The Breitfarts can use teh Google but not their brains.
And âLiberalâ Rachel Maddow has an entire segment on her show dedicated to making corrections. You would know that if you watched her show fully and then you wouldnât embarrass yourself.
i.e
Lynched the wrong Loretta.
'Embarrassment connotes a bit of conscienceâŚwhich has been bred out by RW ThankTinks. The Lib-Haters wear their malignorance as a badge of honor.
1 Like
Typical Republican. . . shoots mouth off when a simple Google search would have saved them looking like idiots.
to them a false inflammatory story is better than no story at all.
Come-on people. These right-wing ânews outletsâ have nothing Nothing NOTHING to do with newsâ they are just propaganda pieces for the conservative cause.
Huh?
Me thinks you need new batteries in your snark detector.
1 Like
hot lips houlihan?
If there was any doubt about Breitbartâs integrity as a news site, hopefully this will confirm that it has none.
Poe, not just a suggestion; itâs the law!
1 Like
The only correction to the story would be to remove it, since the whole premise of the article is wrong. But, we are dealing with Breitbart here, James OâKeefeâs favorite outlet.
Good old Breitbart! Ready, FIRE, Aim!
BULLETIN...BULLETIN...BULLETIN
This just in from Senior Deceased Correspondent Zombie Chet HuntleyâŚConservative blogger and general insignificant loser Andrew Breitbart, remains dead at this hour.
More details as they come in. In the meantime, citizens who see Breitbart are advised to wear a motorcycle helmet to protect your tasty and nutritious brain.
http://www.pinkraygun.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/zombie-breitbart.jpg
Iâm not exactly sure how having been a defense attorney for Clinton is such a big disqualifier â but then Iâm not in winger-world.
i just said it was even for one liberal and one conservative news types. Thatâs allâŚshe can correct all she wantsâŚit doesnt change her previous actions⌠nor will it change briebarts actions⌠I am neither liberal or conservativeâŚjust making observations.
You just had to throw the âLiberalâ label in there for flavor I guess?
And in your observation did you not notice that you did the very exact same thing that you are claiming to have observed?
And the real biggie is, you canât righteously compare Rachel Maddowâs show to Breitbart by a weak association like that or at all. Breitbart does that sort of thing intentionally and arenât even really trying to make it right. This isnât apples to apples. Itâs apples to lemons.
Since you say that you arenât taking sides, then you ought to be able to see the false equivalence in your own words. And btw, just for the record, what is your political lean?
What cracks me up about this story is that no one ever found any evidence of wrong doing in the Whitewater investigation. It was petty much a political witch hunt used the harass The Clintonâs for for years. So you have one BS story built upon another BS story. Itâs like a BS layer cake.
Its so nuts, its all about nothing, nothing ever happened, but itâs big news and someone is very guilty of something. I feel like I am living some bizarro world altered reality.
No, I said one liberal media outlet Msnbc and one conservative media outlet Brietbart did not fact check, or research enough and went with stories they shouldnât have⌠Thatâs it. Its about news outlets not doing their job thoroughly. You are making too much of it. Chill out âŚ
I guess she got addicted to tanning bed.
And obviously you donât get the inference of making your claimed comparable comparison.
Chill out has nothing to do with it. Iâm a Penguin backstroking in the arctic and cool as a cucumber.
I still donât buy your comparison and itâs not close to an equal thing just because you came up with a single instance.
Breitbart to Maddow is Faux to Reality.