For all we know, maybe you made it up, spoke. 
I’m not a supporter of Hillary Clinton - she’s still too DLC for me. I’m just against bullshit, and particularly intraparty bullshit sniping that uses already debunked right-winger ammunition.
Apparently, according to the pit thread on this topic, even Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt recognize that this stuff didn’t come from HRC. You’re holding on to a right wing smear longer than Michelle Malkin, spoke-. Doesn’t that tell you something?
But, it does not actually “seem” the Clinton campaign was the source of this rumor.
The author of the article says the Clinton camp was the source of the information. Thus, it seems that the Clinton camp was the source. But Hillary supporters in this thread are telling me “Things are not as they seem! It was really a right-wing hit job!” They are asserting this without proof or even hard evidence.
They may be right, but their argument is a conspiracy theory.
There was no “information”. Why should the testimony regarding source be any more reliable than the thing itself?
There was information. It turned out to be false information. Obama didn’t attend a “madrassa” as was alleged.
The 13th strike of the clock!
Given that part of it turned out to be false, why should the remainder be true? Or, more specifically, why should you accuse us of a conspiracy for disbelieving part of a dubious story from a dubious source when a separate part of the story has already proven false?
Because the author may not have known the tip was false?
You are assuming the author is a liar. He may be the victim of disinformation disseminated by the Clinton camp.
Again you’re the one asserting that the author is lying about his source. Where is your evidence?
Then he’s a mighty goddam slow-witted victim! Cheese Louise, Spoke, we don’t have to prove anything, there is no default setting of truthiness, we need not assume truth and prove otherwise, most especially when the central point is total buttwhistle! And proven to be so!
If I walk up to you, being, as I am, a known anti-Bush partisan, and tell you that Bush sucks Satan’s scaly cock, and Bill Hicks told me so, you’re going to say “Wow! Far out! Bill Hicks isn’t dead!”?
Like Hell you would! You’d consider the source and discount accordingly, or you might wonder what I was on and ask me to share. Your argument is sophisticated, in the pejorative sense of the word.
You keep skipping a key factor here. This is reported in The Washington Times and Insight magazine, two publications controlled by the Unification Church and which have no credibility. No credibility. Do you understand what that means?
Do not loan them any money!
I’m not sure what your problem is here.
A somewhat dubious source prints an allegation (about the madrassa) that turns out to be false. The second part of the story (the alleged Hillary leak) is undocumented, unprovable, and politically advantageous to the people who run the magazine.
“Prove me/them/us wrong!” is not a viable rejoinder in this circumstance, even if that was an acceptable M.O. on the Dope.
Which it isn’t.
And he may have been hoodwinked by winged monkeys. Who’s to say?
Maybe I’m Pollyanna,but I’m starting from the assumption that the author is telling the truth about his source. You’re going to have to give me more reason to think he’s lying than “The Times is a conservative rag!” I don’t doubt that it’s a conservative rag, with a conservative slant. Hell, that’s well known. But lying about a source goes one step beyond being slanted. Is there any evidence that this author (or this publication) has a history of lying about sources? Or am I just supposed to assume that’s the case?
sigh It has NOTHING to do with their being conservative. It has everything to do with the fact that they have a history of making up lies and smears just like this one-and I believe it’s been proven on numerous occassions. Have you never heard of the Moonies?
Let me ask you this-if Sylvia Brown gave you this information, wouldn’t you be skeptical? Well, this is because you HAVE to consider the source-some sources are known to be reliable, and some are not. This is one of the latter.
:smack:
Such as? I am genuinely curious.
Yeah, OK, the paper is controlled by the Unification Church. I’m not sure how that proves your point.
Go here, click links to Salon.com and The Daily Howler.
See also here for general background about the newspaper’s institutional culture.
Do you know what the Unification Church is all about?
Let me ask you this, spoke--would you trust an article on anti-depressants published by the Church of Scientology?
Yes, Guin, I am very aware of the Unification Church. Unless you’re claiming that one of the canons of the church is fabrication of journalistic sources, you’re still arguing a non-sequitur.
See post #76 and links embedded therein, all of them.
:dubious: I would have thought that was a no-brainer.