Well John maybe you should have read the article yourself before spouting. The public knows your intent by tweeting the "idea" of the headline but it backfired on you.

Disagree David, he merely tweeted the actual headline of an article. There is no excuse for "politicfact" to say that he said what the headline is saying, and then try to insinuate that he wrote the actual article. Thats BS plain and simple attempt by "politicfact to try and do a gotcha moment that did not exist, and they should apologize for lying.

David by your theory if you sent the tweet;

NAACP Official: Romney Flew In Black Supporters To Back Him During Speech To Civil Rights Group.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/naacp-romney-flew-in-supporters-houston-speech_n_1668867.html

So you are responsble for that headline and everything in the article, which has since been discredited by the NAACP Leadership that he was stacking the Audience.

Now if you read that article you will find it was not you who said it. It also was not you who was discredited for the articles content that is plain BS. But by your theory again, you are responsible.

"That's the charge made by Hilary Shelton, who heads up the Washington, D.C., chapter of the NAACP".

It is also good to know you can read the minds of people to know their intent, why have you not won any of these huge lotteries, I also wonder about the people like yourself who read minds, but never win lotteries of make millions in the stock market lol.

Jack I am not sure you understand Davids comment. Why would John even tweet the article in the first place? Certainly not to say that he is only "half true". So what your saying is that he merely tweeted the article just for the heck of it with no intention of insinuating that Republicans are gods?

No RI Politics; he tweeted the article probably because he is a republican and wanted to get information to them in my opinion. In this day and age of the internet; A tweet is no different then a phone call to me, it merely is a public phone call.
Though you will have to ask John that also as I do not read minds, but I do try and take people at their word, until the are proven wrong,( PolitiFact did get it wrong to me) and the fact remains, he posted the headline and a link and nothing more, that is not making a statement is it?

Nor did “PolitiFact” call him obviously to clarify. To read into that all this other mish mash is not fair to or readers and I would say that no matter what party he was with.

I believe most people are tired of these gotcha attempts, especially when a common sense person can see it was not only uncalled for but only a biased attempt to say something that was not there in order to embarrass the guy because of who he is, unless they read his mind.

That is just my opinion on it. John can speak for himself I am sure, and everyone else can form an opinion also. But facts are facts, suppositions on what one was thinking does not make it that persons thoughts, I do not know the guy and have never met him, but again it only my opinion on this anyway ;-}.

Forgot to add that the Share this link also proves he was just sharing it, which means you read the thing it links to whether it is n article, store sale or picture. That is what that link means in that app, not making a statement, "Politifact" merely had to look at that to know that is what he was doing, sharing a link of something he read. Nothing more nothing less.

But like they say any publicity you can get for free is good, and it did put him back in the public eye lol.

Just to clarify my objections to the Politifact ruling. First of all they said the headline and statement in the article was in fact true. The author of the article actually stated that there were 7 newly elected Democrat governors who also had their unemployment numbers improve. The facts in the article were not disproved, but I guess the Politifact folks felt it wasn't "fair" not to mention the Democrat governors in the headline. Their "half true" was about the article. I didn't write the article and simply retweeted the headline and a link for others to read. I think it really discredits their process and makes their motives suspect. But, as Jack pointed out, I thank the Journal for the mention regardless of their motives.

OBAMA 2012

mommy is "suck" a bad word? :o)