaleagle_45]

Screw the Second Amendment. Stop the psychos killing!

Cool, all you need do now is repeal the 2nd Amend. The procedure for doing so is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. First you need to convince 2/3rds of the Senate and the House to propose such an amendment to the states. Then you need to get only 38states to ratify the proposed amendment and "poof" the 2nd Amend disappears.

I understand that the Senate may have some time on their hands because Harry Reid could not even round up 40 votes to pass an Assault Weapons Ban. I bet if you were to call Harry, and propose such a plan, he would be overjoyed with the suggestion and make it a high priority for the Democratic Party to sponsor a repeal of a part of the Bill of Rights!!! I am sure Harry will also be amazed at your political savvy and accumen and may wish to trumpet this entire idea as the signature movement for the 2014 campaign.

Here is Harry's contact info:

Washington DC
522 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Toll Free for Nevadans:
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)

GOOD LUCK!!!”

 

[Pogo]

Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, 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.“

Obama: Newtown children killed with 'fully automatic weapon' | The Daily Caller
The Obama very clearly intended to use the term "fully automatic weapon" as He corrected Himself after saying "semiautomatic weapon" - so, this was no slip of the tongue.

The Obama also certainly knows that there is a difference between semi- and full-auto weapons, though He likely could not tell you which is which by looking at them or seeing/hearing their names; he just as certainly knows that the Newtwon shooting involved a semi-auto weapon.

So, the Obama -lied- about the Newtown shooing being done with a full-auto weapon - that is, he intentionally and knowingly used use the incorrect term.

Who among you, His supporters, will take the Obama to task for His lie?

Just to state the obvious here: this is not a lie. It's a conditional future statement. "to make sure we don't have..." doesn't say that thing did happen. Had he said "20 children in a classroom WERE gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon" -- where that was not the case --- that would then be a lie. But a conditional future statement can't be a "lie". And anyone participating in a political message board shouldn't need to have this pointed out. And must be brand new to political-speak.

What difference does it make anyway? If the weapon was green instead of blue, does that bring those lives back?

Some of you people have priorities that are just plain perverse.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, 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.“

Obama: Newtown children killed with 'fully automatic weapon' | The Daily Caller
The Obama very clearly intended to use the term "fully automatic weapon" as He corrected Himself after saying "semiautomatic weapon" - so, this was no slip of the tongue.

The Obama also certainly knows that there is a difference between semi- and full-auto weapons, though He likely could not tell you which is which by looking at them or seeing/hearing their names; he just as certainly knows that the Newtwon shooting involved a semi-auto weapon.

So, the Obama -lied- about the Newtown shooing being done with a full-auto weapon - that is, he intentionally and knowingly used use the incorrect term.

Who among you, His supporters, will take the Obama to task for His lie?

Just to state the obvious here: this is not a lie. It's a conditional future statement. "to make sure we don't have..." doesn't say that thing did happen. Had he said "20 children in a classroom WERE gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon" -- where that was not the case --- that would then be a lie. But a conditional future statement can't be a "lie". And anyone participating in a political message board shouldn't need to have this pointed out. And must be brand new to political-speak.

"...by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly..."
This is a reference to the Newtown shooting, not a conditional future statement.
Thus, a lie.

Why does it not matter to you that The Obama lied in an effort to push His agenda?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Just to state the obvious here: this is not a lie. It's a conditional future statement.

When he uses this language:

by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly

He is clearly referring to Newtown-- in that case-- he is certainly not referring to some prospective future case. Just own it. Explain it away as a mistake or an error, but don't try to insult our intelligence.

 

[Pogo]

Just to state the obvious here: this is not a lie. It's a conditional future statement.

When he uses this language:

by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly

He is clearly referring to Newtown-- in that case-- he is certainly not referring to some prospective future case. Just own it. Explain it away as a mistake or an error, but don't try to insult our intelligence.

No, that's not the way language works. It's not a lie, period. Is it engineered to present an idea that may or may not be factual? Of course. Ever heard a politician speak before??

Bottom line, it's still not a lie. It's engineered so that it isn't. It's engineered that you (the listener) make the leap. Solution: don't make the leap.

