Factually Incorrect Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Hey, look: I can post links support my opinions,
> too!
>
>
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wiscons
> in-gov-walker-ginned-up-budget-shortfall-to-underc
> ut-worker-rights.php
Unfortunately for you and Mr. Beutler, these assertions do not mesh with the facts. They are invented out of whole cloth. Even the state bureaucrat that wrote the report Mr. Beutler cites disagrees with him. While the link may support Ms. Maddow's opinions (and yours as you cannot form your own), they simply are not factual.
Whereas I supported my assertions with a Pulitzer winning, nonpartisan, unbiased source, you are relying on opinion pieces based on rehetorical gimmicks not based in fact.
Simply put, supporting your opinion with another opinion piece is not the same as supporting them with facts. Then again, I would not expect you to understand this as you believe Ms. Maddow to be factual.
>
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007160038
This post does not support Ms. Maddow's assertion in which she said, "[f]or example, they said the New Black Panther Party decided the election for Barack Obama. They ran dozens and dozens and dozens of stories about the New Black Panther Party, which was one guy who braided his beard in Philadelphia and who didn’t have an organization, yelling on a street corner. They represented that story as if that is the guy who decided the election. That was fake."
The story you linked to simply states that they brought up the topic 95 times. Please point to a Fox segment where they said the New Black Panther Party "decided" the election. Further, I would challenge Ms. Maddow's assertion that the NBP is more than "one guy."
In short, your link does not support Ms. Maddow's lie.
>
http://www.alternet.org/media/143534/rachel_maddow
> _and_keith_olbermann_slam_fox_news_propaganda_abou
> t_their_meeting_with_obama/?page=2
So, your support of Ms. Maddow's lie that George W. Bush never did an interview with the NY Times after 2000 is a transcript of that same lie? You aren't very good at this are you?
On June 5, 2001, New York Times reporter Frank Bruni had what he described as Bush's first "one-on-one interview" since Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched parties and threw control of the Senate to the Democrats. "We're looking at a different landscape, but still on the same continent," Bush said. "The same votes. The members haven't changed."
On Aug 26, 2004, Bush gave a half-hour interview to the New York Times as he campaigned through New Mexico. Bush told the newspaper that he did not believe Sen. John Kerry lied about his war record, as some groups alleged during the campaign.
On Jan. 27, 2005, a week after he started his second term, Bush spoke with New York Times reporters for 40 minutes, discussing troop levels in Iraq and domestic issues such as gay adoption, abortion and Social Security.
Do you still stand by this lie?
>
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/pe
> rry-wed-lynch-ben-bernanke-in-texas.html
Aside from the fact that this is yet another opinion piece supporting an opinion, not a single quote in the written piece or in the videos where Governor Perry said he wanted to lynch Ben Bernanke.
Are all of your opinions based upon other people's opinions, or do you sometimes base them on fact?