Liability
Locked Account.
This is a perfect example of how CON$ try to control the definitions of words, like good little brainwashed DittoTards. In this case CON$ want to cling to their rationalization that as long as they pretend to be too stupid to KNOW they are lying, then they have a license to lie their America-hating asses off without guilt. This is the "Reagan Rationalization" for his Iran Contra lies. St Ronnie pretended that he believed his own lies in his "heart", so the lying POS was not really a liar.
October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.
REAGAN (11/13/86): We did not, repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.
REAGAN (3/4/87): A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true. But the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.
No, you typically dishonest partisan hack liberal. It's an example of you trying (but, thankfully, failing) to distort the definition.
If you say something incorrect, but you don't know it's incorrect, you have not lied. You have only made an incorrect statement.
-- Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.comlie
1   [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
You, being the deceptive hack you are, go for one of the lesser definitions which fails to convey the accurate component of the word "lie:" that is, you try to conflate a mere erroneous statement with an intent to deceive.
But, you deceive nobody in the process.
Ah, the Liability seal of approval is on Cain this time around? As I recall, you were all about Fred Thompson last time around. Keeping up your winning streak of credibilty, I see.
Ah, another boring half-wit coming up with that yada yada crap as though the observation was witty, original or even marginally persuasive.
I supported Fred. Fred ran a poor campaign with no energy. He got his clock cleaned as a result. Too bad, too. As poor a campaigner as he turned out to be, he was still a vastly superior candidate in terms of what he could have offered us.
My support of Fred has no bearing on credibility, you imbecile.
in your world, only those who endorse and support the candidate who ultimately prevails has credibility?
You are indeed a schmuck.