Worth Sharing

[CarmelHP]

Originally Posted by IUGradStudent

Actually, the Snopes article basically confirms the post -- it just disagrees with the framing of it. +1 for posting this...

But also frames it in it's own, very judgmental, terms.

[Marshall74]

Hmmm sounds like to me that a few of you are saying that this was changed in the post. Well I have done a search and looked at several other websites and read through the speech, and it is accurate. It's the exact same thing as what Michiana posted. Heres another site that posted it.
Darrell Scott's Comments to Congress

[10ring]

Originally Posted by CarmelHP

But also frames it in it's own, very judgmental, terms.

As usual.

[Michiana]

I think there are people on here who would argue which way is up. What the man wrote is the important thing, not what others added in framing the speech. Just enjoy the sentiment.

[ruger7722]

+1 for michiana

[oldpink]

I trust Snopes, even if occasionally they DO interject some editorial content, as with the "rambling" comment, as if THAT were relevant, considering that this was a private citizen and not a professional gasbag, er...politician.
One site I was sorely disappointed in for being pathetically biased, even though it is often cited by politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle as a great objective source, is factcheck.org.
I challenge anyone on here to read their entry regarding Obama and the claims that he wants to ban so-called "cop killer bullets," which any of you know would include nearly any centerfire rifle hunting bullet in existence.
Factcheck spins the daylights out of the (well founded) claims by the NRA that banning any bullet that can penetrate a standard kevlar vest would effectively also ban even the moderate .30-30 standard hunting round.
In fact, Factcheck goes into high gear, not simply supporting an erroneous claim, but going on at some length about "not likely to go forward with banning hunting ammunition."
Sickening in the extreme, as they are clearly abusing their reputation as a reliable source of unbiased information.

Just take a look at this quote from the this link: FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama

Quote: "We grant that it is a theoretical possibility that some future administration could interpret Kennedy’s language as banning common hunting ammunition, despite Kennedy’s clear statement of intent to the contrary. But we judge the likelihood of that to be vanishingly small, given the outcry that would surely follow. "

So much for reputable, huh?


Oh, I also couldn't help noticing that FactCheck.org is also affiliated with Annenberg, the same outfit Obama himself was a part of in Chicago, serving on the board of the Annenberg Challenge, along with one William Ayers.