CNN debunks false report about Obama

[Mr. P]

Mis-information already, and from Hillary no less. :eek:


Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.

Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton."

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html

[retiredman]

any independent confirmation of the Clinton connection or are we going with an unnamed source produced by a right wing magazine and treating it as gospel?

pretty convenient.

[dirt mcgirt]

LMAO! See that bubba and neener, the Dems will tear each other apart.

Who said that Hillary would be the first in line to try and rip Obama a new one again?

Answer: ODB and Nate Dawg

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :dev:

[neener]

LMAO! See that bubba and neener, the Dems will tear each other apart.

Who said that Hillary would be the first in line to try and rip Obama a new one again?

Answer: ODB and Nate Dawg

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :dev:

:confused:

Where did I ever say anything about either hillary or obama or who would be the first to start ripping into him???

If you think i'm a hillary supporter, you need to up your meds.

Fag.

[stephanie]

They'll drop information like this....then just turn around and blame it on the right wing smear machine...

They've got that one down, pat...

[dirt mcgirt]

:confused:

Where did I ever say anything about either hillary or obama or who would be the first to start ripping into him???

If you think i'm a hillary supporter, you need to up your meds.

Fag.

You said it on another board. Here's what you said:

Neener: Hillary Clinton is the best Presidential candidate in history. Period. If she were in front of me, I'd totally go down on her. We need Hillary in office so I can smoke crack in public and have sex with my goats.

Don't deny it either you sick fag.

[retiredman]

They'll drop information like this....then just turn around and blame it on the right wing smear machine...

They've got that one down, pat...

so.... we ARE just going to take the word of an unnamed source quoted by a right wing publication and treat it as gospel.

why am I not surprised?

[dirt mcgirt]

so.... we ARE just going to take the word of an unnamed source quoted by a right wing publication and treat it as gospel.

why am I not surprised?

LOL. To be fair, there is an article out there from the Washington Post saying that the Clinton attack was fabricated by the Washington Times. But it can't be proven since most liberals don't want journalists to give up their unnamed sources and Hillary can just deny it. :D

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/01/22/BL2007012200260.html

[jillian]

LOL. To be fair, there is an article out there from the Washington Post saying that the Clinton attack was fabricated by the Washington Times. But it can't be proven since most liberals don't want journalists to give up their unnamed sources and Hillary can just deny it. :D

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/01/22/BL2007012200260.html

So the right, in fact, wanted the folk who outed Valerie Plame to divulge their sources, huh?

[neener]

You said it on another board. Here's what you said:

Neener: Hillary Clinton is the best Presidential candidate in history. Period. If she were in front of me, I'd totally go down on her. We need Hillary in office so I can smoke crack in public and have sex with my goats.

Don't deny it either you sick fag.

LOL. I don't need Hillary in office to be able to fuck my goats, I live in Idaho. It's a constitutionally protected right here. Jeez, do your research.

[dirt mcgirt]

So the right, in fact, wanted the folk who outed Valerie Plame to divulge their sources, huh?
It wasn't until they found out that Libby and Rove were involved when the two sides flip-flopped. :D

But aside from this selective case, most lefties want to protect their sources due to freedom of the press and free speech. No?

Where do you stand on protected sources in the media?

[dirt mcgirt]

LOL. I don't need Hillary in office to be able to fuck my goats, I live in Idaho. It's a constitutionally protected right here. Jeez, do your research.
My bad. But still...you'd like to push your barnyard morals on everyone and want that right extended in every State, sick ass. :laugh:

[Gaffer]

Unnamed Source? That's the same source the AP always uses to report on events in iraq. Especially the made up reports. Good old Unnamed is the busiest source in the industry. I don't see when he gets time to sleep.

[jillian]

It wasn't until they found out that Libby and Rove were involved when the two sides flip-flopped. :D

But aside from this selective case, most lefties want to protect their sources due to freedom of the press and free speech. No?

Where do you stand on protected sources in the media?

I actually have mixed feelings about the subject. People give "off the record" information all the time. Otherwise, many wouldn't come forward. But for those types of sources, Watergate would never have been uncovered. On the other hand, when a newspaper reporter does the wrong-doer's bidding, then they should be subject to subpoena. I actually had this discussion with a columnist for the NY Post and she felt that no sources should be dislosed... ever. And last I checked, the Post is pretty right-wing.

[stephanie]

so.... we ARE just going to take the word of an unnamed source quoted by a right wing publication and treat it as gospel.

why am I not surprised?

Why Not! You guys do it all the time...

:uhoh:

[retiredman]

Why Not! You guys do it all the time...

:uhoh:

if you could find one single solitary instance of ME taking the word of an unnamed source as quoted by a liberal rag and treating it as gospel, that would be real nice....

or maybe a retraction would be nicer.

[stephanie]

if you could find one single solitary instance of ME taking the word of an unnamed source as quoted by a liberal rag and treating it as gospel, that would be real nice....

or maybe a retraction would be nicer.


I didn't say YOU....

I said YOU GUYS......I'm pretty sure you can figure that one out...

Nothing for me to retract........So I wont be doing that anytime soon..

:2up:

[retiredman]

if you could find one single solitary instance of ME taking the word of an unnamed source as quoted by a liberal rag and treating it as gospel, that would be real nice....

or maybe a retraction would be nicer.

conversely... we have right here a prime example of YOU (as opposed to YOU GUYS) taking the word of an unnamed sources quoted in a right wing rag.

see the difference?

