| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
What an ass Comey is...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 11:36:29 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/8/16, 11:32 AM, wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not true. Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying? The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation. Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is. She will just be questioning about when saying something that she knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury) As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with it. What's a leppo? Sums up Harry's concern with integrity. |
|
#22
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What an ass Comey is...
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar. He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not true. Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying? The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation. Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of course, part of the liberal arts. "How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying?", you ask. Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck, this is rec.boats. What difference does it make?  Even those with high school diplomas or a GED took English and understand semantics. Liberals majors seem to learn to ignore meanings that do not conform to their preconceived notions. |
|
#24
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What an ass Comey is...
On 11/8/16, 1:07 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar. He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not true. Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying? The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation. Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of course, part of the liberal arts. "How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying?", you ask. Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck, this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? Even those with high school diplomas or a GED took English and understand semantics. Liberals majors seem to learn to ignore meanings that do not conform to their preconceived notions. Thanks for the comic relief you supply here. |
|
#25
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What an ass Comey is...
On 11/8/16, 1:07 PM, Califbill wrote:
Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar. He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not true. Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying? The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation. Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of course, part of the liberal arts. "How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying?", you ask. Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck, this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? You're talking to a known liar. He specifically said that Comey said HRC lied to Congress. That's a damned lie. Specifically. Besides, if Congress if affronted they can have the DOJ file charges under 18 U.S.C. §1621 ? perjury and 18 U.S.C. §1001 ? false representations before Congress. I ****ing dare them to do it. The FBI can not have DOJ file charges. They can recommend, but you have a DOJ who does not want to thwart Hillary as POTUS. Doubtful but on the other hand, we have an FBI director who is in the bag for Trump. |
|
#26
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What an ass Comey is...
|
|
#27
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What an ass Comey is...
Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
On 11/8/16, 1:07 PM, Califbill wrote: Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar. He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not true. Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying? The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation. Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of course, part of the liberal arts. "How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying?", you ask. Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck, this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? You're talking to a known liar. He specifically said that Comey said HRC lied to Congress. That's a damned lie. Specifically. Besides, if Congress if affronted they can have the DOJ file charges under 18 U.S.C. §1621 ? perjury and 18 U.S.C. §1001 ? false representations before Congress. I ****ing dare them to do it. The FBI can not have DOJ file charges. They can recommend, but you have a DOJ who does not want to thwart Hillary as POTUS. Doubtful but on the other hand, we have an FBI director who is in the bag for Trump. Agreed. The only reason he was so generous to Hillery is that it's rumored his wife recieved bagsful of money from the machine. Not acuseing him of accepting bribes, mind you. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
|
#28
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What an ass Comey is...
"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 11/8/2016 11:32 AM, wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not true. Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying? The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation. Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is. She will just be questioning about when saying something that she knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury) As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with it. Ok. I get it. According to BOA, uttering a "non-truth" under oath is *not* a lie. It's simply a "non-truth". I guess I have a ways to go to get up to speed on modern, progressive liberal lingo. A long ways. That lingo is inbred. Normal folks will never understand or subscribe to it. Their way of thinking is beyond belief. That's why they had to invent lingo to mask their unsavory adventures. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
|
#29
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What an ass Comey is...
In article ,
says... On 11/8/2016 11:32 AM, wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not true. Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying? The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation. Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is. She will just be questioning about when saying something that she knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury) As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with it. Ok. I get it. According to BOA, uttering a "non-truth" under oath is *not* a lie. It's simply a "non-truth". I guess I have a ways to go to get up to speed on modern, progressive liberal lingo. Are you excusing your lie because you weren't under oath? Does that make your lie a "non-truth?" In your eyes I suppose it does. I can't put you under oath. But using the same standards you apply to HRC, you're a low-down liar. I can't prosecute you for lying here. But if HRC lied to Congress, they have a remedy. Why don't they use it? Because this entire "lying" line is simply bull****. |
|
#30
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What an ass Comey is...
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/8/16, 1:07 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar. He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not true. Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying? The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation. Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of course, part of the liberal arts. "How can you make specific statements under oath that are not true and not be lying?", you ask. Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck, this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? Even those with high school diplomas or a GED took English and understand semantics. Liberals majors seem to learn to ignore meanings that do not conform to their preconceived notions. Thanks for the comic relief you supply here. I realize it is hard for you to recognize the truth. How did Gates, Jobs, Zukerburg, and a few other billionaire people make it without finishing college? According to the HK rules, they understand very little. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| House Questions Comey | General | |||
Linear Mode
