Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 124

Thread: NRA Ads expose Obama Biden

  1. #1
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    They are out to disarm us people.

    ]http://election.newsmax.com/?s=al&promo_code=6B57-1]NRA Ads Slam Biden, Obama [/url]

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ets_obama.html

    Fact Check is a great place to look at political claims, regardless of your personal bent.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    Fact Check is a great place to look at political claims, regardless of your personal bent.
    They seem to show little understanding of the meaning of the second amendment, self defense and how BO's stated positions on those reflect on them.

    Be wary whenever anyone uses the phrase "common sense measures". BO's common sense is not necessarily my common sense. Reinstating the AWB and making it permanent should be enough to tell you that the writer of this particular fact check is coming to the table with a bias that renders the entire analysis suspect.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Factcheck has managed to distort both the NRA's position and Barack Obama's positions in one short article. I question, based on this one article, whether they are actually non-partisan.

    Why on earth would they claim that BO is pro gun based on
    "what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns." They are basing their argument on what he claims as his position in his campaign literature and ignoring his long history as an anti gun zealot.

    Obama had been rabidly anti gun up until he started campaigning for president and even after he has been inconsistent. He may claim that he believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, but he didn't say that until after the SCOTUS case. Before the case he came out publicly in support of Washington DC's absolute ban on firearms.

    The NRA's position and advertising on Obama's record comes from in depth studies of his positions while in the Illinois legislature and his voting record in the Senate. Regardless of what factcheck.org says the NRA is far more accurate on this issue than they are.

    Also turns out that factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation which regularly gives large sums of money to the Brady Campaign. Might want to think twice before taking factcheck's word for anything.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    And here's another one, directly from the factcheck.org website.

    Obama, 2003: "While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary"

    They claim that this means that he does not support a ban on handguns. Actually it means that he doesn't think a ban is politically practical. They are twisting his actual words to make him sound better than he is. Can we assume that if it was politically practical he would be right there ready to ban them? That is the implication in his own words.

    If I were asked if I supported a ban on something and I didn't, my exact words would be "No, I don't support a ban".

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/16555.html

    http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/
    Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    EDIT: Didn't refresh before posting and was redundant.

    Heresolong already said what I was going to say better than I did.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/16555.html

    http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/
    Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

    I find this quite intresting, as Obama has said on many interviews (just google obama gun control) that he favors limiting Guns for the General Populace, he also favors the united nations in thier aspect of guns, which everyone knows the UN wants to ban all guns except for military and law enforcement, so much for our for fathers and the ideas behind people having guns in the first place

    "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

    Politicians today try to say all the right things to get as many votes as they possibly can. However, when we evaluate their past statements and voting records, we can find out the truth about what they stand for. One issue that is near and dear to the hearts of many Americans is gun control. This is, perhaps, one of the greatest issues separating people, and separating many candidates today. It is certainly an issue that many voters consider before casting their vote for a candidate. Where does Barak Obama stand on this vital issue? He has made enough statements concerning the subject of gun control to give us a fair idea of his own position, as well as what he would do if elected president.

    In 2000, Barak Obama cosponsored a bill that would have limited the purchase of handguns to one per month. That may not sound significant, but the truth is, such a bill would impede the rights of law abiding citizens. There is no justifiable reason to limit the ability of people who have no criminal record from purchasing any legal fire arm. Obama at the same time also voted against allowing people to violate local fire arms bans even in the case of self protection. What does that mean in application? Criminals who are already breaking the law have nothing to worry about, because Obama has made sure that law abiding citizens cannot carry a weapon to protect themselves against those criminals.

    According to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test of July 2, 1998, Obama also supports the banning of all semi-automatic weapon sales and transfers. When most people hear "semi-automatic weapon", they think of the gun in the hand of the gang banger. That may be true, but there are a lot of other guns that are semi-automatic, which would also be included in such bans. Shotguns, for example, that are used by bird hunters would fall under the ban. The only reason to try to ban a whole class of gun, with such a wide stroke, is to start the progression of banning all guns eventually.

    How about some Oboma Qotes





    “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said.

