Don't put words in my mouth. I explicitly said that I did NOT think Sarah Palin was lying. Nor did I say that Palin Supporters were lying. I said that Sarah Palin SUPPORTERS make arguments that suggest that Sarah Palin was lying.
I know, it's a bit more complicated than the 4-word mis-statements of my words that you used. Real arguments often are more complex than people want to think about.
What amounts to lying? Everybody here knows that the public persona of Al Gore in 1988 was NOTHING like the public persona of Al Gore nowadays. Heck, everybody knows that Al Gore in 1992 was not the joke that he is today.
That was exactly what Perry was saying -- don't judge his support of Al Gore in 1988 by what your image is of Al Gore today, because that image is a lot different than the Al Gore of 1988.
You and others are the one that are getting hyper-literal with his statement, claiming that it was a specific instance of fact-claiming; I'm refuting you using that same specific fact-claiming and literal interpretation.
You can't have it both ways. If you are going to talk about generalities of the statement, then you fail in your argument because we all know that generally speaking, the statement is absolutely correct -- The Al Gore in 1988 was NOT the internet-creating, love-canal-inspiring, global warming nutcase spokesperson that he is today. That is an absolute fact.
But if you want to take it entirely literally as a fact-claim, then IN FACT Al gore had not yet claimed to have invented the internet, nor was he known as Mr. Global Warming, in 1988. That is exactly what Perry said, and that is literally the truth.
And if you want to argue that, then all you need to is provide specific evidence that Al Gore wsa reported as inventing the internet in some newspaper before 1988, or that Al Gore was being called Mr. Global Warming, or Mr. Ozone, in newspapers and on radio shows before 1988.
This very article admits that neither of those is the case, and therefore shows that Perry was being truthful. Your arguments also show his truthfulness, because you have admitted, and not withdrawn your claim, that al gore's name wasn't known when he first was an eco-nut.
People will have to decide if they can support a candidate who was a democrat until 1989. But they don't need to be mislead by false claims that Perry is lying.
Again Trollboy....”But in fact, global warming was already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988 — long before his activism led to several books, a Nobel Prize and a part in an Academy Award-winning film. It was also well before the right gave him the “Mr. Ozone” nickname and talk radio heaped endless mockery on the future vice president.
Read it again and try to understand what “But in fact, global warming was already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988” actually means.
Perry said no, history said yes. Ergo Perry lied.
One more time...
“already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988”
Again...
“already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988”
That means as a well known politician, a ‘significant issue” is one that you care about PUBLICLY.
It was not some hidden thing. He WAS associated with it whether someone called him “Mr. Global Warming” or Mr. Chakra sex poodle.
You’re equivocating about this Charles, there is nothing complex about this.
Perry knew Gore.
Gore had an ACU rating of 9%.
Perry trying to pass off Gore not being into GLobal Warming as proof that Gore wasn’t a left-wing Liberal is a lie because Global Warming wasn’t even an issue then.