Posted: 1/2/2009 11:51:54 PM EDT
|
Got this off another site
I wasn't aware of this until I read about it on another forum. (RIGHTtokeepandbeararms.com) This excerpt is brought to you with the author's permission. He writes: So I was busy reading some comments sections on articles about gun rights a few minutes ago. Someone posted the NRA's 10 point plan of Obama's: 1) Ban use of firearms for home protection. 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. Well the response many people had to this was "Oh yeah? Well factcheck.org says all of those things are false one by one" Umm.. so factcheck.org is the be all and end all to every conversation with arguable points? Who is this factcheck.org? Who is behind it? I've noticed that on factcheck.org Messiah Obama seems to be a perfect beacon of shining light, our Saviour, our...Messiah. I decided to run a whois dns lookup on the site. LOW AND BEHOLD Domain ID:D101518303-LROR Domain Name:FACTCHECK.ORG Created On:29-Sep-2003 18:02:43 UTC Last Updated On:11-Oct-2008 16:40:38 UTC Expiration Date:29-Sep-2010 18:02:43 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR) Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Registrant ID:C36603267-RCOM Registrant Name:Brooks Jackson Registrant Organization:Annenberg Public Policy Center, UPenn Registrant Street1:320 National Press Building Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Washington Registrant State/Province:DC Registrant Postal Code:20045 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.2028796708 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:[email protected] Factcheck.org is part and parcel of the Annenberg Foundation. The full name of FactCheck.org is The Annenberg Political Fact Check. The Annenberg Political Fact Check is part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Also part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was founded by William Ayers, and to which he recruited the young Barack Obama. This was Barack Obama’s first big-boy job. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was the launching pad for Barack Obama’s political career. He owes every bit of success since then to the contacts he made and favors he was able to grant as Chairman of this fund. It would not be at all inaccurate to call Barack Obama “The Senator from Annenberg” Yet people regard factcheck.org as an unbiased "fact checking" organization. Give me a break. |
|
They screwed the pooch on that one.
http://volokh.com/posts/1222201928.shtml for the story. |
|
From what I understand, the Annenberg group is pretty conservative. Most of the people on the board with Obama were local Republicans. Ayers did not found the Annenberg Challenge, rather he was some kind of guest member.
Fact check draws some questionable conclusions sometimes, but they do seem pretty balanced on the whole. You should always do your own research using sources that don't have an axe to grind. |
|
Quoted:
From what I understand, the Annenberg group is pretty conservative. Most of the people on the board with Obama were local Republicans. Ayers did not found the Annenberg Challenge, rather he was some kind of guest member. Fact check draws some questionable conclusions sometimes, but they do seem pretty balanced on the whole. You should always do your own research using sources that don't have an axe to grind. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I understand, the Annenberg group is pretty conservative. Most of the people on the board with Obama were local Republicans. Ayers did not found the Annenberg Challenge, rather he was some kind of guest member. Fact check draws some questionable conclusions sometimes, but they do seem pretty balanced on the whole. You should always do your own research using sources that don't have an axe to grind.
Look up Walter Annenberg's history. Appointed ambassador to UK by Nixon. Presidential medal of freedon from Reagan. List goes on. |
|
Quoted:
From what I understand, the Annenberg group is pretty conservative. Most of the people on the board with Obama were local Republicans. Ayers did not found the Annenberg Challenge, rather he was some kind of guest member. Fact check draws some questionable conclusions sometimes, but they do seem pretty balanced on the whole. You should always do your own research using sources that don't have an axe to grind. Now I can retire from teh internets, I have heard it all. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I understand, the Annenberg group is pretty conservative. Most of the people on the board with Obama were local Republicans. Ayers did not found the Annenberg Challenge, rather he was some kind of guest member. Fact check draws some questionable conclusions sometimes, but they do seem pretty balanced on the whole. You should always do your own research using sources that don't have an axe to grind.
