Left Wing Lie Of The Hour (Including Ones About The Fictional Right Wing Media)

[aquapub]

Yawn.

Been there, done that.

You don't present facts, you present conspiracy theories and hysteria.

When you admit that you questioned the existence of the study and the award and that you were proved wrong, I will see a point in trying to argue anything further with you.

Until then, you just aren't worth the effort because you have zero concern for the truth.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Yawn.

Been there, done that.

Where?

You don't present facts, you present conspiracy theories and hysteria.

Where?

When you admit that you questioned the existence of the study and the award and that you were proved wrong, I will see a point in trying to argue anything further with you.

I question the data in the study and continually challenge you to present it. I know it will never happen.

 

[aquapub]

I question the data in the study and continually challenge you to present it. I know it will never happen.

It already has happened numerous times, genius. :roll:

Of course it is my data that you NOW challenge-now that you've been proved wrong on your original questioning as to whether or not it exists and won an award. When you are proved wrong, you just change the subject, wait a couple of weeks, and then re-assert the same crap as if you weren't ever corrected.

Example: You just acted like I was making things up when I argued that you don't present facts and evidence (as opposed to conspiracy theories and hysterical adolescent smears). That has been my core complaint about you since we've met and I've proved it over and over-like when you tried to use a tabloid conspiracy theory site to argue that Barbara Olsen didn't really die on 9/11-and each time (just like this one), you just changed the subject, waited a while and then acted surprised all over again when I claimed you don't present facts and evidence.

Around and around we go. You don't care about the truth, so everyone who debates you has to go in circles. You are a total waste of time.

Some items from my research have already been posted on this site, and some on this thread (like that huge list of Democrat operatives who we trust to disseminate objective news), but since you have no concern for the truth and are willing to openly contradict yourself to defend your liberal causes, I sure as hell don't see any reason to compile it all, just so you can change the subject and pretend you weren't proved wrong-like you have just done with being proved wrong about my award.

 

[hipsterdufus]

It already has happened numerous times, genius. :roll:

Of course it is my data that you NOW challenge-now that you've been proved wrong on your original questioning as to whether or not it exists and won an award. When you are proved wrong, you just change the subject, wait a couple of weeks, and then re-assert the same crap as if you weren't ever corrected.

Example: You just acted like I was making things up when I argued that you don't present facts and evidence (as opposed to conspiracy theories and hysterical adolescent smears). That has been my core complaint about you since we've met and I've proved it over and over-like when you tried to use a tabloid conspiracy theory site to argue that Barbara Olsen didn't really die on 9/11-and each time (just like this one), you just changed the subject, waited a while and then acted surprised all over again when I claimed you don't present facts and evidence.

Around and around we go. You don't care about the truth, so everyone who debates you has to go in circles. You are a total waste of time.

Some items from my research have already been posted on this site, and some on this thread (like that huge list of Democrat operatives who we trust to disseminate objective news), but since you have no concern for the truth and are willing to openly contradict yourself to defend your liberal causes, I sure as hell don't see any reason to compile it all, just so you can change the subject and pretend you weren't proved wrong-like you have just done with being proved wrong about my award.

Instead of 4 paragraphs of ad hominem attacks , you could have shared your data for debate instead. As I said, it will never happen.

 

[disneydude]

The term "Liberal Media" is just another Bush Oxymoron.

However, this is one thing that this administration is remarkably good at: that is placing these Oxymoron labels on issues and then spinning their rhetoric to convince their followers.

Other examples:

"Activist Judges" (As if Bush appointees have no right wing activist agenda - how intellectually dishonest can you be?)

"Terrorist counterveilance" - (The term the like to use for illegal wiretapping/domestic eavesdropping).


But the biggest oxymoron of all:

"Republican Ethics".


I find it hilarious that whenever right-wingers talk about "liberal media" they point to the NY Times and "Washington Post". Yes, I would agree that those two examples are somewhat liberal-bent. But two papers out of thousands of media outlets.
Certainly you cannot believe that mainstream TV media is "Liberal", when not one reporter including the so-called political advisors are afraid to ask real questions to this administration for fear of backlash of blocking access to the whitehouse. The TV media are a bunch of wimps. If we had real "liberal media" you would see the lies and dishonesty of this administration unravel in about 5 minutes.

