Replies

Yep. That is a flat out bald faced lie. But if what was challenged was the headline itself they would try to pull a Clinton and say that the headline was 'accurate' as I said.

I'm 100% not defending them. I'm pointing out that they would try to weasel out of it. That was the point of citing Clinton.

If a conservative critic makes the mistake of making the wrong argument and getting shot down, even by tortuous logic like "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" then we're not allowed to go back and point out the other falsehoods. Any attempt to do what you have done, to actually point out the gross and inarguable inaccuracies in the article, will be shut down because they've already been "shown to be wrong" on the original complaint over the title. It's not right, but it is the MO of the MSM.

We have to make a solid and complete case that can't be dismissed with facile game playing.