[Mr. P]

any independent confirmation of the Clinton connection or are we going with an unnamed source produced by a right wing magazine and treating it as gospel?

pretty convenient.

So, you wouldn’t believe Hillary will slice & dice anyone in her way to the Big House, huh? How convenient.

[jillian]

So, you wouldn’t believe Hillary will slice & dice anyone in her way to the Big House, huh? How convenient.

As opposed to the way Bush got into the White House? They're politicians... some just play rougher than others.

[retiredman]

So, you wouldn’t believe Hillary will slice & dice anyone in her way to the Big House, huh? How convenient.

I never said that I believed she was incapable of treachery...I only said that I am not willing to accept the reported comments of an unnamed source referenced by a moonie rag.

[Mr. P]

As opposed to the way Bush got into the White House? They're politicians... some just play rougher than others.

You'll have to splain the 'As opposed to the way Bush got into the White House?' part, I recall he was elected. TWICE! :D

[jillian]

You'll have to splain the 'As opposed to the way Bush got into the White House?' part, I recall he was elected. TWICE! :D

Karl Rove ran some pretty nasty campaigns for Dubya. Even going back to Ann Richards and the whispering campaign in Texas that she was gay. Not to mention the Swift-boating they gave Kerry. (And, yes, I know you won't agree with me on that.)

[Mr. P]

I never said that I believed she was incapable of treachery...I only said that I am not willing to accept the reported comments of an unnamed source referenced by a moonie rag.

Does that mean you'll never accept another story with info from an 'unnamed source' regardless of who publishes it? The Enquirer has broken some good stuff ya know?

Who must publish it that meets you standards of credible, CBS? :)

[Mr. P]

Karl Rove ran some pretty nasty campaigns for Dubya. Even going back to Ann Richards and the whispering campaign in Texas that she was gay. Not to mention the Swift-boating they gave Kerry. (And, yes, I know you won't agree with me on that.)

You are correct. Kerrys record was his record regardless of how it came to light for all to see. (I don't think he ever did disclose it like he SAID he would, did he?) I don't have a problem with how facts came out. I do have problems with outright lies.

I know nothing about Richards being gay, was she? :dunno:

[jillian]

You are correct. Kerrys record was his record regardless of how it came to light for all to see. (I don't think he ever did disclose it like he SAID he would, did he?) I don't have a problem with how facts came out. I do have problems with outright lies.

I know nothing about Richards being gay, was she? :dunno:

And I think the Swift-boaties were, shall we say, a bit fast and loose with the truth. Just my opinion.

As for Ann Richards, I have no idea, nor do I think it mattered. But Karl Rove thought it mattered enough to use that as part of his campaign strategy.

[stephanie]

And I think the Swift-boaties were, shall we say, a bit fast and loose with the truth. Just my opinion.

As for Ann Richards, I have no idea, nor do I think it mattered. But Karl Rove thought it mattered enough to use that as part of his campaign strategy.

Do you have proof that Rove spread this rumor..?? Or is this something you just HEARD...:p

I never heard any claim that Richards was gay...But so what...Some people are claiming that Condi is gay...
Not much you can do about it..

[avatar4321]

Karl Rove ran some pretty nasty campaigns for Dubya. Even going back to Ann Richards and the whispering campaign in Texas that she was gay. Not to mention the Swift-boating they gave Kerry. (And, yes, I know you won't agree with me on that.)

How is a bunch of the people Kerry served with telling the truth about what happened in Vietnam bad? It's obvious that Kerry was the one being deceptive about it because his story changed about 15 times. It wouldnt have even been an issue if he wasnt trying to run as a war hero. When your whole campaign is "I served in Vietnam" can you really be upset when the guys you served tell the world it didnt happen the way you claimed?

[Bubbalicious]

And I think the Swift-boaties were, shall we say, a bit fast and loose with the truth. Just my opinion.

As for Ann Richards, I have no idea, nor do I think it mattered. But Karl Rove thought it mattered enough to use that as part of his campaign strategy.

Don't forget Max Cleland and John McCain.

[Gunny]

Karl Rove ran some pretty nasty campaigns for Dubya. Even going back to Ann Richards and the whispering campaign in Texas that she was gay. Not to mention the Swift-boating they gave Kerry. (And, yes, I know you won't agree with me on that.)

Ann Richards lost because she sucked as a Governor. No smear campaign was necessary.

[Mr. P]

Don't forget Max Cleland and John McCain.

What about em?

[Grumplestillskin]

How is a bunch of the people Kerry served with telling the truth about what happened in Vietnam bad? It's obvious that Kerry was the one being deceptive about it because his story changed about 15 times. It wouldnt have even been an issue if he wasnt trying to run as a war hero. When your whole campaign is "I served in Vietnam" can you really be upset when the guys you served tell the world it didnt happen the way you claimed?

Not only did his story NOT change 15 times, but he never actually served with any of the SB liars on board a boat, and in fact all bar ONE of the people who actually served on his boats with him, say his accounts are true. Try again...

[Bubbalicious]

What about em?


http://www.believersagainstbush.org/rove.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/08/28/moore_rove_swift_boat/index.html?pn=1

read up