Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: theruleshavechanged

Reporter: David, you stated that what Obama said was substantially true. I don’t get it.

David: That’s because you don’t understand the term “substantially true”.

Reporter: I thought I did. It means that Obama’s statements were mostly true or at least weren’t outright lies. Where did I go wrong?

David: Like I said, you don’t understand what “substantially true” actually means. It certainly does not mean that the statement is true. I mean this is politics 101. Substantially True means that it serves our purpose at the time it is stated. It could be a complete lie. Truth is really not the key criteria. How much help the statement contributes to getting Obama elected was and is the only measure of what we choose to call The Truth. Third Term anyone?


33 posted on 11/05/2013 7:24:28 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: InterceptPoint

If someone could just come up with an electricity-generating turbine that ran on bullshit the Obama administration could instantly solve the world’s energy problems.


34 posted on 11/05/2013 7:28:48 AM PST by Junk Silver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson