don't have that sort of time, but essentially anyone who wishes to go through the past 8 years of Breitbart claims will find an extremely low accuracy rate.
Pudfark wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am
I live in Texas....you live in America.
callmeslick wrote:don't have that sort of time, but essentially anyone who wishes to go through the past 8 years of Breitbart claims will find an extremely low accuracy rate.
Not as low as yours, note your comment preserved in my sig below.
callmeslick wrote:don't have that sort of time, but essentially anyone who wishes to go through the past 8 years of Breitbart claims will find an extremely low accuracy rate.
So you make a blanket statement slamming the credibility of an organization, yet don't have time to back it up with facts.
Isnt that the definition of libel?
"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction.
Opinions result from a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."
callmeslick wrote:don't have that sort of time, but essentially anyone who wishes to go through the past 8 years of Breitbart claims will find an extremely low accuracy rate.
Everything, totally, I've written on these forums, I've backed up, all of it.
Your quote above does fit the implied criteria here in the "Frivolous Rambling" arena.
Pudfark wrote:Everything, totally, I've written on these forums, I've backed up, all of it.
Pudfark wrote:It's old news and it was political in the sense that it was used to obscure other news. In short, it was a smoke screen that served it's purpose then. To resurrect it now?
Would be to renew it's original purpose. My opinion.