Barack Obama is a thug
September 25th, 2008 by adminThe Obama campaign and its minions have repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for free expression during this campaign, writing cease and desist orders and legal threats against outlets that dare to question the Obamessiah. Now they have even gone so far as to try to ban the NRA from publicizing Obama’s anti-gun history. Just what we need: Chicago-style politics in the White House.
HT Instapundit.
Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »
September 30th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
sounds like bush
September 30th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Except, of course, that Bush never did this. The great examples of censorship of political speech have come from Democrats, whether it was President Clinton’s HUD bringing SLAPP suits against people who opposed a building project in Oakland, or Obama threatening political speech he doesn’t like.
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 am
Yawn…
just go to factcheck.org
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 am
Yawn yourself. Instead of going to a website that is clearly fronting for the Obama campaign, you might go and look at what these people themselves had to say, as shown in the links I provided.
The lack of objectivity of factcheck.org is clearly shown in its whitewashing of Obama’s record on Second Amendment issues.
Factcheck is *not* nonpartisan, it just claims to be. The fact that you like what it says doesn’t give it any authority.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:22 am
Read your links.
Factcheck *is* nonpartisan, it doesn’t just claim to be. The fact that you *don’t* like what it says doesn’t give your references any authority (See…two can play that game)
Enjoy the VP debate…should be a real hoot.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Yeah, it’s nonpartisan in the same way PBS and the New York Times are nonpartistan — in the sense that people in the tank for the left can’t see a problem. The blindness is most evident in their defense of Obama’s record on gun control. Here’s a clue. When everybody who supports Second Amendment liberties is scared shitless of Obama when they look at his record there’s a reason — the reasons the NRA mention. It’s not surprising that people who support restricting Second Amendment liberties can’t see what the big deal is. The problem comes when they think that they can bullshit the people who do care by misrepresenting his record. And that’s exactly what factcheck.org did — they *ignored* exactly what scares people.
Sure if you pretend the things that scare people don’t exist, then he’s not so scary. But when you do that, your claims to being nonpartisan become just another pretense.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 am
I defy you to look at factcheck’s analysis of the VP debate and then conclude it is partisan. They are very well-referenced and if one does a quick google search for factcheck and bias you find both sides of the aisle complaining about partisanship…a clear indication that they can be trusted.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:50 am
I defy you to look at factcheck’s analysis of Obama’s position on gun rights and then conclude it is not. They are a partisan group that *selectively* chooses what references to include in their analyses. You can find people complaining that the New York Times isn’t hard enough on Republicans — that’s not an indication of lack of bias, in spite of your claim.
The thing that demonstrates the bias is that you want people to ignore what the Obama’s thugs actually threatened and instead go to a pasteurized and digested account of it. The threats stand for themselves. Apologists trying to get people to ignore them and instead go to a predigested account simply shows how dangerous those threats really were when evaluated on the basis of the threats themselves.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:54 am
*pasteurized and digested account of it. *
Yes, what Sarah Palin calls *the filter*
October 6th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I don’t care who calls what what. What’s important is your insistence that primary sources don’t count and only processed data that provides the appropriate spin represents the truth.
October 7th, 2008 at 5:21 am
FWIW, if you look at the campaign contributions of the Annenbergs who fund factcheck, they contribute 100% to Repub candidates; they never contribute to Dems. That’s odd for a website that is *clearly fronting for the Obama campaign*
October 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Nice try, the classic liberal “false but justified.” The Annenburg Foundation is not “The Annenburgs” any more than Carnegie-Mellon is “The Carnegies.”
Factcheck is run by the Annenburg Public Policy Center at U Penn. Yeah, Eric, that hotbed of Conservativsm, U Penn. You know, the Annenburg Public Policy Center that Bill Moyers uses so much.
The Director, Brooks Jackson, is an AP/CNN person. The staff holds such right-wing positions as Production Assistant for Bill Moyers and Director of Communications for the AFL-CIO, and writer for the Washington Informer.
What a bunch of right wingers!
But most important, Eric, is that you are still playing “ignore that person behind the curtain.” Why are you so insistent that it is wrong to take the Obamafascists at their word?
October 7th, 2008 at 10:44 am
from Talking Points Memo:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/nonpartisan-factcheckorg-not-q.php
The sole trustee and director of the Annenberg Foundation (which funds factcheck) is Leonore Annenberg. She has never given a dime to a Dem. Only Repubs. I think it is time for you to give her a call and tell her she is funding a front for *Obamafascists* So, infact, the Annenberg Foundation *is* the Annenbergs.
Also, FWIW, Ron Fournier is the AP’s Washington Bureau chief is a McCain supporter and interviewed for a job with him not too long ago, so no, the Associated press is not left, by default, as you state.
Notice that I am not calling factcheck a right wing front because they call out Dems on issues. I’m calling the non-partisan. You, however, call them fascists if there is one world speaking ill of your candidate. It is a predictable pattern with Repubs, one bad word…liberal…one judicial decision not to your liking…*judicial activism*…*legislating from the bench* Face it, factcheck takes shots at both sides.
October 11th, 2008 at 4:33 am
First, quoting a left-wing blog as a source for opinion that something doesn’t seem left-leaning doesn’t mean very much.
Second, I don’t care about Ron Fournier. I care about the people at FactCheck.
Third, and most important, there’s only so much smoke you can lay in order to try to get people to ignore what they actually do and actually write.
If you want to convince me that FactCheck is so fair, go back and show me Obama’s great support for Second Amendment rights. Until then, you can blow smoke all day long, and it doesn’t change a thing,
Similarly, you can obfuscate what the Obamafascists in Missouri threatened all you want, but you can’t change it. Don’t go running to a pet spin doctor — deal with the facts on the ground. Deal with what they *actually* said and *actually* threatened.
Until then, playing “ignore the man behind the curtain” is just so much hogwash.