Did FactCheck.org mention that Obama knew the allegations were false when he mentioned them in the last debate?

Did anyone in the media outside of Fox mention it?

Didn’t think so.

George Stephanopolous and the Obama Kool Aid

Maybe those reading this should go read the FACTCHECK article directly rather than just reading the “review” of the article…

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

Let’s examine the 1996 questionare. It’s old, so if Obama were to say “That’s what I used to think, but i’ve changed my position, it would be reasonable to have an opinion that we should ignore the 1995 questionare.

But in fact, Obama lied about the questionare. He denied ever seeing it. But then we learned he had written notes on it, which he tried to say weren’t his handwriting but eventually had to admit it was.

But he still claimed the questionare lied about his position.

Let’s take him at his word. Obama is a politician who admits lying in his campaign materials, in order to agrandize himself with the groups he needs to get votes from.

He admits, no in fact he insists we believe that he lied to the voters in 1996, by falsely representing his position.

Now he SAYS he is pro-gun. And we are supposed to believe him, why? Because he told us he would lie to us to get our vote? Because he never apologized for lying in 1996? Because he still lies about his position, like saying Heller was constitutional and later saying the Supreme Court was right to find it unconstitutional? Even though the people who ruled that way were judges he opposed, while the judges he said he’d use as models all voted that it WAS constitutional?

Here’s the deal: NO statement of what a candidate will do in the future is “fact”, until the future is the past. So no claim that the candidate is lying about his intentions can be called “false”.

For example, imagine FactCheck in 1992. Someone runs an ad saying “Bill Clinton will NOT give a child tax credit when he takes office”.

Factcheck: “This is a lie. Clinton has said he would do a $500 per child tax credit”.

Except in 1993, weeks after taking office, Clinton said he would NOT do the $500 tax credit.

So, what Factcheck would call a lie would turn out to be the truth. Now, how can something that ends up being true EVER be called a lie?

If Obama becomes President, in 2012 we can evaluate if anything the NRA said was a “lie”. If Factcheck wants to argue that the NRA claims are unsupported, they would be wrong but within the bounds of civil discourse.

But they are not lies. You can’t lie about what you THINK someone WILL do in the future.

Thanks for sharing this blog entry.

Even if an error occurred, I don’t believe that shows factcheck is pro-Obama and anti-fact. I’ve seen other factcheck entries that take the Democrats’ false or questionable claims to task.

When it comes to Republicans, words and deeds are examined.

When it comes to Democrats, words are examined and deeds are ignored.

You do nothing to respond to the content of this post and immediately launch into a “Hey Look over there!” comment.