Look up Walter Annenberg's history. Appointed ambassador to UK by Nixon. Presidential medal of freedon from Reagan. List goes on. And the Republican party once had people that believed in low taxes and individual freedoms. Do you seriously expect us to think that any organization that recently had Bill Fucking Ayers on the board can be called "conservative" by anyone except Stalin? Your troll-fu is weak. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I understand, the Annenberg group is pretty conservative. Most of the people on the board with Obama were local Republicans. Ayers did not found the Annenberg Challenge, rather he was some kind of guest member. Fact check draws some questionable conclusions sometimes, but they do seem pretty balanced on the whole. You should always do your own research using sources that don't have an axe to grind.
Look up Walter Annenberg's history. Appointed ambassador to UK by Nixon. Presidential medal of freedon from Reagan. List goes on. And the Republican party once had people that believed in low taxes and individual freedoms. Do you seriously expect us to think that any organization that recently had Bill Fucking Ayers on the board can be called "conservative" by anyone except Stalin? Your troll-fu is weak. I have to go for the day, but I'll be back with links re. the board makeup. I'm pretty sure Ayres was a guest or guest observer or something along those lines. Like I said, the board was mostly Republicans. Back this evening. You could look it up yourself too. It wouldn't kill you. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I understand, the Annenberg group is pretty conservative. Most of the people on the board with Obama were local Republicans. Ayers did not found the Annenberg Challenge, rather he was some kind of guest member. Fact check draws some questionable conclusions sometimes, but they do seem pretty balanced on the whole. You should always do your own research using sources that don't have an axe to grind. Now I can retire from teh internets, I have heard it all.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I understand, the Annenberg group is pretty conservative. Most of the people on the board with Obama were local Republicans. Ayers did not found the Annenberg Challenge, rather he was some kind of guest member. Fact check draws some questionable conclusions sometimes, but they do seem pretty balanced on the whole. You should always do your own research using sources that don't have an axe to grind.
Look up Walter Annenberg's history. Appointed ambassador to UK by Nixon. Presidential medal of freedon from Reagan. List goes on. And the Republican party once had people that believed in low taxes and individual freedoms. Do you seriously expect us to think that any organization that recently had Bill Fucking Ayers on the board can be called "conservative" by anyone except Stalin? Your troll-fu is weak. I have to go for the day, but I'll be back with links re. the board makeup. I'm pretty sure Ayres was a guest or guest observer or something along those lines. Like I said, the board was mostly Republicans. Back this evening. You could look it up yourself too. It wouldn't kill you. http://www.factcheck.org/about/ ex-CNN & Columbia journalism school grads are typically not very conservative. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I understand, the Annenberg group is pretty conservative. Most of the people on the board with Obama were local Republicans. Ayers did not found the Annenberg Challenge, rather he was some kind of guest member. Fact check draws some questionable conclusions sometimes, but they do seem pretty balanced on the whole. You should always do your own research using sources that don't have an axe to grind.
Look up Walter Annenberg's history. Appointed ambassador to UK by Nixon. Presidential medal of freedon from Reagan. List goes on. And the Republican party once had people that believed in low taxes and individual freedoms. Do you seriously expect us to think that any organization that recently had Bill Fucking Ayers on the board can be called "conservative" by anyone except Stalin? Your troll-fu is weak. I have to go for the day, but I'll be back with links re. the board makeup. I'm pretty sure Ayres was a guest or guest observer or something along those lines. Like I said, the board was mostly Republicans. Back this evening. You could look it up yourself too. It wouldn't kill you. Heh... looks like I scared him off. 
The point is that the board was made up at the very least of people who didn't try their best to run Obama and Ayers out of the boardroom, and thought that their presence would be beneficial. That's enough of a statement for me. |
|
All of their gun pieces definitely play loose with the truth. They give an awful lot of credence to anti-gunners and go out of their way to claim that pro-gun sources are wrong, based on the slightest of reasons.
Seriously, read any of their pieces on the NRA's ads. Things that get a pass for other groups are deemed contemptible when the NRA does it. |