Does the source mean the story is factually untrue? It's easy enough to confirm it's not "crap".The story in the OP is factually true: lib-retard pin-heads are exploding.
But of course, for some people it's always easier to veer off-topic by questioning the source than it is to deal with the substance of a story, eh yssup? Originally Posted by lustylad
That's true, he did work there. However he left that firm in 2004, more than a decade before the Russian investigation began. Rather than posting obvious lies you should do a little more investigation. Originally Posted by txdot-guyAgreed. People should investigate the whole story instead of lazily dismissing the source.
That's true, He did work there. However he left that firm in 2004, more than a decade before the Russian investigation began. Rather than posting obvious lies you should do a little more investigation. Originally Posted by txdot-guyYou didn't read the article, or you would have seen that detail is in the article. So, now that you've posted an obviously false statement about the article, what does that make you?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cns-news/ Originally Posted by SwimLSU1982According to this source CNN,MSNBC,are left bias ABC ,CBS, and NBC are center left bias which I find to be amusing with people like Chuck Tod,on NBC, The View,on ABC, GMA, on ABC, Dan Rather, who use to be on CBS, which we know are all left bias, maybe they should have a fact checker to check the fact checkers