I'm not sure if I read the entire piece. What I saw were three alleged lies.
I heard about the lie about fracking before. I don't condone it. Obviously, it was wrong. Again, if that was what he said and what he said before, he should learn when to STFU - he needs to know when to use his head, not his mouth.
I'm not sure if I read the entire piece. What I saw were three alleged lies.
I heard about the lie about fracking before. I don't condone it. Obviously, it was wrong. Again, if that was what he said and what he said before, he should learn when to STFU - he needs to know when to use his head, not his mouth.
As to his dissing that NY Post article, referring to that letter from former members of the U.S. intelligence community, it was fundamentally an opinion, not a statement of fact. The letter dissed the credibility of the NY Post story, basically saying that it was unworthy of belief and that it sounds like Soviet disinformation.
In other words, the over-all letter (including the disclaimer) said that the Post story might possibly be accurate and that the e-mails might possibly be authentic but that the Post did not properly vet the story and, accordingly, it was unworthy of belief. In fact, as I recall, no one's name appeared on the Post story, which was unusual. I may be mistaken on that, but it's my recollection.
Some right-wingers even echoed Biden's remarks about that letter but in an accusatory manner.
As for the minimum wage comment, I didn't read the story supposedly putting "a le" to Biden's remark.
That's fundamentally an opinion I've heard from economists and pundits. Frequently, there's an exemption in the minimum wage laws regarding tipped workers.
The writer of that piece seemed to be working backwards - "Gee let's wee, I know Pres. Biden is a serial liar, what examples can I scrape together?"
All too often, ideologues like to diss their opponents character by trying to portray their opinions as statements of fact.
I'm not sure if I read the entire piece. What I saw were three alleged lies.
I heard about the lie about fracking before. I don't condone it. Obviously, it was wrong. Again, if that was what he said and what he said before, he should learn when to STFU - he needs to know when to use his head, not his mouth.
As to his dissing that NY Post article, referring to that letter from former members of the U.S. intelligence community, it was fundamentally an opinion, not a statement of fact. The letter dissed the credibility of the NY Post story, basically saying that it was unworthy of belief and that it sounds like Soviet disinformation.
In other words, the over-all letter (including the disclaimer) said that the Post story might possibly be accurate and that the e-mails might possibly be authentic but that the Post did not properly vet the story and, accordingly, it was unworthy of belief. In fact, as I recall, no one's name appeared on the Post story, which was unusual. I may be mistaken on that, but it's my recollection.
Some right-wingers even echoed Biden's remarks about that letter but in an accusatory manner.
As for the minimum wage comment, I didn't read the story supposedly putting "a le" to Biden's remark.
That's fundamentally an opinion I've heard from economists and pundits. Frequently, there's an exemption in the minimum wage laws regarding tipped workers.
The writer of that piece seemed to be working backwards - "Gee let's wee, I know Pres. Biden is a serial liar, what examples can I scrape together?"
All too often, ideologues like to diss their opponents character by trying to portray their opinions as statements of fact.