uolj: do you believe that Jindal was with Sherriff Lee during the Katrina aftermath/boat rescue operation?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1wO5S5LGT1s&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1wO5S5LGT1s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> /thread
Ok, fair enough. (I don't exactly admit he was deliberately misleading, I admit that I think he was. Sorry to be so anal, but there's a small difference there as well. ) No, not during the boat rescue operation. And Jindal was not claiming that either, so it doesn't really matter.
That was the most questionable line in my opinion. However, "just" doesn't always means "just happened". It also means "that's all". As in, "he just had one rebound in 40 minutes." So Lee just told them to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing rather than argue over whether the bureaucrats were right or whether the law was being broken or whatever. That's what Jindal will claim and that's a plausible explanation.
or he could have said this instead "Harry told the boaters to just ignore the bureaucrats and go start rescuing people." What do you think of this? Do you think the way it was said all those happened in a span of a week or so?
Yup, he could have said that. There were a lot of different ways to tell that story without making false statements. There are a lot of ways I think would have been better and less misleading. That doesn't mean the way he told it was false. That quote is something that happened right after Katrina when the boats were in the water. The phone call from Lee was a week later talking in the past tense about that happening, and that's when Jindal was in the office. Please see the politico link and the part I quoted in this thread.
The issues isn't whether Sherriff Lee supported Jindal or even whether Jindal had helped Lee it is whether the specific events that he described in the speech happened.
misleading != lying misled investigators != lied to investigators Add "deliberately" before "misled" and you'll get a lot closer, though. I understand your point. Do you understand mine? Do you think the title of this thread is accurate? Do you believe Jindal's story includes any false statements? At first it seemed as though you were trying to convince me that his statements were factually inaccurate. Now it seems you are trying to say he was deliberately being misleading and that is a lie. I'm telling you that you can say, "I believe he was lying" and use either definition of lie. What the facts don't back up is that he was definitely lying. That is your subjective opinion based on what you think he was trying to convey versus what he claims actually happened. When Obama says that he released a copy of his birth certificate, is that a lie? A "wingnut" would tell you it is and claim that what he released is a certificate of live birth which is different and that Obama deliberately misled people and therefore is lying. Guess what, you're doing the same thing in the other direction. If you want to discredit Jindal, just make it clear that this didn't happen when the boats were in the water and that Jindal wasn't actually there. Criticize his use of Katrina for political gain (in your opinion) or criticize what was in your opinion a deliberately vague retelling of the story. If you keep claiming he was lying, then it hurts your credibility and takes the discussion away from more important and more relevant topics.
Wrong. And I already explained why. Misleading, perhaps. False, no. I'd be willing to listen if you have an argument as to why those statements are false that addresses the reasoning I already gave.
before during and after if you use during for something which really happened after then its worng/false right? before lunch, during lunch, after lunch if you went home at 5PM, do you say you went home during lunch? if you did, its either you are lying or you don't know how to use before/during/after
The question is not with the definition of "during" it is with the definition of "Katrina". I already explained this. You assumed that "during Katrina" meant during the immediate aftermath, after the storm hit, and when people still needed rescue. So you already defined "Katrina" to include some time after the storm passed but before rescuing was complete. Obviously another definition of "Katrina" would be when the actual storm was hitting the city. In his speech, when Jindal referred to "Katrina" he was talking about the time period from when the storm hit (or probably a little earlier than that) to after it had left the area and the people began to be let back into the city. There is no logical reason why your definition of "Katrina" is any more accurate than his, therefore his statement was not false.
more than a week after Katrina = post-katrina / after Katrina / Katrina relief not during Katrina Katrina is the name of the storm right? not the name of a season/period in time I'm not saying I'm sure he lied.. I'm just sure that during Katrina is not 100% fact/accurate
That is your subjective opinion. You made an arbitrary designation of anything later than a week being after. But that is no more logically correct than somebody else's opinion or arbitrary designation. In fact, there are non-arbitrary definitions that go farther than a week that would still be valid, so Jindal's statement was not false. It's pretty simple logic. I'm not sure why you're arguing so hard.
