There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Watergate scandal/Archive1
Regarding the quote from Limbaugh........[edit]
Just how accurate is that statement?Ryantherebel (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I added a footnote to a site that attributes the day he said it. ħuman
21:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually talking about historical accuracy.Ryantherebel (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Not accurate at all. Nixon didn't pull us out of Viet Nam because of Watergate. Limbaugh's just a big fat gasbag paid to be an ignoramus. ħuman
22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Not accurate at all. Nixon didn't pull us out of Viet Nam because of Watergate. Limbaugh's just a big fat gasbag paid to be an ignoramus. ħuman
- Actually talking about historical accuracy.Ryantherebel (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Lame pun[edit]
Would a Microsoft scandal be Bill-Gates-Gate? — Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.3 / talk / contribs 18:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. -- Nx / talk 18:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Brain fart of the day[edit]
I just read the title, "Watergate", and my first thought was: "A scandal involving water? Haven't heard about that one yet ... oh." - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good one! ħuman
18:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)