|
|
If you're someone who gets excited over listening to Rush Limbaugh, then I'm not going to debate his credibility with you because he's been caught lying every day for over a decade. One could write an Encyclopedia on documenting the lies of right-wing radio. Just please keep his transcripts to yourself, and if he made a point you think if really good, by all means, make it.
As I said, no one has ever suggested posting transcripts of Thom Hartmann. It's asinine, and how you manage to equate posting a transcript of a one-man, multi-hour radio talk-show to someone using a CNN article is very disturbing to me.
|
On October 27 2012 03:03 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. Only see what you want to see, only hear what you want to hear and you end up with a very different perspective on reality. Liberals posting from Jon Stewart, Huffington Post and MSNBC are likely ignorable too, yes. CNN as liberal biased? I have only heard that from people who find FOX being a stupid left-wing biased media too! CNN is very liberal. They just engage in more of the old-school, editorial liberal bias that CBS/NBC/ABC are guilty of rather than the overt MSNBC brand of liberal bias. Editorial bias as in picking and choosing is not something disqualifying it as a source. While dishonest, it does not affect the value of the news, they actually do bring. I was wondering why he did not bring up CBS/NBC/ABC too while he was at it.
The editorial bias goes beyond picking and choosing stories. It also affects the manner in which stories are presented, such as the emphases and de-emphasis of facts. If you think that editorial bias is irrelevant, then you should have no problem with the FoxNews news teams and how they are reporting the Benghazi incident.
|
On October 27 2012 03:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:03 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. Only see what you want to see, only hear what you want to hear and you end up with a very different perspective on reality. Liberals posting from Jon Stewart, Huffington Post and MSNBC are likely ignorable too, yes. CNN as liberal biased? I have only heard that from people who find FOX being a stupid left-wing biased media too! CNN is very liberal. They just engage in more of the old-school, editorial liberal bias that CBS/NBC/ABC are guilty of rather than the overt MSNBC brand of liberal bias. Editorial bias as in picking and choosing is not something disqualifying it as a source. While dishonest, it does not affect the value of the news, they actually do bring. I was wondering why he did not bring up CBS/NBC/ABC too while he was at it. The editorial bias goes beyond picking and choosing stories. It also affects the manner in which stories are presented, such as the emphases and de-emphasis of facts. If you think that editorial bias is irrelevant, then you should have no problem with the FoxNews news teams and how they are reporting the Benghazi incident.
Indeed, I recommend you look up some CNN "stories" about gun control, they don't even try to hide their bias.
|
On October 27 2012 00:32 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 00:10 radiatoren wrote:On October 26 2012 22:47 Rassy wrote:Ima put some monney on Obama to win. Then if romney looses i am at least still somewhat happy. It also seems like a good deal. I mean: the change that obama wins is like 90% and you get 60-40 odds  Those numbers are very crooked. I am pretty sure that it is no longer a 90% sure victory for Obama. Essentially it takes a singe north-eastern state to turn the table, if we can count New Hampshire as Romneys (it is shown as Obamas, but it is a single poll with 9 point lead for Obama with a small Romney lead in all the rest!). If Ohio, Michigan or Wisconsin tips over, Romney will be US president. Much of the US elections are about getting people off the couch and down voting for both parties. Stealing voters is not as important as getting the bases to vote. Last election Obama got a lot of excited minority groups to vote, while many are less fired up about voting this time around! How bad that trend is will determine a good part of the election. http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=TFqIs what I think is most likely. You can toss in NH + IA and its still an Obama win, and this is being pretty generous for Romney. Of course, if OH goes Romney all bets are off but I still think its about 70-30 for Obama.
If Obama gets Ohio OR Florida, he is pretty much certain to win.
I only did a brief look at the electoral college map, but from what I remember, if Obama wins Florida, he only needs one more swing state, and if he wins Ohio, he only needs two more, and out of nine (with several showing Obama currently in the lead), there's simply no way that Romney is going to sweep the rest of the states if Obama wins either of these.
|
On October 27 2012 03:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:03 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. Only see what you want to see, only hear what you want to hear and you end up with a very different perspective on reality. Liberals posting from Jon Stewart, Huffington Post and MSNBC are likely ignorable too, yes. CNN as liberal biased? I have only heard that from people who find FOX being a stupid left-wing biased media too! CNN is very liberal. They just engage in more of the old-school, editorial liberal bias that CBS/NBC/ABC are guilty of rather than the overt MSNBC brand of liberal bias. Editorial bias as in picking and choosing is not something disqualifying it as a source. While dishonest, it does not affect the value of the news, they actually do bring. I was wondering why he did not bring up CBS/NBC/ABC too while he was at it. The editorial bias goes beyond picking and choosing stories. It also affects the manner in which stories are presented, such as the emphases and de-emphasis of facts. If you think that editorial bias is irrelevant, then you should have no problem with the FoxNews news teams and how they are reporting the Benghazi incident.
Thanks for clarifying. It seems that CNN has changed a lot since the start of the millenium. Editorial bias as in hosts spinning the story is not ok in any way shape or form unless a sufficient alternative interpretation is given at the same time.
|
On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source.
All of those base their statements on facts and logical interpretations. Limbaugh does neither. The man blatantly lies and has never seriously debated someone that opposed his views so that they can actually be scrutinized. I'll even throw out MSNC, since they're the most left-wing out of the bunch.
Regardless of this, there's absolutely no reason to post an entire transcript and just leave it at that. Links to news articles are made here, not transcripts to what are essentially pundits rambling.
|
Editorial bias is nothing new. Newspapers were doing it long before TV news -- and it's always just been accepted. Newspaper's editorial boards even endorse candidates directly, nothing dishonest about it. What matters more to me is do they get their facts straight, or do they purposefully mislead people. Those are much worse crimes than editorial bias.
|
On October 27 2012 03:13 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 03:03 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. Only see what you want to see, only hear what you want to hear and you end up with a very different perspective on reality. Liberals posting from Jon Stewart, Huffington Post and MSNBC are likely ignorable too, yes. CNN as liberal biased? I have only heard that from people who find FOX being a stupid left-wing biased media too! CNN is very liberal. They just engage in more of the old-school, editorial liberal bias that CBS/NBC/ABC are guilty of rather than the overt MSNBC brand of liberal bias. Editorial bias as in picking and choosing is not something disqualifying it as a source. While dishonest, it does not affect the value of the news, they actually do bring. I was wondering why he did not bring up CBS/NBC/ABC too while he was at it. The editorial bias goes beyond picking and choosing stories. It also affects the manner in which stories are presented, such as the emphases and de-emphasis of facts. If you think that editorial bias is irrelevant, then you should have no problem with the FoxNews news teams and how they are reporting the Benghazi incident. Thanks for clarifying. It seems that CNN has changed a lot since the start of the millenium. Editorial bias as in hosts spinning the story is not ok in any way shape or form unless a sufficient alternative interpretation is given at the same time.
Right, and this is why FoxNews took off in the first place during the 1990s. The "liberal media" (ie everyone other than FoxNews and talk radio) continuously exercised a liberal editorial bias that was obvious to anyone who was paying attention. FoxNews merely offers the other side, and they get the ratings because they are the only outlet that does it.
|
On October 27 2012 03:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. All of those base their statements on facts and logical interpretations. Limbaugh does neither. The man blatantly lies and has never seriously debated someone that opposed his views so that they can actually be scrutinized. I'll even throw out MSNC, since they're the most left-wing out of the bunch. Regardless of this, there's absolutely no reason to post an entire transcript and just leave it at that. Links to news articles are made here, not transcripts to what are essentially pundits rambling.
Yet again you have failed to provide evidence that Limbaugh is a "blatant liar" as you continuously claim.
Though I do agree with your second point.
|
On October 27 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:13 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 03:03 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. Only see what you want to see, only hear what you want to hear and you end up with a very different perspective on reality. Liberals posting from Jon Stewart, Huffington Post and MSNBC are likely ignorable too, yes. CNN as liberal biased? I have only heard that from people who find FOX being a stupid left-wing biased media too! CNN is very liberal. They just engage in more of the old-school, editorial liberal bias that CBS/NBC/ABC are guilty of rather than the overt MSNBC brand of liberal bias. Editorial bias as in picking and choosing is not something disqualifying it as a source. While dishonest, it does not affect the value of the news, they actually do bring. I was wondering why he did not bring up CBS/NBC/ABC too while he was at it. The editorial bias goes beyond picking and choosing stories. It also affects the manner in which stories are presented, such as the emphases and de-emphasis of facts. If you think that editorial bias is irrelevant, then you should have no problem with the FoxNews news teams and how they are reporting the Benghazi incident. Thanks for clarifying. It seems that CNN has changed a lot since the start of the millenium. Editorial bias as in hosts spinning the story is not ok in any way shape or form unless a sufficient alternative interpretation is given at the same time. Right, and this is why FoxNews took off in the first place during the 1990s. The "liberal media" (ie everyone other than FoxNews and talk radio) continuously exercised a liberal editorial bias that was obvious to anyone who was paying attention. FoxNews merely offers the other side, and they get the ratings because they are the only outlet that does it.
Just to clarify: I do not find it sufficient that you can find an alternative on another channel.
|
On October 27 2012 03:26 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 03:13 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 03:03 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. Only see what you want to see, only hear what you want to hear and you end up with a very different perspective on reality. Liberals posting from Jon Stewart, Huffington Post and MSNBC are likely ignorable too, yes. CNN as liberal biased? I have only heard that from people who find FOX being a stupid left-wing biased media too! CNN is very liberal. They just engage in more of the old-school, editorial liberal bias that CBS/NBC/ABC are guilty of rather than the overt MSNBC brand of liberal bias. Editorial bias as in picking and choosing is not something disqualifying it as a source. While dishonest, it does not affect the value of the news, they actually do bring. I was wondering why he did not bring up CBS/NBC/ABC too while he was at it. The editorial bias goes beyond picking and choosing stories. It also affects the manner in which stories are presented, such as the emphases and de-emphasis of facts. If you think that editorial bias is irrelevant, then you should have no problem with the FoxNews news teams and how they are reporting the Benghazi incident. Thanks for clarifying. It seems that CNN has changed a lot since the start of the millenium. Editorial bias as in hosts spinning the story is not ok in any way shape or form unless a sufficient alternative interpretation is given at the same time. Right, and this is why FoxNews took off in the first place during the 1990s. The "liberal media" (ie everyone other than FoxNews and talk radio) continuously exercised a liberal editorial bias that was obvious to anyone who was paying attention. FoxNews merely offers the other side, and they get the ratings because they are the only outlet that does it. Just to clarify: I do not find it sufficient that you can find an alternative on another channel.
that's postmodernism for you...
|
On October 27 2012 03:26 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 03:13 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 03:03 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. Only see what you want to see, only hear what you want to hear and you end up with a very different perspective on reality. Liberals posting from Jon Stewart, Huffington Post and MSNBC are likely ignorable too, yes. CNN as liberal biased? I have only heard that from people who find FOX being a stupid left-wing biased media too! CNN is very liberal. They just engage in more of the old-school, editorial liberal bias that CBS/NBC/ABC are guilty of rather than the overt MSNBC brand of liberal bias. Editorial bias as in picking and choosing is not something disqualifying it as a source. While dishonest, it does not affect the value of the news, they actually do bring. I was wondering why he did not bring up CBS/NBC/ABC too while he was at it. The editorial bias goes beyond picking and choosing stories. It also affects the manner in which stories are presented, such as the emphases and de-emphasis of facts. If you think that editorial bias is irrelevant, then you should have no problem with the FoxNews news teams and how they are reporting the Benghazi incident. Thanks for clarifying. It seems that CNN has changed a lot since the start of the millenium. Editorial bias as in hosts spinning the story is not ok in any way shape or form unless a sufficient alternative interpretation is given at the same time. Right, and this is why FoxNews took off in the first place during the 1990s. The "liberal media" (ie everyone other than FoxNews and talk radio) continuously exercised a liberal editorial bias that was obvious to anyone who was paying attention. FoxNews merely offers the other side, and they get the ratings because they are the only outlet that does it. Just to clarify: I do not find it sufficient that you can find an alternative on another channel.
Ideally, every outlet would report stuff fairly rather than sit on stories because they were "politically inconvenient" to one side or another. That's just not how it has worked in reality. As another example, does anyone remember why Drudge got big? Think blowjobs, blue dresses, and major media hiding a story that should have been reported immediately.
|
On October 27 2012 03:22 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. All of those base their statements on facts and logical interpretations. Limbaugh does neither. The man blatantly lies and has never seriously debated someone that opposed his views so that they can actually be scrutinized. I'll even throw out MSNC, since they're the most left-wing out of the bunch. Regardless of this, there's absolutely no reason to post an entire transcript and just leave it at that. Links to news articles are made here, not transcripts to what are essentially pundits rambling. Yet again you have failed to provide evidence that Limbaugh is a "blatant liar" as you continuously claim. Though I do agree with your second point.
Rush Limbaugh lie:
The truth which we've even talked about earlier in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=793#15848
|
On October 27 2012 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:I dont know how right they normaly are but it doesnt mean much to me. As a european almost all our views are heavily favored for Obama.
The link displays where the betting is going. It shows that every single bookie is receiving more bets for Obama to win and it is not even close. The bookies correctly called Bush winning his second term and Obama winning his first term. Bookmakers and their odds merely reflect the likelihoods of outcomes which are adjusted depending on where the betting is going. Any original bias is counter-balanced by the betting - as in if someone thinks Obama is over-priced to win they will bet against him. I am not advocating online gambling or anything like that, but this site is very useful to see which way the wind is blowing. I find it useful because it does not rely on articles that may be biased one way or another. The odds purely reflect the aggregate of expectations
|
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
Look at these numbers. Likely voters identify "Repub" 36-35%, and "Lean Repub" 49-46%. That's a massive change from '08 when it was "Dem" 39-31 and "Lean Dem" 54-42. It's hard to see Obama winning the popular vote with these numbers. That is, unless unlikely voters are likely to vote this election.
|
On October 27 2012 03:29 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:22 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 03:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. All of those base their statements on facts and logical interpretations. Limbaugh does neither. The man blatantly lies and has never seriously debated someone that opposed his views so that they can actually be scrutinized. I'll even throw out MSNC, since they're the most left-wing out of the bunch. Regardless of this, there's absolutely no reason to post an entire transcript and just leave it at that. Links to news articles are made here, not transcripts to what are essentially pundits rambling. Yet again you have failed to provide evidence that Limbaugh is a "blatant liar" as you continuously claim. Though I do agree with your second point. Rush Limbaugh lie: The truth which we've even talked about earlier in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=793#15848
Media Matters? And you say I use bad sources...
|
On October 27 2012 03:38 jdsowa wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspxLook at these numbers. Likely voters identify "Repub" 36-35%, and "Lean Repub" 49-46%. That's a massive change from '08 when it was "Dem" 39-31 and "Lean Dem" 54-42. It's hard to see Obama winning the popular vote with these numbers. That is, unless unlikely voters are likely to vote this election.
He won't win the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, all he cares about is the electoral college.
|
On October 27 2012 03:45 Swazi Spring wrote:He won't win the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, all he cares about is the electoral college.
Obviously he only cares about the electoral result. But what is your reasoning behind the statement that he won't win the popular? With one week to go, Romney is leading in three national polls by 3% and Repubs have a greater share of the likely voter pool.
|
Well, I just got my mailed notification that my Ohio ballot has been cast. Here's to voting early so election day can be enjoyed in earnest
|
On October 27 2012 03:44 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 27 2012 03:22 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 03:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. All of those base their statements on facts and logical interpretations. Limbaugh does neither. The man blatantly lies and has never seriously debated someone that opposed his views so that they can actually be scrutinized. I'll even throw out MSNC, since they're the most left-wing out of the bunch. Regardless of this, there's absolutely no reason to post an entire transcript and just leave it at that. Links to news articles are made here, not transcripts to what are essentially pundits rambling. Yet again you have failed to provide evidence that Limbaugh is a "blatant liar" as you continuously claim. Though I do agree with your second point. Rush Limbaugh lie: The truth which we've even talked about earlier in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=793#15848 Media Matters? And you say I use bad sources...
Beat me to it! Wait, we've got media matters for America ... and somebody's got issues with Limbaugh transcripts? With Fox News? This is rich. Quite the double standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
