Edit reply: if he got ousted when he first told the lies, that would have been more acceptable than waiting a full year. I hope you can understand the difference.
My point is that it took a full year of hilariously obvious lies for any corrective action.
In Congress (one of the administrative bodies of the country I live in) I’d prefer for liars and dishonest conmen to be excluded from taking part in governance.
Of course they are, that’s the second question on the application right after ‘if an infant was on fire and you just drank a big-gulp would you piss the fire out?’.
But that’s what that sentence means.
“… ousted from Congress after fabricating…” The key word here is “after”
Edit: if it said he was ousted from Congress BEFORE fabricating his life story than your correction would be accurate.
Why are you being downvoted lol.
I’m not completely sure. But before I commented I was thinking it’s funny how many people up voted that comment.
Edit reply: if he got ousted when he first told the lies, that would have been more acceptable than waiting a full year. I hope you can understand the difference.
Of course. But you were implying the headline was wrong.
Nah, I was implying that the headline only told half the truth. Enjoy your semantic debate.
I mean, I guess. We can all see what you said, I was just correcting it. You’re the one who made it a debate.
My point is that it took a full year of hilariously obvious lies for any corrective action. In Congress (one of the administrative bodies of the country I live in) I’d prefer for liars and dishonest conmen to be excluded from taking part in governance.
That’s every politician.
You think every politician has as many blatantly obvious lies on their CV as Santos? For real?
Not as many no. But I do think most if not all are liars and the thought of removing someone for lying scares them.
Of course they are, that’s the second question on the application right after ‘if an infant was on fire and you just drank a big-gulp would you piss the fire out?’.