you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Sure they are. A blog broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when Bill Clinton raped an intern in the oval office. A blog took Tom Brokaw's scalp when he tried to throw an election with fake news.

The mainstream media is deliberately ignoring Obamagate. But you knew that already.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

AG Bill Barr says nothing there. That's not enough for you? Is he "on the take" too?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Both "sides" are. The entire government is a quagmire of people on the take, often infighting for sure, but none bother to help the people.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That's a complete overreach and generalization.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

And yet ever so true, sadly.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

overreach and generalization

Can't be true by definition.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

1) Why not?

2) If not then I retract acceptance of your definition, and still claim my "wild assertions" to be very true.