    Barack Obama: Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Sportsmen


    Protecting Gun Rights

    Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation. ( who decides what is reasonable and commonsense)



    Pittsburg Tribune-Review

    Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote

    April 2, 2008



    "I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."


    The Sun Times News Group

    The past haunts Obama?

    December 7, 2007

    "...
    The Obama campaign Tuesday disavowed a questionnaire he submitted to the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization in 1996 to support his state Senate candidacy.

    "Obama never saw the '96 IVI-IPO state Senate questionnaire -- it was filled out by a staffer who unintentionally mischaracterized his views on a number of issues," said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt. LaBolt said the staffer was then-Obama state Senate campaign manager Carol Harwell, who could not be reached Tuesday for comment."

    If actions speak louder than words, votes scream. They must be considered the ultimate expression of a position. So how does Barack explain how his voting pattern matches his questionnaire responses?"



    2003 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire.

    "35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of
    a. handguns?

    While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.

    b. assault weapons?

    Yes.

    c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?

    I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns.

    36. Do you support legislation
    a. mandating background checks of purchasers of weapons at gun shows, through the internet and through print advertisements?

    Yes.

    b. increasing penalties for illegal resale of weapons?

    Yes."



    The Chicago Tribune

    November 20, 2007

    "Court To Hear Gun Case"



    "But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constititional."



    Senator Obama's website


    "...the passage of legal protection for the gun industry would mark an enormous setback for gun control advocates and for leaders of cities such as Chicago, who have filed suit against gun dealers and manufacturers."



    The Black CoMMentator


    "Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance."




    The Chicago Tribune


    "I believe we need to renew--not roll back--this common sense gun law," Obama said. - In reference to the 1994 AWB."



    The Audacity of Hope, p.215 Oct 1, 2006


    "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. "


    1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

    "Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:


    • Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
    • Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
    • Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms."


    Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999

    h/t: Volokh


    "Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

    He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license. ....


    He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He's also banning the sale of 'junk" handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials."


    1996 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire.


    "35. Do you support state legislation ???

    a. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of handguns?

    Yes.

    b. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of assault weapons?

    Yes.

    c. mandatory waiting periods with background checks for weapons?

    Yes.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Factcheck has managed to distort both the NRA's position and Barack Obama's positions in one short article. I question, based on this one article, whether they are actually non-partisan.

    Why on earth would they claim that BO is pro gun based on
    "what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns." They are basing their argument on what he claims as his position in his campaign literature and ignoring his long history as an anti gun zealot.

    Obama had been rabidly anti gun up until he started campaigning for president and even after he has been inconsistent. He may claim that he believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, but he didn't say that until after the SCOTUS case. Before the case he came out publicly in support of Washington DC's absolute ban on firearms.

    The NRA's position and advertising on Obama's record comes from in depth studies of his positions while in the Illinois legislature and his voting record in the Senate. Regardless of what factcheck.org says the NRA is far more accurate on this issue than they are.

    Also turns out that factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation which regularly gives large sums of money to the Brady Campaign. Might want to think twice before taking factcheck's word for anything.
    I have a suspicion you didn't read the link at all. They don't claim Obama to be "pro" or "anti" anything, it's merely an analysis of what the facts support. In fact, they *clearly* show that he's had a stance trying to eliminate the personal right of carry both in 2004 and to remove concealed carry in 2008. However, there were a number of distortions that ought to be pointed out, as well.

    I linked there because fact check provides a *pretty good* analysis of "facts" presented by both sides of the political spectrum. They're good at showing that both sides are full of ****.

    The truth is not in either extreme, but somewhere in the middle. Bear would tell me my tolerance makes me lake conviction, but I think he's wrong. I view the world as shades of grey. My conviction is that tolerance is the only way we survive with each other, and without it, we turn into a group of fanatical extremists bent on destroying each other.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  10. #10
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ets_obama.html

    Fact Check is a great place to look at political claims, regardless of your personal bent.
    For more on "factcheck" see the first five or so links at http://www.saysuncle.com/index.php?s=factcheck

