[FascistSlayer]

So let me get this straight...

Someone claiming that xyz happened is true should be accepted as fact - if published in, say, NewsMax, or the Washington Times, or whatever - but someone claiming that xyz happened is true is uncredible if it appears in ABC, Guardian, etc?

What's the proof that the former is credible and the latter not? What kind of selective credibility is this, anyway?

If the Independent journalists can lie, isn't it possible that Fox news might lie? I mean, is that at all a consideration?

[Skywalk]

Look, it's not that the Independent or Guardian haven't reported honestly or that Fox(don't go around here talking about Newsmax as credible, you assume too much) doesn't make mistakes or even distort.

It's that you can barely take the Guardian seriously with their embrace of the Fisks of the world, and Pilger is another name that comes to mind. They are outright liars, not merely ideologues. The Guardian and BBC are fine when they simply report a story as factually as possible, but even with this there exists a selective reporting.

You didn't address my post about your name, the typical slur leftists use against the right, or how what most rightists believe is "fascism."

[Prodigal Son]

So let me get this straight...

Yeah. So let's get this straight. Can you provide anything from this mess of hyperlinks that backs up what you say? I have read all of them and have concluded you are lying. Prove me wrong.

[txrangerette]

Repeat: the real liars aren't even a
blip on your radar screen. It's not
LYING you really care about. My post
#228 refutes yours that Bush "lied".
And it proves the real liars and yes,
traitors to this precious land. Deal
with the truth, or go away.