gcomeau wrote:When the thing that happens is the thing she said happened that's the opposite of a lie. You appear to be confused.
No. She said the threat was removed. It wasn't. Hence she lied.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
She said the threat of the KNOWN WEAPONS was removed. To repeat, you do not get to just declare that she only said the words you decided to underline in her speech, then state that because those specific words contain no qualifications it was an unqualified statement just because you deliberately chose not to underline the part where she qualified and gave scope to the statement!
Let's try that approach on your posts Peter? Shall we try that?viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8664&start=110
If public sector employment and higher taxation leads to prosperity, the USSR would have spent the US into oblivion? That didn't happen. The USSR is part of the ash-heap of history.
Kennedy and Reagan both saw revenue increases by cutting the marginal income tax rates.
FDR invested in true economic activity generating projects. No Solyndras in the New Deal. Roads, energy generating dams and other investments that facilitates more activity beyond the building of the project.
Pardon me, but you can believe what you want. Your data does not show what you think it does. So we return to POVs telling the tale
Peter Z is now on the record, "public sector employment and higher taxation leads to prosperity
That's what you said, right? Word for word? I underlined it and everything... and as we all know from reading your posts here, when you underline something any other words or sentences that accompanied those underlined words cease to matter. Just like Rice stating ONE SENTENCE before your underlined statement that she was referring to the removal of the KNOWN chemical weapons doesn't matter because you didn't choose to underline that bit. And we must *only* read the literal meaning of the underlined words in isolation with no reference to surrounding context or modifiers.