Posted on 11/07/2011 8:56:35 PM PST by truthfreedom
Careful reasoning isn’t your strong suit.
elaborate
Block cleared Perry of involment last week.
Putting Rick Perry’s name in an article by a hack reporter doesn’t necessarily mean that Rick Perry was a part of this mess; it could just be an attempt at discrediting not one, but two, Pubbies in one article.
Looks like perfect reasoning to me. From what I’ve seen of the perrwinkles on this forum, it certainly fits.
No he didn’t, he was talking about Curt Anderson.
CHRIS WILSON is a completely different story.
I’ve seen Wilson say that he commented to Politico when asked but that he was not the source of the original story. Frankly, I have trouble believing him.
In fact Greta posted a few days ago that he was the source. If this is the case, I suspect he acted on his own rather than in concert with the Perry folks.
I haven’t seen any argument against this article. A Perry Super PAC pollster came up with the 3rd woman story.
Oh. Is that the Perry defense? It was a top staffer, not Perry himself?
Well, Perrybots, stop trying to sell the “oh it was Romney” argument at the same time you’re trying to distance Perry from the Perry staffers who are actually guilty.
You’ve been caught red handed. It’s team Perry, not another campaign.
I charge for remediation.
Why does Wilson differentiate between being the original source and being the second or third guy in.
What's the difference?
Cui bono (”To whose benefit?”, literally “as a benefit to whom?”, a double dative construction), also rendered as Cui prodest, is a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be.
Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a scapegoat, for example.
The Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, in his speech Pro Roscio Amerino, section 84, attributed the expression cui bono to the Roman consul and censor Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla:
“L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat ‘cui bono’ fuisset.
The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, ‘To whose benefit?’”
Another example of Cicero using “cui bono” is in his defence of Milo, in the Pro Milone. He even makes a reference to Cassius: “let that maxim of Cassius apply”.
ping
I am so damn sick of this entire campaign season I could spit.
I am now thankful that God led Sarah Palin and her family to her decision not to run.
Every candidate has been smeared to some degree with Herman Cain far out in front of all the others, both in polls and in vicious smears.
Obama and the Marxists are very happy.
Mr. Speaker was their first smear job years ago, so now that he’s rising in the polls, he’ll get attacked all over again.
GO CAIN!
GO NEWT!
GO CLEAN HANDS CANDIDATES!
DON’T TRY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LAMESTREAM SMEARS OF YOUR RIVALS!
Wilson has talked about what he said he was witness to when he was with NRA. That's no big secret.
“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense”
Who’s with me?
HEAR! HEAR!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.