Obama Campaign Threatens Stations Airing NRA Ads

[tallmike]

I didnt expect a lot of support for my view here, but Im honestly surprised that every reply was against me.

I still stand by the factcheck.org position explanation as being far more accurate than the NRA position explanation. Trusting NRA to tell us about Obamas positions on guns is like asking brady campaign to tell us about the NRA positions on gun safety.

[jimlongley]

The problem that I see is that "reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns" is ill defined and subject to interpretation and reinterpretation and just plain misunderstanding. And then there's "a ban is not "politically practicable."" which merely means that as soon as there is a president with the majority of congress in his pocket in office, it becomes, predictably, politically practicable.

[srothstein]

Tallmike,

I guess I wasn't fully clear and ignored part of your point. You are correct that the NRA is biased and will twist things. In their rebuttals to the factcheck slam, they show how and why they made statements about Obama. Yes, they did twist a few things, and the claim that he has a ten step plan based on his past policies is also a twisting of his views.

But, I do object to saying factcheck.org is any more unbiased than the NRA. In this case, the bias is clear. From what Charles has posted about their donation to the Brady campaign, I cannot say if the bias was in favor of Obama or if it was just a bias against the NRA. I can still say they were biased though.

Do not trust everything anyone says on any political issue until you can verify it all for yourself. Do not trust Obama. Do not trust McCain. Do not trust the NRA. And do not trust factcheck.org. Ask them why they said it and what they based their claims on. Then do your own research and make up your own mind. Since I do not have time to do that in every issue and race, I have a shortcut. I look for the person or group that is most honest, that admits its biases so I can recognize them, and that has biases that agree with me. I tend to trust that more than people who are telling em something that doesn't soudn right, like Obama not being anti-gun.

In this case, that means I do not believe factcheck.org as much as I do the NRA, which may help you understand my bias.

[CompVest]

Well said, srothstein! +1

[Purplehood]

I look for the person or group that is most honest, that admits its biases so I can recognize them, and that has biases that agree with me.

That is a very honest statement.

[Skiprr]

Well, on the bias and hidden agenda front as we discuss FactCheck.org being funded by the Annenberg Foundation, let's not forget that it was $50 million of Annenberg Foundation dollars that started the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1995. The total funding--not exclusively from the Annenberg Foundation--during the seven years that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge existed is estimated at $160 million.

Just a few months before his first run for state office in Illinois, Barack Obama, then an associate in the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland in Chicago, was named the first President and Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), a project which remained under the umbrella of the Annenberg Foundation. Arguably, this is the only executive-level experience Obama can point to on his resume. The founding impetus for the CAC was a decidedly shady character named Williams Ayers (who, by the way, has made several thousands of dollars in individual contributions to the Obama presidential campaign). Obama remained in those positions until the fall of 1999 when he stepped down and was replaced by Edward Bottum. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge closed its doors in January 2002.

If you haven't already come across this slice of Obama's history and would like some...er, interesting reading, Google "Obama and Ayres and Annenberg." For even more fun, Google "Obama and ACORN and radical." Add these activities to his decades-long ties to Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, plus eager support from the George Soros leftist machine...and, well, it's very difficult for me to come away without thinking that what I hear Obama say today is, as the NRA indicates, campaign rhetoric. If you look at his actions and past affiliations and his legislative record--what he's done--it paints a very different picture than the convivial, charismatic one we've seen on the campaign trail these past weeks.

This guy frightens me, and not just because of his stance on guns and the Second Amendment. Though even if all he ever had to say about guns, which piece FactCheck.org concedes is true, is that he wants federal legislation to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms, that alone would be frightening enough. See my signature line...

[anygunanywhere]

Trusting NRA to tell us about Obamas positions on guns is like asking brady campaign to tell us about the NRA positions on gun safety.

Tallmike,

Being a rabid second amendment supporter myself, I find it difficult to imagine, in even the most loose understanding of any statement that Obama could make about any subject, why someone who values their right to keep and bear arms would give one hoot in heck what Obama says.

Anygunanywhere

[Charles L. Cotton]

I didnt expect a lot of support for my view here, but Im honestly surprised that every reply was against me.

I still stand by the factcheck.org position explanation as being far more accurate than the NRA position explanation. Trusting NRA to tell us about Obamas positions on guns is like asking brady campaign to tell us about the NRA positions on gun safety.

Mike:
I don't interpret any of the responses as being directed against you personally. My posts certainly were not targeting you personally, rather they were intended to show that factcheck.org is not an unbiased source. When you stated that you would rely upon factcheck.org rather than "an NRA ad," I didn't take that personally, even though I am on the Board of the NRA.

As to the factcheck.org position being more accurate than the NRA, please have a look at this website: http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx ... 2463d99f08" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; You will note that there are footnotes to independent supporting information and documents and 12 of the 18 footnotes have hyperlinks for immediate verification. Factcheck.org cites no authority for its position, other than campaign rhetoric by the Obama Campaign. Couple this with the Annenberg Foundation donation of $100,000 to Brady Center and I cannot see how factcheck.org could be considered a reliable source.

