Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-25-2013, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,475,124 times
Reputation: 35920

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2013, 07:23 AM
 
1,596 posts, read 1,156,810 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 07:31 AM
 
13,250 posts, read 9,872,112 times
Reputation: 14296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 07:37 AM
 
4,267 posts, read 6,171,647 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
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".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 07:40 AM
 
4,267 posts, read 6,171,647 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,475,124 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 07:58 AM
 
13,250 posts, read 9,872,112 times
Reputation: 14296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 08:00 AM
 
1,596 posts, read 1,156,810 times
Reputation: 178
I see no evidence that Sandy Hook happened.

Nothing but seesay, so far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 08:39 AM
 
4,267 posts, read 6,171,647 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,475,124 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:19 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top