Obama lies again

[Ted King]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
It certainly does look like Obama said something that is not true. He might have intended to say something else, but if he knew it wasn't true and said it anyway, then it was a lie. If what he said isn't true and it isn't a case of what he said not being what he meant to say, then as an Obama apologist I will say that I doubt he knew what he said was not true (IOW, I doubt he lied even if what he said turns out not to be true).

Come on, Ted.

We're not talking about some "gosh jolly gee" hick like George W. Bush. This is Barack Hussein Obama, born in Honolulu, Hawaii - graduated from Punahou School, Columbia University and Harvard Law. This is a man who has been a civil rights attorney, a community organizer and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago - all before he became a US Senator at the age of 43.

We're talking about a smart, savvy, intelligent and cunning man - a man who's been lauded as The Great Orator and praised for his intellect. And to have us believe that maybe he didn't say what he meant to say or that he didn't know he was telling an "untruth"????
Smart, powerful people are misinformed about a lot of things and accidentally say things they didn't intend to say quite frequently. I don't buy your argument.

[davester]

Black wrote:
What exactly would the intent of such a lie be? Can you help us apologists make some kind of sense out of your outrage?

Exactly. If he had intended to mislead, then he wouldn't have said "semiautomatic" and then followed it with "fully automatic weapon in that case"* which is the quote in swampy's post. If swampy's quote is accurate then all we are left with is some puzzlement as to what this qualification was about.

In fact, the right wing story makes zero sense whatsoever, since if Lanza used a fully automatic weapon then it would WEAKEN Obama's stance on gun control since those weapons are already illegal and gun nuts could say "see, legislation against semiautos wouldn't have helped one bit. The right wing gun nuts are the last people who should be pointing out that Obama may have misspoken since doing so dilutes their arguments. They should instead be all saying "Yeah! What the black kenyan president guy said!"




*note that I don't vouch for the accuracy of swampy's post since she has been known in the past to post "quotes" that do not reflect what somebody actually said.

[deckeda]

She linked to the White House page --- it's accurate.

The only puzzlement is how it would be used to further any gun restrictions. Black's question still stands --- people are upset here Obama's comment paints an unfair picture of guns but can't come up with a plausible scenario of how.

[SteveG]

Want a good laugh?

Do a Google search for "by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly"
(every single nutburger site in existence is dancing and shaking its weapons on this one.)

[Mac-A-Matic]

deckeda wrote:
The only puzzlement is how it would be used to further any gun restrictions. Black's question still stands --- people are upset here Obama's comment paints an unfair picture of guns but can't come up with a plausible scenario of how.

The president has been speaking on gun restrictions and bans for quite some time now, this is just another point in his program.

How does it paint an "unfair" picture of guns? By stating that the weapon used was an automatic weapon when those weapons are highly restricted and very tightly regulated - never mind the fact that an automatic weapon was not used in the commission of any of these white-on-white shootings....

[$tevie]

Steve G. wrote:
Want a good laugh?

Do a Google search for "by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly"
(every single nutburger site in existence is dancing and shaking its weapons on this one.)

It's the Right Wing Talking Point Du Jour. How else do you think Swampy even heard about it?

[Black]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
[quote=Black]
What exactly would the intent of such a lie be? Can you help us apologists make some kind of sense out of your outrage?

Choosing to be obtuse. That's your M.O.

Why wouldn't Obama lie to promote an agenda of greater gun control? He's already done it right here.
This makes no sense, and you don't seem to be reading this thread.
What would the advantage be to saying it was a fully automatic? That would weaken the argument for controls on semi-automatic weapons.

[$tevie]

As for the President's "lie", isn't it more likely that he effed up because HE DIDN'T HAVE HIS TELEPROMPTER? Isn't that the conventional wisdom in Kookbiscuitville?

[Black]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
[quote=deckeda]
The only puzzlement is how it would be used to further any gun restrictions. Black's question still stands --- people are upset here Obama's comment paints an unfair picture of guns but can't come up with a plausible scenario of how.

The president has been speaking on gun restrictions and bans for quite some time now, this is just another point in his program.

How does it paint an "unfair" picture of guns? By stating that the weapon used was an automatic weapon when those weapons are highly restricted and very tightly regulated - never mind the fact that an automatic weapon was not used in the commission of any of these white-on-white shootings....
I have no idea why TPPA M-A-M is having such a hard time understanding the question.

[$tevie]

davester wrote: if Lanza used a fully automatic weapon then it would WEAKEN Obama's stance on gun control since those weapons are already illegal and gun nuts could say "see, legislation against semiautos wouldn't have helped one bit.

I don't think it can be made any clearer than this.