Posted on 11/28/2007 8:34:14 AM PST by Def Conservative
I know. I wouldn’t have minded if he had simply noted that the poll was within the margin of error so the other freeper was making a big deal out of nothing.
But I have a strong belief that calling other people liars when they are telling the truth crosses the line, and must be opposed by principled freepers if we are to have rational discussion and if we are to have any chance of coming together to support an eventual nominee.
The moderators have allowed some pretty serious personal attacks to be unchecked, notwithstanding the clear rule under the “post” button that prohibits personal attacks.
Calling someone a liar when they have literally told the truth and are simply casting that truth in a light most favorable to their candidate is a personal attack.
And since he did it multiple times in the thread, it’s not just the occasional heated use of the word that even I fall into.
And these polls can change after the debate tonight! :)
“To hell with our soldiers in two war theaters.”
Hold on a second. Has Huckabee been stupid on the war? I’m not being rhetorical, I just haven’t heard that.
...is not something that happened here.
No, it’s not your fault, or mine, that the liberals Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney are drawing so much support within the Republican party.
But it is our country that is being transfigured into something unrecognizable. The real winners when liberals take over the Republican party are the Democrat leftists. Republican liberals are the best friends that Democrats have. Look at the Democrat domination of Huckabee’s and Romney’s home states.
But since you keep insisting on it, let's see what you said:
It was a statistical tie. The addition to the headline ("tied for last among frontrunners") was a lie.
Assuming you are correct that it was a statistical tie, the addition to the headline was STILL correct.
Under your definition, of the 5 frontrunners, FOUR of them were in a statistical tie for 2nd place. Which, in case you can't figure it out, means that ALL FOUR were "tied for last among the frontrunners".
Therefore, even by your own tortured logic, you falsely accused the freeper of lying.
You can't win. You falsely accused another freeper of a lie, you did so repeatedly, and here in this thread you admitted it by your own words.
Fred Thompson WAS tied for last among the frontrunners, either by comparison of the actual numbers, OR by your method of taking into account the margin of error.
Got anything else to say? Come on, you have to admit it now. I won't hate you for it. :-)
Poor Perry Mason wannabe...repeat it all you want, you cannot make it true.
In either direct use of the numbers (which is perfectly valid), or your margin of error argument, Thompson was tied for last among the frontrunners.
Maybe trisham should clarify who was stupid here.
There are important legal reasons NOT to declare war.
“I know. I wouldn’t have minded if he had simply noted that the poll was within the margin of error so the other freeper was making a big deal out of nothing.”
I agree. There does seem to be something kind of vicious about that. Again I read the thread, so the only thing I saw that might have been objectionable was the add on to the headline, which could be seen as being factual...same if the headline had said “Thompson Tied For Second” but the tie only happened within the MOE. The published numbers showed FDT at the bottom. There seem to be some very faithful true believer FredHeads that are very passionate about their guy.
Now, it will be a different story, but to the MSM interviewers, he did not want to be confrontational at all, agreed with the interviewers, you know the type, typical Republican who wants good press.
Of course this is just my opinion, cannot see him as stalwart against the Dims, or the MSM. And cannot see him as a ruthless SOB with our enemies, which is what I prefer during this time in our history.
Now you are just being obstinate.
I’ve shown that his statement was factually correct under both his common-sense view of the numbers, AND your insistance on taking into account the margin of error.
I should think that even with your hyper-partisanship you ought to be able to admit that you’ve been had here.
You can instead ignore it like it didn’t happen, and maybe your fred supporters will publicly keep silent about it, but they know the truth.
Come on, we all have to admit sometimes that we screwed up. You could just offer pissant an apology for falsely maligning his character, and we could all go back to shilling for our candidates.
Or you could pretend it didn’t happen, but I know I couldn’t ignore my own culpability in such a false accusation. No person of character could.
Iowa is important for being first, but it isn’t everything.
I’d rather have huckabee leading than romney, but as soom as iowa is over, the giuliani/foxnews group will make sure he gets no more than that. They simply want to make sure the first few states get divided between the different republicans than carried by one of them.
There needs to be a major swing to Thompson in the next few weeks or conservatism is in dire straits.
LOL, what a GREAT description!
Not the case. The entire parenthetical "(Romney keeps second place, Thompson ties for last among frontrunners)" implies a distinction that is not supported by the data. Giuliani leads, the next four men are statistically tied and cannot be distinguished based on the data because of the margin of error. It's a slippery lie, but a lie nonetheless.
Maybe trisham should clarify who was stupid here.
I can handle that one: you were/are stupid here.
Let me play:
On size and scope of government issues, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Ron Paul.
No, you haven't, unless by "common-sense view of the numbers" you mean "statistically ignorant view of the numbers."
Nice pick.
Two sh*tty candidates, who are sh*tty for totally different reasons, don’t make a winning ticket.
They just make rainbow-colored sh*t.
“No, you haven’t, unless by “common-sense view of the numbers” you mean “statistically ignorant view of the numbers.”
Wasn’t Fred Tied for second if you included the MOE, but not just on the published numbers?
You continue to repeat that sleazy charge, hoping it will become true. It will not.
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.