Posted on 08/30/2007 2:12:23 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Edited on 08/30/2007 2:20:35 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I have crow cooking for you. Leg or a thigh?
In fairness to the other poster, I try to never call someone a liar unless I am absolutely convinced that the person knew that his statement was inaccurate or false when he made the statement. Maybe I give too much benefit of the doubt sometimes, but I consider the charge of "liar" to be such a serious offense that I reserve it only for those that I am thoroughly convinced are deliberately lying and not just speaking from ignorance.
Did I ever say he wasn’t going to run?
It was a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
Well he didn’t vote to convict President Clinton on the first charge—perjury. That is a fact. It is not a half truth.
Plain Old Dave was plain old in the Ron Paul column (I loathe the [sic] Patriot Act), but Thompson bears lookin’ into. Seems like he got the TN Right To Life endorsement regularly when he was our Senator...
Speaking as an outsider, I see Fred as a great communicator, and Newt as a great ideas man. I think the President should be a great communicator, like Reagan.
Nope I didn’t miss it. I put it in for purposes of both fairness and clarity. Incidentally, how do you know what I read and do not read?
Both Warner and Fred Thompson have something in common--they both voted against the impeachment of President Clinton.
Besides the atrocious grammar, your statement is half true. Thompson voted against impeachment of Clinton on Perjury. But Thompson voted to impeach Clinton on Obstruction of Justice.
Only one conviction is needed to remove.
Since Thompson voted for one out of two, you were half wrong. What's worse, you knew it.
You told a half truth and that makes you a liar.
You'll have to wait a little longer since Fred! is waiting until the day after the NH debate to "announce."
So when you phrased it that Fred Thompson "voted against the impeachment of President Clinton" you were just confused?.
As to bad grammar. I don't know. Most posts are colloquial. As to knowing that he voted for conviction on the obstruction of justice charge, please note (if you did read my original post) that this fact was included in the post.
Regards
As I attempted to point out to the other poster, Thompson never had an opportunity to vote on whether or not to impeach Clinton on anything. That vote was taken in the House of Representatives. Thompson voted against conviction/removal on the perjury charge and voted for conviction/removal on the obstruction charge.
See 52.
But that makes your comment that Thompson voted against the impeachment (sic) a knowingly false statement. A vote for conviction on either charge is a vote in favor of removal from office rather than a "vote against the impeachment".
You specifically stated that Thompson voted against impeachment ... which is factually inaccurate. This would indicate that you either didn’t read, or didn’t comprehend, the fact that he voted guilty on the 2nd article.
However, perhaps I gave you too much credit ... maybe you knew and understood the falsehood of your statement, and yet were completely uninterested in being factually accurate.
Your choices, however, are ... (1) you gave a false and misleading statement by accident or from ignorance, or (2) you intentionally gave a false and misleading statement out of malevolence for your own political reasons.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed ignorance (the more flattering of the two choices).
H
GoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo FRED!
Now let’s sit abck and watch the DUmmies go Bat-s##t....
Wow. Just..wow!
DOOMED I TELLS YA!
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.