[fieldmarshaldj]

If one cannot "conclude" that an elected Democrat voted Democrat in the timeframe and was known for supporting liberal Democrats, what can one rationally state ? Perry has already proven his dishonesty with historic revisionism, sending out his supporters to make the claim that Al Gore was a Conservative when he supported him for President in 1988, when that was an outrageous falsehood. At this point, Perry would indeed be "less than honest" when it would come to claiming just exactly which person he voted for. Short of having a photograph in the voting booth, you're not going to have 100% courtroom-level unimpeachable "proof." I will state with 99.999% certainty that my claim based on his record as being a Democrat is correct. If we are to set that impossibly high a threshold here on FR, it will force you and the other AMs to remove an infinite number of posts on an endless number of subjects. I protest I am being unfairly targeted here.

[TexMom7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

During his time in Congress, Gore was considered a “moderate” (he referred to himself as a “raging moderate”)[45] opposing federal funding of abortion, voting in favor of a bill which supported a moment in silence in schools, and voting against a ban on interstate sales of guns.[46] His position as a moderate (and on policies related to that label) shifted later in life after he became Vice President and ran for president in 2000.[47]

[Admin Moderator]

If one cannot "conclude" that an elected Democrat voted Democrat in the timeframe and was known for supporting liberal Democrats, what can one rationally state?

You are not being told you cannot state this. You simply cannot state it as factual, and instead need to state it as your opinion. Only Perry knows how he voted, and it cannot be stated as fact unless he has chimed in. Just the well-established demographic of Reagan Democrats shows that there were many crossovers during that time, so a logical opinion can be made the other way as well. So therefore it stands as opinion, not fact, and any claim of factuality not based by independent, confirmable fact will be pulled if we see it or are notified about it.

If we are to set that impossibly high a threshold here on FR, it will force you and the other AMs to remove an infinite number of posts on an endless number of subjects. I protest I am being unfairly targeted here.

Sorry if you feel that being held to a standard of proveablity of factual claims is too restricting. But the mods do pull threads and posts all the time that put forth false claims, as to prevent their promulgation with FR as the source. So you are not being unfairly targeted.