 

[KCConservative]

The term "Liberal Media" is just another Bush Oxymoron.

Really? He coined that phrase? Wow, you learn something everyday. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

Instead of 4 paragraphs of ad hominem attacks , you could have shared your data for debate instead. As I said, it will never happen.

And as I said, it already has. Learn to read.

That big long list of Democrats who run the media is one example from my research.

Keep acting like I'm not giving you what you are demanding. It only proves what a lying, posturing, ass you are. And nothing about that last post was ad hominem. It is a matter of record. You serve no purpose on this site. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

1 The term "Liberal Media" is just another Bush Oxymoron.

However, this is one thing that this administration is remarkably good at: that is placing these Oxymoron labels on issues and then spinning their rhetoric to convince their followers.

Other examples:

2 "Activist Judges" (As if Bush appointees have no right wing activist agenda - how intellectually dishonest can you be?)

3 "Terrorist counterveilance" - (The term the like to use for illegal wiretapping/domestic eavesdropping).


But the biggest oxymoron of all:

4 "Republican Ethics".


5 I find it hilarious that whenever right-wingers talk about "liberal media" they point to the NY Times and "Washington Post". Yes, I would agree that those two examples are somewhat liberal-bent. But two papers out of thousands of media outlets.
Certainly you cannot believe that mainstream TV media is "Liberal", when not one reporter including the so-called political advisors are afraid to ask real questions to this administration for fear of backlash of blocking access to the whitehouse. The TV media are a bunch of wimps. If we had real "liberal media" you would see the lies and dishonesty of this administration unravel in about 5 minutes.

1) I know that facts and evidence are to liberals as a cross is to a vampire, but let me suggest that you scroll back through the multitude of evidence that has already been posted on this thread disproving your transparent denial of the obvious liberal bias in our news media.


2) "Activist judge" means in favor of judges (as opposed to the legislature)creating new laws. All of Bush's appointees are against creating laws. Once again, you are wrong. And Alito voted in FAVOR of abortion rights 2 out of 3 times as a federal judge, and the first thing he did on the supreme court was rule (with the majority) against the death penalty. YOU are erroneously smearing judges with distorted information. So stop accusing the only people being accurate and honest of warping things.

3) Surveillance on terrorists IS what it is expressly limited to. NO domestic spying is taking place. Only INTERNATIONAL calls from/to suspected terror cells are being listened to. What Bush is doing is exactly the right thing (Which was already obvious from the fact that liberals were outraged). Again, you are grossly misinformed. Stop getting your news from MoveOn and your assertions might start bearing a shred of truth.

4) :rofl Let us not go over the FAR MORE ethically challenged Democrats like James Traficant and Bill Clinton. Let us also not get into how many more kinds of campaign finance laws Democrats broke than Republicans in 2004. You obviously are a victim of the left wing press and a slave to spin. Get informed or leave.

5) I have the goods on hundreds of outlets. The NY Times is just cited the most because the rest of the media take their cues from that paper. That's how Jayson Blairs fabricated stories ended up all over every paper in America. The media just mindlessly parrots the times, and the Times is EXTREMELY biased. But I have tons of examples on them all. Pick one.

 

[Hoot]

Now you two play nice! LOL

I don't believe in a liberal media. I was a journalism student. If there is a liberal media, it certainly doesn't exist to the extent the 'right' would have us believe.

I prefer to think of it as the media telling us the truth, and some republicans don't like that kind of truth, so it's labelled as 'liberal.'

It's the old republican mantra of attacking when you have no defense... change the subject... take the focus off the truth, because, as we all know...truth hurts...especially this congress and administration.

 

[Synch]

You liberals make me sick, not because of your views, but your inablity to put aquapub in his place... his statistics show no sources whatsoever, when ever his points are disproved, he simply ignores it and provides more statistics that have not been citied...

You should try a one vs one debate on a topic, where on one else is allowed to post but the two contestants, and you have to back up your statistics with proof. Contestants post after their opponent has posted. And someone starts the opening statement.

Then we have a poll at the end of the debate with a time limit of maybe 4-5 days? And vote who debated the best, not for the point you support, but for the person you felt debated and proven his point better.

 

[aquapub]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[aquapub]

You liberals make me sick, not because of your views, but your inablity to put aquapub in his place... his statistics show no sources whatsoever, when ever his points are disproved, he simply ignores it and provides more statistics that have not been citied...

You should try a one vs one debate on a topic, where on one else is allowed to post but the two contestants, and you have to back up your statistics with proof. Contestants post after their opponent has posted. And someone starts the opening statement.

Then we have a poll at the end of the debate with a time limit of maybe 4-5 days? And vote who debated the best, not for the point you support, but for the person you felt debated and proven his point better.

Everything I have said that has been challenged, I have provided sources for. YOU are the only one here making unsubstantiated or baseless claims.

If you want me to back something up, name it. But until then, you can shove your erroneous smears where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[aquapub]

Now you two play nice! LOL

I don't believe in a liberal media. I was a journalism student. If there is a liberal media, it certainly doesn't exist to the extent the 'right' would have us believe.

I prefer to think of it as the media telling us the truth, and some republicans don't like that kind of truth, so it's labelled as 'liberal.'

It's the old republican mantra of attacking when you have no defense... change the subject... take the focus off the truth, because, as we all know...truth hurts...especially this congress and administration.

-Not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, NONE of the major papers have endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

-Have you not noticed that incredibly long list I posted (on this thread) of all the Democrat operatives (and which Democrats in office they worked for before being trusted to disseminate objective news) who run the media?

-What about all the studies done by respectable, non-partisan groups proving a huge liberal tilt among reporters, anchors, news directors and producers?

-What about the multitude of unexplainable examples I have provided like: Dan Rather calling a leak about Bill Clinton's indictment "well-orchestrated" and "Republican backed," only to find out the next day that a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ADMITTEDLY, ACCIDENTALLY leaked the information? Where do you suppose Dan got his bad information? It sure as hell wasn't from research. He made it up....because he is a liberal.

Yeah, you're right, this is just about Republicans imagining things and rationalizing things they don't want to hear. :roll:

You cannot refute any of these things any better than hipsterdufus (yes, that should be horribly insulting). You are wrong about this.

 

[hipsterdufus]

You liberals make me sick, not because of your views, but your inablity to put aquapub in his place... his statistics show no sources whatsoever, when ever his points are disproved, he simply ignores it and provides more statistics that have not been citied...

You should try a one vs one debate on a topic, where on one else is allowed to post but the two contestants, and you have to back up your statistics with proof. Contestants post after their opponent has posted. And someone starts the opening statement.

Then we have a poll at the end of the debate with a time limit of maybe 4-5 days? And vote who debated the best, not for the point you support, but for the person you felt debated and proven his point better.

Any time, any place.

 

[Hoot]

-Not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, NONE of the major papers have endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

So? This doesn't prove anything. It certainly doesn't prove they're liberal. Maybe it just proves they want what they believe to be best for the country?

-Have you not noticed that incredibly long list I posted (on this thread) of all the Democrat operatives (and which Democrats in office they worked for before being trusted to disseminate objective news) who run the media?

I'm sure I could find just as many conservative leaning individuals working for the media. What you need to prove is bias by the "fictional liberal media." Past job history means nothing...you take a job because you need the money and experience. Working for someone does not entail political direction. One of my first jobs was in H.S....flipping burgers at the local malt shop. Does this mean I'm a secret operative for hiding Mad Cow Disease because it would hurt my former employer?!

-What about all the studies done by respectable, non-partisan groups proving a huge liberal tilt among reporters, anchors, news directors and producers?

Then go hide under you bed. You try to portray the word "liberal" as though it's a bad thing...something to be ashamed of?! Just do a quick search and type in the words "conservative media," and look at the wealth of information out there...think tanks...influence peddlers...media moguls...etc...etc...blah blah blah...doesn't prove a thing.

-What about the multitude of unexplainable examples I have provided like: Dan Rather calling a leak about Bill Clinton's indictment "well-orchestrated" and "Republican backed," only to find out the next day that a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ADMITTEDLY, ACCIDENTALLY leaked the information? Where do you suppose Dan got his bad information? It sure as hell wasn't from research. He made it up....because he is a liberal.

