Posted on 09/23/2008 1:19:05 PM PDT by mojito
Xrlq points us to this ridiculous FactCheck.org piece on Obama and gun rights. I am by now completely disenchanted with FactCheck.org and virtually every other “fact checking” site out there, and this piece does nothing to dispel my depression.
The summary version: FactCheck ridicules the NRA in this piece. But the NRA is careful to say: look at Obama’s record and not his rhetoric. And at least two of the NRA claims are backed up by references to Obama’s record. Yet FactCheck.org goes on to minimize or completely ignore Obama’s record on these points, choosing instead to concentrate on citations to Obama’s later campaign rhetoric.
1) FactCheck.org declares “false” the NRA’s claim that Obama plans to ban the possession, manufacture, and sale of handguns. But it emerges that this claim is directly based on Obama’s “yes” answer to a the following question in a questionnaire: “Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”
FactCheck.org simply faults the NRA for not noting Obama’s later attempts to explain away this answer. But FactCheck.org doesn’t address the fact that Obama falsely denied even seeing the questionnaire, only to have it later emerge that an amended version had his handwriting on it.
2) FactCheck.org calls “supported” the NRA’s claim that Obama would appoint judges who share his views on the Second Amendment. As part of their evidence, FactCheck.org tells us that Obama didn’t contest the Heller decision, which upheld an individual right to bear arms. But FactCheck.org doesn’t mention that Obama’s campaign had initially said of the D.C.’s total ban on handguns in the home: “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”
(Excerpt) Read more at patterico.com ...
“If this is true, then the place she should have gone was an emergency room — not to an airport to fly 8(?) hours back to Alaska. This is one of the “factoids” that doesn’t add up.
Full disclosure: I’m not voting for McCain, I’m voting for Barr, so I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here. “
Since you are a Bob Barr voter and someone that was trying to feed the Palin baby rumors, you might not appear to be a good judge of facts to some people.
Okay, yes. It was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
“someone that was trying to feed the Palin baby rumors”
Um, I was trying to explain to someone how anyone could possibly find those rumors credible. When you promote an argument you don’t believe in, it’s called “Devil’s Advocate.” Look it up.
“When they’re right, they’re right. When they’re wrong, they’re wrong. I’ve never considered them to be either of those extremes.”
Exactly.
“Devil’s Advocate.”
You have a consistent posting history of your playing “devil’s advocate” as you call it.
Factcheck is run by the Annenberg group, the same bunch who gave Obama and Ayers millions of dollars to f*ck with the poor chumps of Chicago.
You have a consistent posting history of your playing “devil’s advocate” as you call it.I'm not sure about that, but if I do, it's because I usually don't post just to agree with people. If someone has already posted what I would have said, what's the point? Sometimes people say something particularly well and I make a point of expressing that.
No, spreading rumors against conservatives and posting nonsense just to be negative is more troll like than honorable opposition.
I wasn’t spreading rumors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.