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 did not see Tracey stating anywhere on his blog that he thinks that Obama is responsible for orchestrating the Sandy Hook shooting. I even went back and read it again to be sure. If you can post a direct quote from him blaming Obama then please feel free to correct me. I don't belive that anyone could possibly draw any solid conclusions on what happened that day based on what has been presented thus far about the shooting. Tracey is mostly critiquing the media, noting inconsistencies/contradictions/oddities and asking questions. Did you actually read his blog or are you just basing your assumptions about him on what you've read about him in the msm?
Quote:
Regardless of where one stands on the Second Amendment and gun control, it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally remains a key piece of Obama’s political platform.
He's a little vague. "Obama administration complicity" could mean anything from orchestrating to staging to whatever. You are free to draw your own conclusion. But basically he's saying Obama's administration had some kind of hand in it, and infers it's because he wanted public support for gun control reform. It sounds like he blames Obama to me.
My question to you was, and still is - do you agree Obama orchestrated it for the purpose of reforming gun control legislation? And if you don't, what do you believe - surely you've drawn some conclusion?
He's a little vague. "Obama administration complicity" could mean anything from orchestrating to staging to whatever. You are free to draw your own conclusion. But basically he's saying Obama's administration had some kind of hand in it, and infers it's because he wanted public support for gun control reform. It sounds like he blames Obama to me.
My question to you was, and still is - do you agree Obama orchestrated it for the purpose of reforming gun control legislation? And if you don't, what do you believe - surely you've drawn some conclusion?
His quote is not the same as saying that "Obama did it", he's saying that "it's not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally remains a key piece of Obama’s political platform". Suggesting that it's possible that he had a hand in it is different from saying that, "he did it!".
I already said that I don't believe that anyone could possibly draw any solid conclusions on what happened that day based on what has been presented thus far about the shooting, so no, I don't believe that this shooting was orchestrated by Obama in an effort to reform gun control. I also don't believe the official story as it has been presented. I have not drawn any solid conclusions as to what really happened that day, thus the reason why I have so many questions.
I'm done with this conversation. It's pointless talking about it with people who have their minds made up that the way the msm has reported it is 100% accurate, despite the many many inconsistencies, contradictions and unanswered questions.
Dorthy, what would it take for you to believe that Sandy Hook happened? ---that Adam Lanza murdered his mother and then 26 students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary. Would you have to see photos of the bodies?
Dorthy, what would it take for you to believe that Sandy Hook happened? ---that Adam Lanza murdered his mother and then 26 students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary. Would you have to see photos of the bodies?
There's that "B" word again.
Staging is not reality any further than that it is staging.
Anything further would cross over to believing.
Some of the stage hands were viewed escaping into the forest.
One was caught.
In order for two and two to be five, YOU MUST BELIEVE!
His quote is not the same as saying that "Obama did it", he's saying that "it's not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally remains a key piece of Obama’s political platform". Suggesting that it's possible that he had a hand in it is different from saying that, "he did it!".
I already said that I don't believe that anyone could possibly draw any solid conclusions on what happened that day based on what has been presented thus far about the shooting, so no, I don't believe that this shooting was orchestrated by Obama in an effort to reform gun control. I also don't believe the official story as it has been presented. I have not drawn any solid conclusions as to what really happened that day, thus the reason why I have so many questions.
I'm done with this conversation. It's pointless talking about it with people who have their minds made up that the way the msm has reported it is 100% accurate, despite the many many inconsistencies, contradictions and unanswered questions.
Yes it is unreasonable to suggest that. (Even if you're done with this conversation.) To imply that the president would somehow engineer a massacre like that defies sanity.
Yes it is unreasonable to suggest that. (Even if you're done with this conversation.) To imply that the president would somehow engineer a massacre like that defies sanity.
He say's the "Obama administration", not "Obama" there is a difference.
He say's the "Obama administration", not "Obama" there is a difference.
LOL, LOL, LOL! Who is at the head of the Obama administration? If he doesn't blame Obama, who does he actually blame for setting this up? What sheer, utter nonsense!
LOL, LOL, LOL! Who is at the head of the Obama administration? If he doesn't blame Obama, who does he actually blame for setting this up? What sheer, utter nonsense!
What's so funny? It is possible for groups within the presidents administration, such as the CIA for example, to carry out something without the president's consent or knowledge. It wouldn't be the first time.
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.
It is possible for groups within the presidents administration, such as the CIA for example, to carry out something without the president's consent or knowledge. It wouldn't be the first time.