 

[Pogo]

Obama: Newtown children killed with 'fully automatic weapon' | The Daily Caller
The Obama very clearly intended to use the term "fully automatic weapon" as He corrected Himself after saying "semiautomatic weapon" - so, this was no slip of the tongue.

The Obama also certainly knows that there is a difference between semi- and full-auto weapons, though He likely could not tell you which is which by looking at them or seeing/hearing their names; he just as certainly knows that the Newtwon shooting involved a semi-auto weapon.

So, the Obama -lied- about the Newtown shooing being done with a full-auto weapon - that is, he intentionally and knowingly used use the incorrect term.

Who among you, His supporters, will take the Obama to task for His lie?

Just to state the obvious here: this is not a lie. It's a conditional future statement. "to make sure we don't have..." doesn't say that thing did happen. Had he said "20 children in a classroom WERE gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon" -- where that was not the case --- that would then be a lie. But a conditional future statement can't be a "lie". And anyone participating in a political message board shouldn't need to have this pointed out. And must be brand new to political-speak.

"...by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly..."
This is a reference to the Newtown shooting, not a conditional future statement.
Thus, a lie.

Why does it not matter to you that The Obama lied in an effort to push His agenda?

It's not about agendas here; it's about how the language works. And you've misrepresented it.

Secondarily, it IS about agendas in that O'bama engineered his statement to imply one thing, and you've engineered your OP to say another, neither of which may be true (I say 'may be' because I don't know, or care, whether the automatic/semiautomatic distinction is misleading or not).

But of the two, you're the only one that made a flat declarative statement ("Obama lied"), and that's demonstrably not the case. That makes you the liar, unless you just can't read. But in any case you haven't revealed why it even matters. Does the presence or absence of the prefix "semi" bring those children back from the dead?

No.

So what the hell's your point?

 

[Circe]

[Just to state the obvious here: this is not a lie. It's a conditional future statement. "to make sure we don't have..." doesn't say that thing did happen. Had he said "20 children in a classroom WERE gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon" -- where that was not the case --- that would then be a lie. But a conditional future statement can't be a "lie".

I can't help it, my internal editor is coming out like a werewolf ----

Okay, I agree it wasn't EXACTLY a lie, but I think it was a very confused statement that is not, in fact, precisely a conditional. IFIFIFIF this was quoted correctly, and if it was Big O needs to follow the words on his magic glass better, he is making a perfectly correct conditional statement that he wants to stop them before they kill again.

THEN he says this confusing thing that makes no sense: "...by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.“

Unless Colorado actually had a bill promoting fully automatic weapons legal for all, and that is quite possible in the West!! OR unless he is speaking against some NRA effort to make fully automatic weapons legal, this statement makes no sense.

Either there is some effort to legalize machine guns that we don't know about, and there may well be, crazy as some gun nuts are (and certainly under the stupid dumb Second Amendment they should be legal: they are obvious and portable military equipment), then it makes no sense and is probably a mistake of some kind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just to state the obvious here: this is not a lie. It's a conditional future statement. "to make sure we don't have..." doesn't say that thing did happen. Had he said "20 children in a classroom WERE gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon" -- where that was not the case --- that would then be a lie. But a conditional future statement can't be a "lie". And anyone participating in a political message board shouldn't need to have this pointed out. And must be brand new to political-speak.

"...by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly..."
This is a reference to the Newtown shooting, not a conditional future statement.
Thus, a lie.

Why does it not matter to you that The Obama lied in an effort to push His agenda?

It's not about agendas here; it's about how the language works. And you've misrepresented 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.

 

[Pogo]

"...by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly..."
This is a reference to the Newtown shooting, not a conditional future statement.
Thus, a lie.

Why does it not matter to you that The Obama lied in an effort to push His agenda?

It's not about agendas here; it's about how the language works. And you've misrepresented 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. 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...

 

[FA_Q2]

The fact that it was in a white, relatively safe area is not really the point. I will note that no one from that side of the argument seems to want to engage the fact that it was a gun free zone or that Chicago has more deaths and stricter gun laws but, hey, this is not about reality. This is about EMOTION.

Certainly it's the point! It's exactly the point. Whites, at least, are trying very hard to make safe neighborhoods, safe places to live, unlike the ghetto. Hey, if we liked conditions in the ghetto, we would go live there!! But no one does; we'd be killed at once.

But the white crazies, old and young, are preying on any groups of whites they can find to make a large kill count. Obviously this is a major failure in our law and order!!

We are trying to fix this. Whites WANT crime-free places to live, but these psychotics with their assault rifles are spoiling our careful, strong efforts to make nice neighborhoods. We need to do whatever it takes to stop this happening.

Screw the Second Amendment. Stop the psychos killing!

!
WOW…..

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. Further, stop with this racist bullshit. Whites do not want crime free neighborhoods any more than blacks, Mexicans or anyone else wants crime free neighborhoods. EVERYONE wants a crime free neighborhood. The ‘ghetto’ is for another thread about socioeconomic realities, not gun control. They are two different debates.

 

[legaleagle_45]

No, that's not the way language works. It's not a lie, period.

It is a lie in that case, sadly

Of course, my comment above is conditional on a future event when, or if, Obama lies and not a statement that he was lying then. Thus, you have no grounds to contest or complain about my comment.

Bottom line, it's still not a lie.

Bottom line, it is a lie in that case, sadly

See how nice that works?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's not about agendas here; it's about how the language works. And you've misrepresented 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.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

 

[Pogo]

No, that's not the way language works. It's not a lie, period.

It is a lie in that case, sadly

Of course, my comment above is conditional on a future event when, or if, Obama lies and not a statement that he was lying then. Thus, you have no grounds to contest or complain about my comment.

Bottom line, it's still not a lie.

Bottom line, it is a lie in that case, sadly

See how nice that works?

That makes no sense. You've got unreferenced pronouns doing all the work.
You sure you're a legal eagle? You'll need a better eye than this...

 

[Circe]

Screw the Second Amendment. Stop the psychos killing!

Cool, all you need do now is repeal the 2nd Amend. The procedure for doing so is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. First you need to convince 2/3rds of the Senate and the House to propose such an amendment to the states. Then you need to get only 38states to ratify the proposed amendment and "poof" the 2nd Amend disappears.

Too late, legaleagle, I've read a lot of your posts. I KNOW you are as cynical as we all need to be to understand what goes on in this world.

Nobody is going to ratify any amendments or call any Constitutional Convention, god forbid. They're just going to pass whatever it takes to fix the situation and the hell with the Constitution, same as they always do!!! That's why grenades and submachine guns aren't legal for everyone to own: they've already screwed the Second Amendment many, many, many ways, for the sake of public law and order. Interesting to think what Adam Lanza could have done with grenades hanging all over his belt......he could have bettered the Norweigian Breivik's kill count of 77 children, which is what he was trying for, we now know.

Let's see......we aren't supposed to have racial discrimination, right? And yet all these colleges let in blacks preferentially. Local governments aren't supposed to take people's property for the benefit of fat cat supporters, right? But then there's Kelo......

They can pass any law they can pass and the Constitution doesn't matter at all, they've been doing that for 200 + years, and I bet you know that as well as I do.

I understand that the Senate may have some time on their hands because Harry Reid could not even round up 40 votes to pass an Assault Weapons Ban. I bet if you were to call Harry, and propose such a plan, he would be overjoyed with the suggestion and make it a high priority for the Democratic Party to sponsor a repeal of a part of the Bill of Rights!!! I am sure Harry will also be amazed at your political savvy and accumen and may wish to trumpet this entire idea as the signature movement for the 2014 campaign.

I wonder....the bill to tighten gun law has been leading the news for days, incl. a filibuster warning. But I don't think so. I figure it'll take a couple more shooters, hair painted fluorescent green, drooling slightly with schizophrenia, carrying so many weapons and ammo and magazines they sort of stagger through the school, while they try to get a higher hit count than their heroes, children screaming and dying with their faces pulverized by the rapid fire of the sexy Halo-style assault rifles they use.

I really think you all should jettison these rifles. They have no benign or legal purpose and look how they are causing trouble for ALL gun ownership. Remember Britain and Australia simply banned all firearms and think about jettisoning.

Throw this gun overboard: it's sinking the ship.