    --



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    I think it's reasonable to conclude from most of the posts here that Obama represents a very serious threat to the Second Amendment. Before going further, I think what heresolong was referring to about the NRA was Wayne LaPierre's editorials in the current American Rifleman. All of Obama's statements and his voting record show that he pushes the envelope at every opportunity. What no one has said, and I think the reason is that the notion is so unthinkable, is that Obama would repeal the entire Second Amendment if he thought he could get away with it. And I think it's not too far-fetched to think that he might try, if he could gin up enough support in the early stages. If this guy is elected we will be in for the fight of our lives.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote
    I have a suspicion you didn't read the link at all. They don't claim Obama to be "pro" or "anti" anything, it's merely an analysis of what the facts support. In fact, they *clearly* show that he's had a stance trying to eliminate the personal right of carry both in 2004 and to remove concealed carry in 2008. However, there were a number of distortions that ought to be pointed out, as well.

    I linked there because fact check provides a *pretty good* analysis of "facts" presented by both sides of the political spectrum. They're good at showing that both sides are full of @#$%.
    Suspect all you want. AS a matter of fact I read every word of the link. That is why I was able to quote from factcheck's article. How do you suspect I did that if I didn't read their article.

    They clearly are arguing that Obama is not nearly as gun unfriendly as the NRA claims, regardless of what you may think about their "pretty good" analysis of the facts (paid for by an anti-gun foundation). They counter the NRA's citation of Obama's record with what Obama says on his presidential campaign website. So who would you more likely believe. A fellow's lifetime voting record or what he says in the few months before he is on the ballot for president?

    I choose to go with the NRA's analysis because they actually provide FACTS to back up their arguments. factcheck provides opinion and claims that it counters facts. Not very factcheckish in my book.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    I think it's reasonable to conclude from most of the posts here that Obama represents a very serious threat to the Second Amendment. Before going further, I think what heresolong was referring to about the NRA was Wayne LaPierre's editorials in the current American Rifleman. All of Obama's statements and his voting record show that he pushes the envelope at every opportunity. What no one has said, and I think the reason is that the notion is so unthinkable, is that Obama would repeal the entire Second Amendment if he thought he could get away with it. And I think it's not too far-fetched to think that he might try, if he could gin up enough support in the early stages. If this guy is elected we will be in for the fight of our lives.
    I think it's reasonable to conclude from most of the posts, anywhere, and the general discussion and reporting that people don't understand the very Constitution they complain another side doesn't support. Let's face it, if people really understood the Constitution the Presidential election would be equal in importance to the election of your local representative, because that representative has the power to create laws, and that representative is the one who actually votes for the President. The executive office is meant simply to enforce the laws passed by the representatives of the people, which is what makes us a republic and not a democracy.

    For all of the hooplah that happens with regards to the Presidential election, you'd think someone, somewhere, would start to clue in to the distraction it gives from the actions of our representatives. The President is intended to be once-removed from the people, yet people spend so much time obsessing over that figurehead. I think, ultimately, Obama was right in that no matter what his personal views are, he doesn't make the law. Maybe I'm fighting a losing battle, but it'd be nice for people to focus as much on their representative elections as they do on the Presidential. In losing that focus, we lose the ability to fight legislation where it matters most: on the voting floor and in the approval of judicial appointments. Regardless of who is in office, the House and Senate control these things, and I think it's time we start paying attention to that, instead of freaking out htat somehow the President is going to grow new lawmaking superpowers that deny us rights, as told to us by a political activism group (right OR left leaning).
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  14. #14
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    Even though I agree that Obama is 100% anti 2A, even Biden was quoted as saying "Obama won't take MY shotgun".

    Sorry I don't have a link to it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Cremator75 wrote:
    Even though I agree that Obama is 100% anti 2A, even Biden was quoted as saying "Obama won't take MY shotgun".

    Sorry I don't have a link to it.
    Of course Bama's not gonna take Biden's shotteh...since when have politicians ever been in the business of disarming each other?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    MetalChris wrote:
    Cremator75 wrote:
    Even though I agree that Obama is 100% anti 2A, even Biden was quoted as saying "Obama won't take MY shotgun".

    Sorry I don't have a link to it.
    Of course Bama's not gonna take Biden's shotteh...since when have politicians ever been in the business of disarming each other?
    Yeah. Just ask Dianne "I have a California concealed weapons permit which the average Joe can't get but if I had the votes I'd tell every American to turn in their guns" Feinstein.

    Anyway, since when is the dividing line between acceptable gun control and non-acceptable gun control whether or not you can own an over-under shotgun? What about pistols, revolvers, semi-automatic rifles, so called "assault rifles". I own all of those but not one over-under shotgun, so Biden's reassurance doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Camas, Washington, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    I think it's reasonable to conclude from most of the posts, anywhere, and the general discussion and reporting that people don't understand the very Constitution they complain another side doesn't support. Let's face it, if people really understood the Constitution the Presidential election would be equal in importance to the election of your local representative, because that representative has the power to create laws, and that representative is the one who actually votes for the President. The executive office is meant simply to enforce the laws passed by the representatives of the people, which is what makes us a republic and not a democracy.

    For all of the hooplah that happens with regards to the Presidential election, you'd think someone, somewhere, would start to clue in to the distraction it gives from the actions of our representatives. The President is intended to be once-removed from the people, yet people spend so much time obsessing over that figurehead. I think, ultimately, Obama was right in that no matter what his personal views are, he doesn't make the law. Maybe I'm fighting a losing battle, but it'd be nice for people to focus as much on their representative elections as they do on the Presidential. In losing that focus, we lose the ability to fight legislation where it matters most: on the voting floor and in the approval of judicial appointments. Regardless of who is in office, the House and Senate control these things, and I think it's time we start paying attention to that, instead of freaking out htat somehow the President is going to grow new lawmaking superpowers that deny us rights, as told to us by a political activism group (right OR left leaning).
    You may decide to vote for Obama, because you don't believe he is as important as your local politicians, and he can't make laws taking your guns away, but none of your local politicians will be appointing SCOTUS justices. Obama has indicated he would appoint justices like those who dissented with Heller. Go ahead and pretend it doesn't matter too much, if it assuages your conscience when voting for Obama.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Jamfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Greater Seattle Area
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    Thank you Chuck! FactCheck.org is not a holy, blameless creature and they really missed the boat on this one. I know they do try, but this was a failure of research.

    Folks: if you take nothing else away from this, please look at what Obama has done and not just what he says about our 2nd Amendment rights.

    And yes, I know we should say the same about McCain... he's not sitting pretty on this one either. Fortunately, it's been mostly sound/fury and little action.
    Support these forums, please donate if you are able to OpenCarry.Org!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    team one wrote:
    You may decide to vote for Obama, because you don't believe he is as important as your local politicians, and he can't make laws taking your guns away, but none of your local politicians will be appointing SCOTUS justices. Obama has indicated he would appoint justices like those who dissented with Heller. Go ahead and pretend it doesn't matter too much, if it assuages your conscience when voting for Obama.
    Drop the accusatory tone and understand. I'm speaking from a position that simply wants to see people focus on the broader range of issues, and that I have no need for things which "assuages [my] conscience." Chances are high at this point that I'll be asking my representative to vote for Barr (since the population doesn't actually vote for the president, it votes to give a signal who they should vote for).

    All I ask is that people not be so small-minded and speak out of fear, citing sources of a highly-political group without any pretenses of neutrality. Say what you want about fact check, but they're one of the few places I've seen analysis that tells you how full of crap both sides are. Hence this discussion.

    If you choose to ignore the more obvious distortions of the NRA pamphlet simply because it fits your world view better, at least be honest enough to say so.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    If you choose to ignore the more obvious distortions of the NRA pamphlet simply because it fits your world view better, at least be honest enough to say so.
    And yet you are ignoring the more egregious distortions of the factcheck website regarding the same subject and have not, so far, been honest enough to say so.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote
    And yet you are ignoring the more egregious distortions of the factcheck website regarding the same subject and have not, so far, been honest enough to say so.
    You're kidding, right? You're telling me that this:

    " on some points it is right; Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he would revive and make permanent the expired ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," for example. On other points it exaggerates. Obama has spoken in favor of government registration of handguns, for example, but has not called for registration of all "firearms" including hunting rifles and shotguns"

    and the rest of the analysis backing that claim is a bunch of biased statements which are egregious distortions of the truth, because in the past the Annenberg Foundation has given money to the Brady campaign? Seriously? Is that your answer?

