(V): Well you use wiki which is unreliable. I use scholarly sources. You, like so many of your ilk, don't know what you are talking about. You frame your narrative to fit your bias. Looks like you're the one that needs to deal with it.

It's a clear fact of history that the democratic party is the party of historical racism in this country and ALSO is the party that continues to use race baiting to further their agenda. That's a fact that can't be denied except by those that choose to believe a lie.

I frankly couldn't care less what your "opinions" are. They are meaningless. You cherry pick only those sources that suit your bias. It's your pattern. Then you twist all things to suit your narrative. Meanwhile, those of us that matter, see right though your nonsense.

Artful Dodger: If wiki tipped to the right instead of the left then you already know what you would be hearing... nothing but complaints about wiki. But I have to assume playing politics with facts and logic is an appropriate game for anyone to play at this (the politics) board.

A few years back I read where someone intentionally submitted false information to see if wiki did any fact checking. The information was accepted, and it wasn't until a reader noticed something screwy that it was removed.

Iamon lyme: There are so many reliable sources that one has to wonder why someone would quote wiki as a primary source.

Artful Dodger: [ ...one has to wonder why someone would quote wiki as a primary source. ]

One reason is whenever someone does a google search wiki almost always pops up at or near the top of the list, so it's an easy source to access. I've used wiki but only after reading the information first. Sometimes it's okay, and sometimes it's like you said... slanted.

When wiki first started up it was hailed as "the peoples" source, because almost anyone could contribute to it. A few years ago it was so easy to do that almost anyone could submit info (that made it into the data base) as long as it looked legit, or looked scholarly. It didn't take much to get past the gatekeepers and they didn't have time to verify everything coming in... and they weren't exactly the scholarly types anyway, if you know what I mean. I still get a kick out of some of the things I read there, because sometimes it will read like a poorly written college paper.


...and I'm being charitable when I say "college".

Iamon lyme: I've read a wiki page or two when I needed some quick info. It's a place to start but I always check several other sources too. If it's a political site, I try to avoid it if it's clear that it's presenting a one sided view (like Huffington Post and the Daily Kos). I laugh at my liberal friends who quote those publications to me. I pull out Rush Limbaugh and ask them if they'd accept hims as a source. They say no. Then why I ask, would I accept those other two outfits from them? No answer. Then there's the clowns that quote Rachel Maddow (Rachael MadCow). She's another "reliable" source for biased left-wing propaganda. ;)

Artful Dodger: An eye opener for me was when someone told me she didn't like what Rush had to say, then immediately "qualified" that statement by saying she never listened to him. This was about 20 or so years ago, but I remember it very clearly. I was too stunned to ask her the obvious question... if she never listened to him, then how could she know that she didn't agree with him?

The reason it was an eye opener for me is because Rush was always telling his listeners that liberals disagree with him but never listen to his show. At that time I believed most of what he said, but at the same time I also believed some of his claims were greatly exaggerated. Since then I've discovered he doesn't exaggerate at all, about anything. Anything he has said about the liberal mindset has proven to be true.

I'm not calling her a liar, but she nearly quoted him word for word... a pretty neat trick for someone who never heard him say that. The truth of the matter is she really did not listen to his show, so she obviously got her information about him from other sources... and somewhere in that strange chain of information sharing there had to have been someone who actually listened to him, because otherwise how could any of them know they didn't agree with him? It sounds just as bizarre to me now as it did then. So never mind Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny or any other made up fantasy... as far as fantasies go they don't compare to the inner workings of the mind of liberal "realists". LoL

Iamon lyme:I've heard that same line. The "he lies" line is always followed by, "What did he lie about exactly?" Followed by silence and then, "Everything!"   So convincing.  

Artful Dodger: [ The "he lies" line is always followed by, "What did he lie about exactly?" ]

Well, no wonder liberals don't agree with you, you keep breaking their cardinal rules!

2 Kennedy 4: 9-11 "But to thou it shall be as sacrilege, the questioning of reason or motive; let there be questioning upon those whom we do not agree, even to not listening; but nevertheless disagreement must follow them all the days of their lives."

"Happy is he who questioneth not himself; and be not sorely vexed laying in wait to crack open coconut heads of vain knowledge, that sayeth nothing yet spilleth the milk thereof upon the ground."

Iamon lyme: