Professor claims Sandy Hook Shooting did not happen.. (facts, arguments, own)
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.
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.
Oh, so now it's the CIA! Well, call up the head, and put him in front of a congressional inquiry then. Write your congressman, today! Better yet, email him. Who is yours anyway, Ed Perlmutter?
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!
Still, though, you gotta wonder what his next caper will be.
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.
Oh for heaven's sake. It's just a bunch of semantics. He heavily infers that, even if he is giving himself an out. If he didn't think Obama was "complicit", he wouldn't suggest it, reasonably or otherwise.
And please show me where I said the reporting was 100% accurate. It wasn't, by the media's own admission. Regardless, it's a huge leap to then surmise that Obama (and that's what he's saying, putting "administration" after does not negate that) is somehow complicit in either a cover up or serious misrepresentation of the events in order to push a gun control agenda. Because that is exactly what he's saying in the paragraph I quoted. And if he isn't, then I don't understand the point in writing the blog and "suggesting" Obama's complicity in this in the first place.
Oh, so now it's the CIA! Well, call up the head, and put him in front of a congressional inquiry then. Write your congressman, today! Better yet, email him. Who is yours anyway, Ed Perlmutter?
Do you have reading comprehension issues? I'm going to go with, "Yes, you do".
Oh for heaven's sake. It's just a bunch of semantics. He heavily infers that, even if he is giving himself an out. If he didn't think Obama was "complicit", he wouldn't suggest it, reasonably or otherwise.
And please show me where I said the reporting was 100% accurate. It wasn't, by the media's own admission. Regardless, it's a huge leap to then surmise that Obama (and that's what he's saying, putting "administration" after does not negate that) is somehow complicit in either a cover up or serious misrepresentation of the events in order to push a gun control agenda. Because that is exactly what he's saying in the paragraph I quoted. And if he isn't, then I don't understand the point in writing the blog and "suggesting" Obama's complicity in this in the first place.
Semantics matter. If that's what he believes then that's what he believes. I've already told you what I think so arguing with you about what someone else believes seems like a huge waste of time.
Semantics matter. If that's what he believes then that's what he believes. I've already told you what I think so arguing with you about what someone else believes seems like a huge waste of time.
You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to your own "facts". That's the problem with all this conspiracy stuff.
Semantics matter. If that's what he believes then that's what he believes. I've already told you what I think so arguing with you about what someone else believes seems like a huge waste of time.
Dorthy, you said you agreed with him. Either you agree, or you don't.
Dorthy, you said you agreed with him. Either you agree, or you don't.
Again, FinsterRufus, semantics matter. I said that I "pretty much agree with him". That means that I agree with a lot of what he says, it does not mean that I agree with everything he says. The things that I'm in agreement with him on are his questions surrounding the event. I already told you what I think (that there is not enough information to draw any conclusions at this time, just a lot of questions, inconsistencies and oddities) and my view obviously differs from what the professor said regarding his comments about the Obama administration so I'm not sure why you are continuing to pursue this. It's not black and white as you suggest, "you either agree or you don't". That is a false dichotomy. I can agree with a lot of what a persons says without agreeing with everything that same person says.
Again, FinsterRufus, semantics matter. I said that I "pretty much agree with him". That means that I agree with a lot of what he says, it does not mean that I agree with everything he says. The things that I'm in agreement with him on are his questions surrounding the event. I already told you what I think (that there is not enough information to draw any conclusions at this time, just a lot of questions, inconsistencies and oddities) and my view obviously differs from what the professor said regarding his comments about the Obama administration so I'm not sure why you are continuing to pursue this. It's not black and white as you suggest, "you either agree or you don't". That is a false dichotomy. I can agree with a lot of what a persons says without agreeing with everything that same person says.
Probably b/c you never said this until now. You kept saying you agreed in principle with this guy, you talked about the Obama administration, possibly the CIA, being behind the shootings, as opposed to Obama, etc.
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.