What is your point? You think there's no cases where conservative media got things wrong? Look at the Weekly Standard, for Gods sake! They still believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11. I'm not defending Dan Rather...but someone who has spent so many years on television on nightly news is bound to screw things up once in a while.

While in a college journalism course, we had to produce an hour news radio show and present it live on the air. We had a full week to get our shows together...and it was a frigging nightmare! These major news networks are producing 2-3 shows a day...something is bound to go wrong, or be misinterpreted.

It's you conservatives who wait as long as it takes, until a nightly news show screws up, and then proclaim..."There! See?! That proves they're liberal!"

Yeah, you're right, this is just about Republicans imagining things and rationalizing things they don't want to hear. :roll:

Maybe there's hope for you after all? LOL

You cannot refute any of these things any better than hipsterdufus (yes, that should be horribly insulting). You are wrong about this.

To be honest, I can't be bothered to read this whole thread. I caught the tail end where you were throwing insults out ...you kinda lost me there.

Sorry.

 

[hipsterdufus]

You liberals make me sick, not because of your views, but your inablity to put aquapub in his place... his statistics show no sources whatsoever, when ever his points are disproved, he simply ignores it and provides more statistics that have not been citied...

You should try a one vs one debate on a topic, where on one else is allowed to post but the two contestants, and you have to back up your statistics with proof. Contestants post after their opponent has posted. And someone starts the opening statement.

Then we have a poll at the end of the debate with a time limit of maybe 4-5 days? And vote who debated the best, not for the point you support, but for the person you felt debated and proven his point better.

I'm convinced that there are people that yearn to be lied to, and all of the sources in the world that discredit "dittoheads" and other sheep, mean nothing. What matters is having the lies justify their fears and prejudices.

So many of these right wing shows are a celebration of hypocrisy for ignorant americans. Would Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage or Hannity ever debate anyone? Of course not, deception and distortion doesn't hold up in a debate. They will take on the occasional screened caller, or screened email, but that's about it.
These people need the master/slave format to spew their unreality into their sheep. The masters convince the slaves that they are better than everyone because of their party, race, sex, nationality or religion.

The sad part is that this strategy has been working.

 

[Deegan]

I'm convinced that there are people that yearn to be lied to, and all of the sources in the world that discredit "dittoheads" and other sheep, mean nothing. What matters is having the lies justify their fears and prejudices.

So many of these right wing shows are a celebration of hypocrisy for ignorant americans. Would Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage or Hannity ever debate anyone? Of course not, deception and distortion doesn't hold up in a debate. They will take on the occasional screened caller, or screened email, but that's about it.
These people need the master/slave format to spew their unreality into their sheep. The masters convince the slaves that they are better than everyone because of their party, race, sex, nationality or religion.

The sad part is that this strategy has been working.

Agreed, but you always fail to acknowledge their counter parts, when and who have they debated rationally, honestly, or consistently? Has Franken "screened callers" or "screened e-mail" or is this really a right-wing problem? Calling those that listen, and may agree, "ignorant" solves nothing, and actually adds to the problem, and the separation, is that your goal? Are you really supporting change, or are you just joining in on the mud slinging, as fun as that may be at times?

Answer these questions honestly professor, and then ask yourself, to I really belong on this soap box, or am I just as guilty as the others who spew forth hateful rhetoric and empty verbiage?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Agreed, but you always fail to acknowledge their counter parts, when and who have they debated rationally, honestly, or consistently? Has Franken "screened callers" or "screened e-mail" or is this really a right-wing problem? Calling those that listen, and may agree, "ignorant" solves nothing, and actually adds to the problem, and the separation, is that your goal? Are you really supporting change, or are you just joining in on the mud slinging, as fun as that may be at times?

Answer these questions honestly professor, and then ask yourself, to I really belong on this soap box, or am I just as guilty as the others who spew forth hateful rhetoric and empty verbiage?

Deegan - it's not black and white for sure, and I wouldn't put you in the "sheep" category

I have repeatedly asked people to point out distortions from lefty talk show hosts. I'm sure there are some! At least in this forum they aren't pointed out. What happens more is ad hominem attacks with no facts to back up the argument.

I don't get Franken on Sirius anymore, but when I did, Franken had an old high school friend and "dittohead" on his show regularly. It really helps to prove my point. When the dittohead is shown the lies, distortions and falsehoods, he still refused to believe the reality. When I hear people like this, it always sounds as if they're brainwashed. Franken does more interviews and rarely takes calls, so the screener issue isn't really applicable.

Ed Shultz doesn't screen his calls and he has many conservatives that call in. Often times they agree to disagree, but Shultz doesn't bully them or degrade them.

Thom Hartmann (who is probably the most informed lefty talk show host going) has an open invitation to debate any of the afformentioned talk show hosts. His requests have been turned down repeatedly.

 

[Deegan]

Deegan - it's not black and white for sure, and I wouldn't put you in the "sheep" category

I have repeatedly asked people to point out distortions from lefty talk show hosts. I'm sure there are some! At least in this forum they aren't pointed out. What happens more is ad hominem attacks with no facts to back up the argument.

I don't get Franken on Sirius anymore, but when I did, Franken had an old high school friend and "dittohead" on his show regularly. It really helps to prove my point. When the dittohead is shown the lies, distortions and falsehoods, he still refused to believe the reality. When I hear people like this, it always sounds as if they're brainwashed. Franken does more interviews and rarely takes calls, so the screener issue isn't really applicable.

Ed Shultz doesn't screen his calls and he has many conservatives that call in. Often times they agree to disagree, but Shultz doesn't bully them or degrade them.

Thom Hartmann (who is probably the most informed lefty talk show host going) has an open invitation to debate any of the afformentioned talk show hosts. His requests have been turned down repeatedly.

I would love to hear all of them debate, in a neutral settting, and without the power off turning down their Mic's, or hanging up. One day maybe we will see that happen, if you would like, I would be willing to join you in that effort?

 

[FreeThinker]

And...this is a lie how?

Yeah that's great. Completely ignore the fact that they decided to release the story the day before the patriot act's renewal, AND ignore the fact that they changed the term used from "surveillance" to "eavesdropping".

 

[libertarian_knight]

Yeah that's great. Completely ignore the fact that they decided to release the story the day before the patriot act's renewal, AND ignore the fact that they changed the term used from "surveillance" to "eavesdropping".

the THIRD vote on the USA PATRIOT Acts renewal. They let two whole votes pass before releasing the story.

they let an election pass, and TWO USA PATRIOT Act renewal votes occur, before releasing the story.

 

[aquapub]

Here are a couple more stories that punch a hole in the liberal lie that the media is conservative of all things:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060220.asp#2

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060216.asp#4

 

[Hoot]

Here are a couple more stories that punch a hole in the liberal lie that the media is conservative of all things:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060220.asp#2

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060216.asp#4

LOL! yeah, right...a link that takes you to a web site called "Cyber Alert, Tracking media liberal bias."

Boy, that sounds fair and impartial. LOL! Sorry I ever doubted you!
I guess that proves it?

 

[Indy]

I was reading this thread and was inclined to create an account just to mention something that I noticed:

It seemes to me that there has been alot of name calling or colorful labeling of the opposing parties on this thread. These include:

"lightweight", "ethics-challenged", "absurd", "mindless", "blatant lies", "stupid", "crackpot", "pinko comies", "lying smearfests", "hysterical", "laughable", "inept", "squel like a stuck pig", "assinine", "dumb", "dusgusting specimine of a partisan leech", "can't respond intelligently", "mindless drivel", "grossly misguided", "temper tantrum", "point of crap", "posturing", "rediculous", "whined to the moderators", "lame hysterical arguments", "halfwit posturing", "really phony", "feeble attempt at logic", "some of us have lives", "wack job conspiracy", "crap you peddle", "lie through his teeth", "moronic", "mindless smears", "whining", "obviously you have" <-- when reffering to whether or not an opposing account member has been on wellfare, "lying through your teeth", "really sharp there sparky", "crackpot", "absurdities", "hysterical", ,"Al Queda friendly, enemy apeasing, anti-economy *name left out to be objective* presidency", "unable to grasp", "make an a** of yourself", "Real gansta *** *****s don't flex nuts, 'cause real gansta *** *****s know they got 'em." <-- I'm pretty sure this was meant as an insult, "neausiatingly phony", "spew session", "some of the **** you tried to pull", "YOUR definition of truth (i.e., Move On propaganda and conspiracy theories)", "but to those of us ADULTS who prefer facts and evidence", "childish taunting", "keep on spewing", "you don't care about the truth, you couldn't make that more clear", "BS taunting", "If you would like to keep running your mouth", "you present conspiracy theories and hysteria", "you just aren't worth the effort because you have zero concern for the truth", "genius" <-- used in faceious way, "conspiracy theories and hysterical adolescent smears", "You are a total waste of time", "The biggest oxymoron of them all "*party affiliation left out to be objective* ethics"", "bunch of wimps", "lying, posturing, *** you are", "you serve no purpose on this site", What *name left out to be objective* is doing is exactly the right thing (Which was already obvious from the fact that *party affiliation left out to be objective* were outraged)", "grossly missinformed", "ethically challenged ", "victim of the *party left out the be objective* wing press and a slave to spin", "You *party affiliation left out to be objective* make me sick", "shove your erroneous smears where the sun doesn't shine", "He made it up....because he is a *party left out to be objective*", "You cannot refute any of these things any better than *name left out because of consideration to poster* (yes, that should be horribly insulting)", "dittoheads", "celebration of hypocracy", "spew their unreality into their sheep", "dittohead".

Yes I realize that there were some in that list that were there more than once but that was because they were used on multiple occations.

I also tracked to amount of cussing used in this thread and which party was the offender.

As of now, the tally is thus:

Conservatives insulting Liberals: 52
Liberals insulting Conservatives: 14

Conservatives using cuss words or *'s to block out the vowels: 12
Liberals using cuss words or *'s to block out the vowels 11

I just thought that those statistics would prove interesting in this debate. Only because that the accusation that the Liberals were the ones name calling and demeaning their opponents when they were loosing was brought up MULTIPLE tiems. I hope that ends the discussion on that particular point.

I would also like to note that I didn't count the general negativity of the posts because that would pretty much include ALL of them, somethign that would prove to be a mute point.

In case you were wondering, the largest offender of name calling and negative speech was from Aquapub.

 

[cnredd]

I also tracked to amount of cussing used in this thread and which party was the offender.

As of now, the tally is thus:

Conservatives insulting Liberals: 52
Liberals insulting Conservatives: 14

Conservatives using cuss words or *'s to block out the vowels: 12
Liberals using cuss words or *'s to block out the vowels 11

I just thought that those statistics would prove interesting in this debate. Only because that the accusation that the Liberals were the ones name calling and demeaning their opponents when they were loosing was brought up MULTIPLE tiems. I hope that ends the discussion on that particular point.

I would also like to note that I didn't count the general negativity of the posts because that would pretty much include ALL of them, somethign that would prove to be a mute point.

In case you were wondering, the largest offender of name calling and negative speech was from Aquapub.

You have to be more specific on your 52/14 assertion...Are you saying 52 DIFFERENT Conservatives are compared to 14 DIFFERENT Liberals?...Or are you saying 52 INSTANCES against 14 INSTANCES...

The reason I ask this is because you can have one member throwing out multiple instances, but that still makes it just one member...

As you pointed out, aquapub is the biggest offender...

But if aquapub threw out 50 of those 52 "insults" and the other two were one instance each by two other members, then the TOTAL numbers of insulting Conservatives on this thread is 3..

Whereas all 14 instances of Liberals insulting could be made by one member each...therefore the TOTAL numbers of insulting Liberals on this thread is 14...

Also, were you mentioning muliple insults that were made within one post?...If so, that wouldn't help in you trying to define what's going on...

The longstanding members of this forum know what aquapub does and how he throws this stuff out...But if he were removed from this deduction, are the stats even?...If they are, then your final conclusion doesn't add up...It only proves that they both do the same thing but one person inparticular goes over the top...Not a good way to define one side...According to that logic, I could throw up everything Cindy Sheehan ever said and declare that ALL Liberals think that way...

That would equally be untrue...

BTW - What are your stats for the thread "Right Wing Lie of The Day"?...

Or did you do this only for the thread which will obviouly be as one-sided due to the title...

When you pull facts from only what you wish to see, the facts won't reveal truth...

Watch a Michael Moore film...You'll see what I mean...:2wave: