Brees,
#<<We, I'm assuming, also believe that humans are incapable of knowing or showing or hearing the whole Truth. Therefore, it depends upon a mature judgement where-in the truth serves the Truth. To attempt any less disserves the Truth.>> Apparently you are dismissing the concept all together as a practical matter. That explains a lot.
<<Maybe, I've missed your reference, and you'd like to be more specific concerning the lie(s), and your counter-truths, that make him a liar?>>
There is no such thing as "counter-truths." What the hell are you talking about? My statements do not make bill clinton a liar any more than your butt kissing makes him a saint. #
If, as I stated in [this post's] first line, no one can know or show the whole truth, then the truth we know or show is a partial truth. Have I missed something; is there an alternative to partial truth, given the unavailability of the whole truth?
If there is partial truth, not equaling the whole truth, then there is partial truthS. Is this clear: more than one partial truth concerning the one whole truth [of all or any truth specifically.] So, with plural truths in support of different, counter conclusions, concerning one item, I do not consider counter-truths to be unobvious.
I assume your statements reflect the truth, AS YOU KNOW IT, to be that BC is a liar. Am I misled? Your truth is counter to mine, as I know it. Is one, or both of us in error? I can't tell if I don't know why, specifically, you call the President a liar.
<<Bill clinton is a liar based on his behavior in a variety of situations and his self disclosed nature in others.>>
Now your statement refer to things in your head, and those things aren't in my head. What do you expect from one reading your post, mind-reading? If you refuse, after specific mention, to narrow the discussion from your bogeymen, I am inadequate to respond. So you can claim victory over me, well, your bogeymen can.
"Representative" in the BC context had me thinking of Impeachment and Senators, not dog-catcher.
Whether he has broken the public trust or the psycho-social contract has not been established, assuming that neither you nor I contain the full meaning of "the public".
I find your conclusion and call to action based on premature, or faulty, premises. |
