"Ted Cruz’s ‘biggest lie in politics:’ Is it actually the truth?"

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Oh yes, that was much more eloquent. It's just lovely the way the term libtard rolls off of the tongue. And just think of all of the kindness expressed by that particular word.
Regards,

D-Ray

What about the word "Teabagger"? Don't give a F*%k about how that word rolls off the tounge do you?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

What about the word "Teabagger"? Don't give a F*%k about how that word rolls off the tounge do you?

I just use 'Bagger, cuz 'Baggers aren't worth an extra syllable.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

What about the word "Teabagger"? Don't give a F*%k about how that word rolls off the tounge do you?

Except for the fact that the term 'teabagger' was coined by one of the originators of that dumbass bowel movement. It wasn't until some comedian poked fun at the 'baggers for it that they got their nutsacks in a knot.

http://theweek.com/article/index/202...ord-tea-bagger

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

What about the word "Teabagger"? Don't give a F*%k about how that word rolls off the tounge do you?

That's because he is bias.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

What about the word "Teabagger"? Don't give a F*%k about how that word rolls off the tounge do you?

I don't use it.

Regards,

D-Ray

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Facts are fact not a fuck-in opinion is that better.
A highly liberal journalist forming an opinion on anther persons opinion can hardly be factual.The Washington Post is a liberal paper no secret to anybody, thats why all you libitards read it.

Here is a quote from the WP piece that contains claims of fact:

"... decades of economic data show the poor do better under Democrats, that the rich tend to vote Republican and that most Americans believe Republican policies favor the rich."

Is it your position that the three points summarized here are not facts?

If so, give a factual refutation.

Otherwise, your claim that the WP piece contaiins only "liberal opinion," and not facts, fails.

And answer only if you're willing to retract 'libtard;' I expect you to pretend to want to engage in civil discourse. If all you want to do is vent your malice, go away.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Here is a quote from the WP piece that contains claims of fact:



Is it your position that the three points summarized here are not facts?

If so, give a factual refutation.

Otherwise, your claim that the WP piece contaiins only "liberal opinion," and not facts, fails.

And answer only if you're willing to retract 'libtard;' I expect you to pretend to want to engage in civil discourse. If all you want to do is vent your malice, go away.

Did you see who and how they got their graphs. Only one is searchable it was their poll.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Did you see who and how they got their graphs. Only one is searchable it was their poll.

Do you realize that blue print is a clickable hyperlink?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Facts are fact not a fuck-in opinion is that better.
A highly liberal journalist forming an opinion on anther persons opinion can hardly be factual.The Washington Post is a liberal paper no secret to anybody, thats why all you libitards read it.

Really, so George Will, Charlie Krauthammer, Michael Gerson, Charlie Lane are all liberals? Who knew. Even Finn's girl friend is a Republican. The only liberal who writes on the OpEd page is E.J. Dionne.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Really, so George Will, Charlie Krauthammer, Michael Gerson, Charlie Lane are all liberals? Who knew. Even Finn's girl friend is a Republican. The only liberal who writes on the OpEd page is E.J. Dionne.

And of course no bias or agenda.
So folks, who do you regard as a reliable source having no apparent bias other than to present facts without opinion..