To: TexasGurl24
Speaking of Breitbart, I took a look at the Wikipedia article on them and was disgusted. I've been reading Breitbart (website) and listening to their Sirius/XM radio shows for years and they are a much better source of news than the traditional alphabet networks - which are all biased to the left.
Yet reading the Wikipedia article, you'd think they were a fringe racist news network. Totally disgusting and untrue article.
To: SamAdams76
You can make alterations or addendums to Wikipedia.
74 posted on
12/08/2017 8:50:22 AM PST by
Luke21
To: SamAdams76
Wiki is a ‘crowd sourced’ website, anybody can write anything................
88 posted on
12/08/2017 8:55:41 AM PST by
Red Badger
(Road Rage lasts 5 minutes. Road Rash lasts 5 months!.....................)
To: SamAdams76
Edit it back to the truth.
104 posted on
12/08/2017 9:03:04 AM PST by
SgtHooper
(If you remember the 60's, YOU WEREN'T THERE!)
To: SamAdams76
This graphic (which takes time to understand, although the left-right axis is political left and political right) shows news sources in proportion to how many times they got "shared" on social media during the election. Breitbart mattered and acted as the central node, with shares on Fox News, Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit, Washington Examiner, Infowars, Conservative Treehouse, and Truthfeed guided by Breitbart reporting.
148 posted on
12/08/2017 9:33:08 AM PST by
Pollster1
("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
To: SamAdams76
Same old smearing. Think about how pro-liberty groups in the UK and Canada are smeared as “extreme right wing”.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson