LOL, you just shot yourself in the foot with your post. The statement is the "truth" if you narrowly define "sex" as intercourse, as Bill Clinton did. It was a flagrant lie by normal understanding of having sex. Rudy's follow-up point was different than my point, however. He noted that if Comey and Trump have differing accounts of what happened, you don't necessarily know what the truth is. I think that's a bit of a cop-out. The point of investigating is to find additional evidence that points to the truth of what happened.
Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have more in common than people think....but Clinton was found guilty ...Trump's locker room talk and porn star porkin' have been conveniently buried for big business interests from what I've seen....nobody should bash Clinton and let Trump off the hook for moral standards or being a liar.
...if for example Comey testifies to one thing and Trump were to testify to the complete opposite, that alone is not perjury because it's one person's word vs the other's and thus, is not factual. But if either's testimony can be corroborated with additional concrete evidence, that's a different story.
No disagreement on that point by me. I can't wait for Donny boy to leave office...sooner rather than later is preferable to me.
and how did I "shoot myself in the foot?" You repeated basically what I said. Truth is based on evidence, not opinions. Clinton was trying to use a grey area but in the end, was found to have lied.
Because you demonstrated that both versions of "truth" are true depending upon the lens that you look at the question through. Another example that you hear said frequently about the United States, "Go ahead (and do whatever). It's a free country." How are you looking at the term "free country"? Constitutionally or as practiced at varying points in our history? What's true in one context may be a total lie in another.
The fact that he was found guilty clearly demonstrates that he LIED. No shooting in the foot. I was clearly demonstrating how one can try and spin things as truth where in fact it was a lie. I didn't think that should need explaining. As for your free country analogy, that's why there are laws and regulations. Do you actually think a criminal can go into court for a crime he commited and claim it's a free country and should be allowed to do what he wants? The truth is the truth and a lie is a lie. Spinning it any other way is simply wrong.
They aren't lies, they're the person's best understanding of the situation given the knowledge that they have. Telling a lie is deliberately saying something that you know is not true, not failing to understand a situation correctly. Which, by the way, is something that you're guilty of right now. I'm mainly posting these things to mess with you. It's certainly not because I support and am trying to spin whatever BS Rudy was trying to shovel.
lmao!! You aren't messing with me. You are simply using bad analogies. Just because one thinks that a tail of an elephant is a rope or the trunk is a snake doesn't make it true. That's why you failed. For the sake of not dragging this thread down any further, I am done with this part of the discussion. Continue on as you please.
It doesn't make it a lie either. I'm just pointing out that saying what you think is true, doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Which, I think, is the point Rudy was trying to make. I might be wrong. Does that make me a liar? It's all so confusing. Have a good one, Cup.
