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 ...
I think Patterico is suffering from the effects of an “Insta-lanche”. I can’t get to his site.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Isn’t Fact Check owned by the Annenberg Foundation? We all know who worked for Anneberg — Obama!
Give no credibility to stealth "fact" organizations like this.
The full name of www.FactCheck.org is the Annenberg Political Fact Check, which is a part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Obama first big break was when he was selected by Bill Ayers to head up the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which is part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Barack Obama is, figuratively speaking, the Annenberg Candidate. Is there any particular reason one should think FactCheck.org would be impartial when dealing with their own candidate?
One man’s facts are another man’s blue sombrero.
I truly believe, with all my heart, that Obama will not take our guns away.
I’m pretty sure he will have soldiers, FBI and BATFE agents do the dirty work.
Remember that in 1995, Obama headed Annenberg. So we have a site run by a foundation formerly led by the very subject of inquiry!!!
He does seem to be having trouble at the moment, but I’m sure the link is good.
Nice try, but ... FAIL.
Evidently you're a gun grabber as well because I can't see any other reason that one would defend FactCheck here by citing something they got right.
I am by now completely disenchanted with FactCheck.org and virtually every other “fact checking” site out there
I think all the fact checkers are hard left, or leaning left, if you were going to speread disinformation what better way than to set up a dozen websites agreeing with you all touting their independence and truth, when you control them all, so all fact checks come back to your point of view.
Like how NPR keeps coming up with these little policy groups and giving them airtime- see, it’s not OUR information, it came from Another Little Policy Group With A Cryptic Acronymic Name Foundation (ALPGWACANF) from Maryland.
There are some pretty specific instances here of their 'fudging' the truth; in the SS ad, there was no place to hide.
I eventually got through.
“How does their getting it right on Obama’s Social Security ad falsehoods have anything to do with their getting it completely wrong with regard to the 2nd Amendment issues?”
I just think it’s funny how FactCheck wavers from being a beacon of light to being the Great Satan, pretty much overnight.
Like your sig.
Here’s another little gem for you re; Obama:
Allah’s Apostle {Muhammad} said, ‘Some eloquent speech is as effective as magic.’
The AP calls rpc.com nonpartisan. That is a load.
Of course, the AP calls it's self nonpartisan and that is an even bigger load.
According to AP, Obama didn't call Sarah a pig. But when you use someone as the butt of a joke in a prepared speech and try to deny it, then he called her a pig.
The AP isn't as biased as the NY Times, but they would like to be.
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.
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.