|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2005 : 18:08:35
|
The latest from www.factcheck.org:
An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama .
The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.
The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question
For full analysis go here: http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 14:22:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
The latest from www.factcheck.org:
An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama .
The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.
The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question
For full analysis go here: http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html
I wonder why there are no responses to this post? When I say something about Cindy Sheehan that people think is not true I get plenty of responses. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 14:31:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I wonder why there are no responses to this post? When I say something about Cindy Sheehan that people think is not true I get plenty of responses.
robb, it isn't some sort of "liberal bias" or whatever you're trying to imply.
Sheehan is a woman speaking out on a war that affects us all. Roberts is a Supreme Court nominee who is guaranteed to get rubber stamp approval. If it makes you feel any better, I think that misleading ads like the one marfknox mentioned should be banned. I hated it when the false Swift Boat ads were allowed to air and I don't think it is acceptible when done by a liberal organization either.
But beyond that, there isn't much to say. There isn't the "outrage" you so clearly desire because it's a non-story. No one is picking up this angle and repeating it in the popular media like republican shills did with the Swift Boat ads. Perhaps that's because liberals tend to know bullshit when they see it and, unlike conservative blowhards, don't like to rely upon misleading their constituents on important issues.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/26/2005 14:37:10 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 16:51:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb...
I wonder why there are no responses to this post? When I say something about Cindy Sheehan that people think is not true I get plenty of responses.
To avoid this thread turning into a discussion about Cindy Sheehan, now there's a thread where it might be more appropriate to discuss that particular issue: Hero Cindy Sheehan
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 18:25:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I wonder why there are no responses to this post?
What do you want people to say? I think marfknox and factcheck.org described the situation accurately. Skeptically-speaking, there's not much to discuss, and the abortion-rights group in question isn't here trying to defend its statements (unlike yourself and your statements). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 22:16:05 [Permalink]
|
New posting from factcheck.org:
"NARAL Pro-Choice America announced it would start running a new ad to replace one that it yanked off the air Aug. 11 after widespread criticism.
"Unlike the first ad, which falsely implied that Roberts had excused bombing of abortion clinics, this one mostly gets it right.
"The latest ad quotes accurately and in context from a 1981 memo in which Roberts dismisses the notion that the Constitution spells out a right to privacy, notes his 1991 legal brief saying Roe v Wade was "wrongly decided," and correctly quotes an editorial from USA Today raising questions about Roberts legal record on privacy.
"We have some small quibbles here and there - but overall judge this effort to be much closer to the facts than NARAL's short-lived first ad."
Full analysis here: http://www.factcheck.org/article342.html
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/26/2005 22:16:43 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
