On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 06:58:36 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote:

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 8:49:43 AM UTC-5, 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.

You're a hoot. Keep thrashing around. Call it what you like.

Synonyms of "lying":
deceitful
deceptive
false
fraudulent
misleading
untrustworthy
bluffing
cheating
corrupt
crooked
deceiving
disreputable
double-crossing
double-dealing
lying
shady
shifty
sneaking
sneaky
tricky
two-face
two-timing
underhanded
Hillary Clinton
Harry Krause

That sums it up pretty well.

There, I fixed it for you.