I have to admit, your inability to understand language and basic concepts makes this debate difficult.

An inference is when a statement is made implying a topic or feel which is not directly stated. When you refer to the media being in the bag for Obama you are inferring that they are not being truthful. I then used that inference in a sarcastic way. Is that clear enough or do I need to draw pictures for you?

No, I don't listen to them everyday. I watch them on Fox. O'Reilly, Hannity and Cavuto host shows on that network where they spoke about it several nights in a row. Ingram and Coulter are regular guests on O'Reilly and Hannity where it was discussed. Rush's internet feed clips were widely spread throughout the week. I find it hard to believe you missed this since you are so upset about the coverage. Kind of contradicting yourself aren't you? Are you saying that you missed all of those programs but the coverage was excessive?

As for the other stories. Your argument is that the liberal media won't cover those stories with the same vigilance as the Rush story. My point is that the conservative media won't cover them either, because they don't have legs. It does not go against anything I said and actually makes perfect sense. Maybe it's just late and you read it wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.