From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    You just made your thousandth edit; thank you for being a great contributor!

    Here it is. I have decided to dedicate it to one of my Wikipedia heroes, TheTimesAreAChanging. TTAAC is, despite his prickliness, incredibly fussable when properly handled.

    Purely for my own benefit, I started for my science-news contribs.

    A collection of things that amuse me about liberals.

    [I]t was always been [sic] an obviously – obviously! – trivial story, so the overwhelming media pile-on reflected a desire to go after Clinton, not something objective.
    Paul Krugman, as unbearable as ever, on the Hillary Clinton email controversy

    And so left and right link arms, as they often do, in an attempt to smash bourgeois liberalism.
    Michael Tomasky tediously weeping for Clinton and playing the victim, still unable to grasp how anyone could be sick of his ilk and their bourgeois liberalism

    I promise you, I'll be right there with you.
    Barack Obama, liberal narcissist and liberal hero, talks the talk but walks the walk elsewhere

    Before we get to the truth, we must examine the lies.
    Paul Mason criticising Breitbart's reliance on "unnamed sources"; this is to be contrasted with his liberal media

    Several factors compound CNN's embarrassment here. To begin with, CNN's story was first debunked by an article in Sputnik News, which explained that the investment fund documented several "factual inaccuracies" in the report (including that the fund is not even part of the Russian bank, Vnesheconombank, that is under investigation), and by Breitbart, which cited numerous other factual inaccuracies.
    —The liberal media caught telling dirty lies again by right-wing Breitbart (see previous quote) and left-wing (of sorts) Sputnik