I stick by the accuracy of the NRA claims about Obama's record, his comments, his commitments, hand his plans if elected to the Presidency.

Chas.

[bdickens]

Just in case some of y'all missed it, here is Osama's, I mean, Obama's "10-point plan to 'change' the Second Amendment"
according to the NRA:

1. Ban use of firearms for home defense.

2. Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right -to Carry.

3. Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

4. Close down 90% of the gun shops in America.

5. Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

6. Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500%

7. RESTORE VOTING RIGHTS FOR FIVE MILLION CRIMINALS INCLUDING THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF USING A GUN TO COMMIT A VIOLENT CRIME.

8. Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.

9. Mandate a government issued license to purchase a firearm.

10. Appoint judges to the U. S. Supreme Court and Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.


You Osama, I mean, Obama supporters out there care to refute any of those claims with facts instead of Osama, I mean, Obama campaign rhetoric?

There is no actual doccument floating around Osama, I mean, Obama campaign HQ matching the NRA's list point for point, so that means the NRA is lying and twisting facts? Come on. Osama's, I mean, Obama's voting record is open for all the world to see.

[tallmike]

Mike:
I don't interpret any of the responses as being directed against you personally. My posts certainly were not targeting you personally, rather they were intended to show that factcheck.org is not an unbiased source. When you stated that you would rely upon factcheck.org rather than "an NRA ad," I didn't take that personally, even though I am on the Board of the NRA.

As to the factcheck.org position being more accurate than the NRA, please have a look at this website: http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx ... 2463d99f08" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; You will note that there are footnotes to independent supporting information and documents and 12 of the 18 footnotes have hyperlinks for immediate verification. Factcheck.org cites no authority for its position, other than campaign rhetoric by the Obama Campaign. Couple this with the Annenberg Foundation donation of $100,000 to Brady Center and I cannot see how factcheck.org could be considered a reliable source.

I stick by the accuracy of the NRA claims about Obama's record, his comments, his commitments, hand his plans if elected to the Presidency.

Chas.

I did not mean the "against me" to mean against me personally, just opposed to my position. Sorry, guess I could have phrased that one better. I certainly wasnt trying to imply someone was attacking me personally for my views I was just surprised that everyone disagreed with me. Im used to being in the minority (my views dont fall into any political party lines) but alone was surprising this time. =)

Oh, and I dont think factcheck.org is unbiased, just less biased than the NRA.

Also, I certainly dont plan to vote for obama (depending on whether Palin can impress me this Thursday I will likely not vote for McCain either) and I dont support his views but I dont think people should vote in ignorance or because of lies from one side or the other.

[Skiprr]

Feeling my well-researched and pithy comments might have been overlooked in this over-zealous Presidential campaign, here ya go again.

But seriously, just Google "Obama and ACORN and radical". If you're ambitious, you might Google "Obama and voter and fraud".

Well, on the bias and hidden agenda front as we discuss FactCheck.org being funded by the Annenberg Foundation, let's not forget that it was $50 million of Annenberg Foundation dollars that started the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1995. The total funding--not exclusively from the Annenberg Foundation--during the seven years that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge existed is estimated at $160 million.

Just a few months before his first run for state office in Illinois, Barack Obama, then an associate in the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland in Chicago, was named the first President and Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), a project which remained under the umbrella of the Annenberg Foundation. Arguably, this is the only executive-level experience Obama can point to on his resume. The founding impetus for the CAC was a decidedly shady character named Williams Ayers (who, by the way, has made several thousands of dollars in individual contributions to the Obama presidential campaign). Obama remained in those positions until the fall of 1999 when he stepped down and was replaced by Edward Bottum. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge closed its doors in January 2002.

If you haven't already come across this slice of Obama's history and would like some...er, interesting reading, Google "Obama and Ayres and Annenberg." For even more fun, Google "Obama and ACORN and radical." Add these activities to his decades-long ties to Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, plus eager support from the George Soros leftist machine...and, well, it's very difficult for me to come away without thinking that what I hear Obama say today is, as the NRA indicates, campaign rhetoric. If you look at his actions and past affiliations and his legislative record--what he's done--it paints a very different picture than the convivial, charismatic one we've seen on the campaign trail these past weeks.

This guy frightens me, and not just because of his stance on guns and the Second Amendment. Though even if all he ever had to say about guns, which piece FactCheck.org concedes is true, is that he wants federal legislation to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms, that alone would be frightening enough. See my signature line...

[CompVest]

Just to let you know I read your post and checked a few things. Thank you very informative.

[The Annoyed Man]

[HIJACK]

Only marginally related, but I didn't know where else to put this and it was worth sharing...

A friend of mine received an email today from a former pastor of her's who once served in the Air Force. He said:

This pretty much puts things in their proper perspective.

Re John McCain

Barack Obama has endorsed an ad that simple-minded John McCain cannot use a computer.

Well guess what - Barack cannot land a jet plane on an aircraft carrier at night.

I kind of liked that one.



[/HIJACK]