    *facepalm*
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    heresolong wrote
    And yet you are ignoring the more egregious distortions of the factcheck website regarding the same subject and have not, so far, been honest enough to say so.
    You're kidding, right? You're telling me that this:

    " on some points it is right; Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he would revive and make permanent the expired ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," for example. On other points it exaggerates. Obama has spoken in favor of government registration of handguns, for example, but has not called for registration of all "firearms" including hunting rifles and shotguns"

    and the rest of the analysis backing that claim is a bunch of biased statements which are egregious distortions of the truth, because in the past the Annenberg Foundation has given money to the Brady campaign? Seriously? Is that your answer?

    *facepalm*
    I am so tired of this argument with you already. Do I really have to point by point go through items that people have already gone through, on this thread and elsewhere? You mock any arguments that we do make, you accuse us of not even having read the thread, and yet you refuse to recognize any valid arguments that we make.

    The fact is that Obama has a long record of being anti-gun. He has answered numerous questionnaires stating anti-gun positions. He has voted against gun owners every single time he has had an opportunity, both at the state and federal levels. He has implied that he would ban handguns "if it was politically feasible". And yet you continue to post in this thread that factcheck.org, a website that is funded by an anti-gun foundation, is somehow a more reliable indicator of Obama's positions than the candidate's own record. You, on the other hand, are cherry picking quotes out of our responses and factcheck's website, and then claiming that our whole argument boils down to our own prejudices.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    I am so tired of this argument with you already. Do I really have to point by point go through items that people have already gone through, on this thread and elsewhere? You mock any arguments that we do make, you accuse us of not even having read the thread, and yet you refuse to recognize any valid arguments that we make.

    The fact is that Obama has a long record of being anti-gun. He has answered numerous questionnaires stating anti-gun positions. He has voted against gun owners every single time he has had an opportunity, both at the state and federal levels. He has implied that he would ban handguns "if it was politically feasible". And yet you continue to post in this thread that factcheck.org, a website that is funded by an anti-gun foundation, is somehow a more reliable indicator of Obama's positions than the candidate's own record. You, on the other hand, are cherry picking quotes out of our responses and factcheck's website, and then claiming that our whole argument boils down to our own prejudices.
    I don't mock the arguments you make. Instead, I point out that many of the very things you say are backed by analysis presented at fact check, and that others which are claimed as truthful are more of a stretch. For example, I find no substantial evidence of claims 1, 3, 4, or 10, and I see significant distortion or selective interpretation needed for all but number 2.

    In my opinion, by mixing all of the unsubstantial, non-verifiable, or that which otherwise requires a twist, interpretation, et cetera with that which is clear, the point is watered down. By lying or stretching the truth on other points, the fact that should be most important is lost in the noise. This fact, supported by fact check, and repeatedly ignored as you try to attack me (and fact check, which provides its sources, yet you provide none (nor does saysuncle, nor any of the links branching from there, so don't point me back there)) is that yes, he's an anti-gun candidate, but no, the flier is not, by and large, factually accurate.

    Damn, I posted something that gave no opinion, only analysis, and you all jumped as if I'd somehow declared Obama the greatest protector of gun rights anywhere. Maybe you should check your fear response.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    (and fact check, which provides its sources,
    The only source factcheck provides for Obama's opinions is the Obama presidential campaign website.

    And I think you will find, if you look carefully, that I never attacked you, only your opinions.

    And I think you will find that the NRA provides numerous sources so I don't feel the need to provide them all again.

    And I think that you will find that there are numerous sources quoted in this thread's argument against factcheck and for the NRA's positions. Take a look at chuckufarley's post. So your claim that we aren't providing sources is also wrong.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    1) The only source factcheck provides for Obama's opinions is the Obama presidential campaign website.

    2) And I think you will find, if you look carefully, that I never attacked you, only your opinions.

    3) And I think you will find that the NRA provides numerous sources so I don't feel the need to provide them all again.

    4) And I think that you will find that there are numerous sources quoted in this thread's argument against factcheck and for the NRA's positions. Take a look at chuckufarley's post. So your claim that we aren't providing sources is also wrong.
    In the style of factcheck, I've decided to number your claims and analyze:
    1) FALSE: Fact check uses the campaign web site for only two sources, the remainder are from a variety of other sources:
    Sources
    Chase, John. "Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns; Views on assault weapons at odds." Chicago Tribune, 15 Sept. 2004.

    Wereschagin, Mike and David M. Brown. "Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote." Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 2 April 2008.

    U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session, Vote No. 217 S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397

    Illinois 93rd General Assembly. Senate Bill No. 2165, 25 March 2004.

    Tozzi, Lisa. "Candidates React to Supreme Court’s Gun Ruling." The Caucus Blog, New York Times, 26 June 2008.

    Obama-Biden Campaign. Urban Policy. www.barackobama.com, accessed 16 Sept. 2008.

    Obama-Biden Campaign. BARACK OBAMA: SUPPORTING THE RIGHTS
    AND TRADITIONS OF SPORTSMEN. www.barackobama.com, accessed 16 Sept. 2008.

    Dann, Carrie. OBAMA ON JUDGES, SUPREME COURT. MSNBC First Read, 17 July 2007.

    Moore, Solomon. "Former felons can often vote, but may not be aware of it." New York Times, 14 Sept. 2008.

    Mendell, David. "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty." Chicago Tribune, 20 Feb. 2008.

    S. 804: Count Every Vote Act of 2007. Introduced March 7, 2007.

    Pickle, Nedra. "Obama mentions God and guns in Idaho." Associated Press, boston.com. 2 Feb. 2008.

    Black, Lisa and M. Daniel Gibbard. "Wilmette man shoots intruder in his home." Chicago Tribune, 31 Dec. 2003.
    2) MISLEADING: Statements about my perception were made by you, as well as implications that I am too dumb to use a source with facts:
    And yet you are ignoring the more egregious distortions of the factcheck website regarding the same subject and have not, so far, been honest enough to say so.
    I choose to go with the NRA's analysis because they actually provide FACTS to back up their arguments.
    3) FALSE: Point out the sources in this press release: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Article...&issue=047
    Instead of facts and evidence, I see statements such as "You can bet" and "the same is likely to occur."

    4) YOU MISS THE POINT: Apart from the fact chuckfarley just copied and pasted the same rehash of points, you somehow keep missing that I don't think Obama is a gun-right supporter, nor does fact check make that claim, either. Instead, there are exagerations being posted as truth that should be excluded from the discusion so the important message isn't lost by the inclusion (as you can see, it's already getting derailed because those of us who prefer avoiding hyperbolic claims in politics don't idly watch when such claims are made).

    Let's go through these claims one by one.

    The analysis provided for point 1 by the NRA (and say uncle, and other such sites) is that, because Obama didn't support an affirmative defense law, he'd (quoting directly from the NRA sheet) "ban use of firearms in home for self-defense." What it actually means is that he doesn't support a law which makes violation of another law retroactively okay due to circumstances. Meaning, a person in violation of municipal law for a period of time no longer is in violation should an act resulting in successful self-defense occur. Taking that stance and stretching it to "would ban use" is intellectually dishonest.

    Point 2 has been covered and affirmed as true by fact check. He doesn't believe non law enforcement should carry firearms. I think that's ********, personally, but that's not relevant here, when both fact check and the NRA agree that he does not support carry (open or concealed) by citizens.

    Point 3 can be debated ad nauseum. The problem is that you end up with a "he said/she said" scenario, and there is no affirmative evidence that either side is lying. The NRA claims a typed questionaire with some writing on the first page (presumably, in Obama's style, but I have no evidence for or against this) provides damning evidence. The problem I have with this is that pages 4-7 look different than 1-3. They are printed differently, have different identifying marks, et cetera. This all supports the claim that a staffer filled out the documents, and means that any discourse on their truthfulness is pretty meaningless.

    I could go on, but I should go back to working. I just wanted to show that things aren't as unbalanced at fact check as claimed, and that there are false or otherwise misleading claims being presented along with the truthful ones.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •