Hay tres formas de mentir: negar la verdad, inventarse otra historia y con estadísticas.
Pedro Sánchez «El mentiroso», como se le conoce en el panorama nacional e internacional.
El presidente de Gobierno ha usado con profusión las dos primeras, hasta el punto de que a día de hoy casi nadie le cree y quienes lo hacen son cómplices de sus mentiras o creen que los niños vienen de París o Bruselas.
Así que, para la última del año, que es también la más gorda, ha elegido la tercera opción, las estadísticas, ciencia que dominan pocos y la mayoría traga para no reconocer su ignorancia.
Lo que hace suponer que se dejó asesorar por algún experto de su entorno, donde no faltan los ventajistas.
Se trata de camuflar su predicción de que, a fin de año, el recibo de la luz no sobrepase el de 2018, algo que parecía imposible dado…
Ver la entrada original 23 palabras más
mundial
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
Lies can be promoted by telling the Truth.
After Waco, at a congressional hearing, an FBI agent kept replying «we did not fire one shot» in response to allegations they were firing into the compound to prevent the residents from fleeing the conflagration.
Thank God, the FBI was exonerated. Of course infrared video taken by their helicopters during the final day, with the video analyzed by an independent company, said that the video did indeed show shots being fired into the compound, and that the company would not comment more, lest they lose contracts with the govt.
Well, what was the FBI agent’s statement? Henceforth * replaces this statement: «We did not fire one shot»
1. If the agent wasn’t there, he’d be correct saying *, he didn’t say the FBI didn’t fire.
2. If they fired more than one shot, saying * would be correct, not «one shot».
3. If other agencies fired, * would be correct. The FBI didn’t fire.
4. Etc.
I am somewhat neurotic, prone to misuse words in speech, but in writing, I try to be careful. I suspect the above subterfuge is common from the govt and govt agencies. Carefully note exactly what they said, and see if other outcomes are possible in their message that is not what you expected to happen.
A union contract, in the negotiating stages, seemed to imply that the company was to provide Convection Microwave Ovens, a recent (at the time) prohibition on Plug-in Heated Hot Plate Cookers and Heated Ovens was enacted (fire insurance was cited), and employees missed food that was heated like an oven would. I read the company’s offer, we were definitely getting Convection Microwave Ovens. We didn’t get them as expected after the contract was signed. And I re-read the language. It could be interpreted 2 ways, and the company interpreted it in the way that saved them money and screwed us, but I have to admit, what they were claiming was clearly written in the agreement, we heard what we wanted to hear.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona