Like accusing his opponents of lying?
See above, please. Take the argument over the gun control issue and everything associated with it to a new thread. This discussion is just about the tone in government.
How is it character assassination to speak the truth?
I do find it funny to be lectured on maturity by being insulted with a fucking World of Warcraft meme.
Did the ACLU lie? Because the NRA was riffing off their own views of what the bill did:
The real issue here is that politicians decided to get cute, got called on it, and then said, “Who us? We wouldn’t dream of creating a national gun registry! Whoever would suggest such a thing are obviously liars!”
Sure- it is not inappropriate to accuse someone of lying when they have lied and you have concrete examples (such as NRA claiming there was going to be a gun registry, or the death panel allegations when ACA was first being discussed).
He accused them of lying and manipulating the message and had specific examples. That is not a tantrum- it is a specific and he expressed justifiable frustration and anger over it. Now, if the NRA or others disputes his allegations they can present evidence he is wrong and they wouldn’t be wrong for doing so either.
How many times is this piece of drivel going to be repeated as truth. You’ve bought the NRA bullshit, hook, line and sinker.
Personally the one thing about the expanded background checks bill that rubbed me the wrong way is that it specifically *didn’t *allow for a national registry - which I think would be a keen idea.
It’s right in the wording of the bill that any and all records must be destroyed once a background check is passed. Does that mean something else in whatever language you’re interpreting it in? Or do you just know what they really, really mean because you can delve deep in the hearts of those mean ol’ Democrats who want to melt down every gun on the planet twice?
Again, that’s a different bill. The NRA said Manchin-Toomey was a step toward a national registry, and since there was nothing about that in the bill, that was an example of making stuff up to mislead people or manipulate people into voting against it. Or if you will, lying.
And while we’re talking about tone in government, how about some righteous condemnation for exploiting the victims of Sandy Hook? Those parents were there during the debate purely as an appeal to emotion as opposed to reason. Emotional responses to recent events are not a sound basis for legislation. This was a crass attempt at manipulation for political gain.
Did they not want to be there?
Seriously? What he’s doing, that is the leadership I want to see from him. Maybe it’d be more effective to twist arms and break bones behind the scenes, but he has a pulpit and he’s using it.
But then, I’m a Harry Truman fan.
Okay, fair enough. But in regards to the lying accusation, has the President and supporters of gun control been 100% honest? I’ve noticed they use the completely false term “assault weapons” regularly.
I recognize that that’s a vague term some people don’t like, but they’re not the only ones who use it, and no, that’s not the same as flatly lying about the contents of a bill.
Well, they’re not there under subpoena, are they? They would not be there if they were not eager to participate. They’re not being exploited, they’re enjoying an opportunity.
Right. The words people are using here - pawns, props, exploited - are wrong and demeaning, and if I were one of those families I’d be insulted by that kind of wording. These people are willing participants. They’re allowed to be involved in this debate just like everyone else, and they’ve chosen to use their celebrity or influence or whatever you want to call it in a particular way. There’s a strong emotional component to that and it’s fair to keep that in mind, but they’re making a choice and they’re allowed to do so.
Interesting thing about this was that all the NRA had to do to beat the bill was threaten to score it.
The President was railing against true grassroots power, but he couldn’t say that. So he had to make it seem like it was about lying or big money or whatever. Anything but having to recognize that the NRA can make Congress dance for them simply by warning them they will score votes they don’t like.
You can’t call it “true grassroots power” when a powerful lobby kills a bill that a substantial majority of people supports.
You can if all they have to do is SCORE it, because voters that actually vote pay attention to NRA ratings.
Scoring involves no contributions, and doesn’t matter if voters don’t care about the scoring. No organization in the country, not even unions, can sway votes with simple scoring the way the NRA can. That’s grassroots power that all the other organizations can only dream of.
You have a different definition of grassroots than I do.